Predadory Gay couple fostering teenage boys....

[Loosehead]

What is going on? How dim are social services? Just reading in the Express (ok lefty's I don't think they made this one up) about a Gay couple being allowed to foster teenage boys which they subsequentlt abused, what planet are the fostering services people on? They'll refuse a normal couple on the flimsiest of reasons, predatory gay couple? No problem!

[spinchimp]

Loosehead -being gay doesn't make you a paedophile any more than being heterosexual does. The reason you are getting up peoples noses is because you are assuming that a gay man will be tempted to abuse a teenage boy. There is no more logic to that than there is to saying a heterosexual man will be tempted to abuse a teenage girl. It can happen, of course, but is no more likely to happen in a gay fostering situation than in a heterosexual couple fostering situation. The point should be about the vetting procedures not the issue of gay people fostering.

[WaldoMcFroog]

I tell you what, I wouldn't let my 14 year old daughter into a room with Loosehead.

Even if he had no history of predatory behaviour, it would just be putting a huge temptation into his path.

Daring to even think that, might be regarded as a heinous crime and a serious slur on Loosehead's character. To me, it's logical to try and anticipate potential abuses.

------------------------------------------------------

How's that Loosehead? I just used your own language to imply you would abuse a child. Acceptable? Or are you feeling upset and angry at the injustice of my completely false and baseless accusation?

[purpose]

OMG!!! We are SO not there!!!

You are so sick. I'm sorry - that is my opinion - and i am entitled to it, as you are yours.

I can honestly say, with hand on heart, that if i had ever been in the position of needing to be fostered, i would have preferred to have been fostered by *throws hands up in disgust* LESBIANS (are we to assume that THEY would be equally tempted by me as i am female...?) rather than a 'normal' couple if the 'normal' couple had opinions like yours!

[unruliejulie]

I think its a little like the old thing where hetro blokes find out a chap is gay and immediatly its "backs againt the walls lads" "Don't drop the soap in the shower" Its the same for gay man as it is for hetro men. We do not fancy everyone of the opposite sex and neither do they fancy everyone of the same sex. I find this argument a little like that. if you're Gay, then you're automatically gonna want to have sex with a young boy. I don't think things like this can ever be proteceted against completely. After all, if there is no previous history of abuse, why would you be suspicious of it happening. Its just a very sad, unfortunate incident and the fault of no-one other than the abusers themselves. I don't think loosehead meant it the way it originally sounded though and i know the point he is trying to make , although i think that is more the case with adoption than fostering, They are refused for silly reasons sometimes as just being a little bit older than they should be or overweight i assume thats what he means although i would imagine the rules are the same but sometimes they like to be seen to be PC and that includes a certain amount of Homosexual couples being allowed to foster but i very much doubt that social services would ever knowingly put a child into the care of abusers, straingt or gay.

[Loosehead]

No problem Waldo, you miss the point wonderfully. Now if two blokes sharing a flat offerred foster a 14 year old girl, only 14 year old girl, refused all the other children they where offerred, would that make alam bells ring?

I won't take it personally because I know you where trying to make a point, but you miss the point entirely. If me and my partner fostered a 14 year old girl, that's would be a completely different scenario to what I describe in the previous paragraph. I have already said it's not impossible that abuse could occur but it is much more unlikely.

Standard approach eh purpose, argument exhausted, resort to slights, how long before you come with a nice name for me?

[purpose]

You 'very much doubt'...?

You mean perhaps it is possible that Social Services WOULD let known abusers foster children...?????

[Loosehead]

Well thanks Julie for at least having an attempt at understanding the main point.

[purpose]

Lol... i said that in my opinion you are sick.

I genuinely think people like you need re-educating.

You simply don't understand that it is NO more likely that a gay man (or couple) will abuse a 14 year old boy than a straight man with a female partner.

End of.

[B00]

Loosehead- you asked if it would be ok for 2 men to stress they only wanted to foster 14 year old girls, the answer is obviously no.

I'm not certain but I would have thought that the 2 gay men involved didn't stress they only wanted to adopt 14 year old boys either- I guess they were just lucky (I use lucky very loosely here!) with their choice.

[WaldoMcFroog]

Er... you do know that some foster families only want toddlers..? Does that mean they want to abuse them?

Some foster families only want kids between 7-12. What about them?

Some familes only want Jewish kids, or black kids or girls or whatever. Do all of these things amount to a tacit intention to abuse? Clearly not.

You've managed to connect something Peter Tactchell said (I think you've probably misinterpretted his actual intent, but can't check the source from here - will happily contract this statement if wrong) to two people who are not Peter Tatchell and conclude this somehow constitues a gay manifesto for abuse, something it clearly isn't.

Not sure it's me who's missed the point...

[Loosehead]

we disagree, so I'm the one who's sick, right oh, purpose!

[undercovers]

Loosehead may i suggest that it is you that is failing to see the point... we have responded and given you our opinions on the subject but yet you insist we are missing some important element that only you can see - at what point would you accept that maybe you could simply be wrong in your prejudices?

[purpose]

I don't think you're sick BECAUSE we disagree!

I think you're sick because you hold such vile views!

I think you'll find there is a difference!

[unruliejulie]

You can point out the "i very much doubt" purpose, but i do recall many a case of social services knowingly allowing a child stay with parents who are physically abusing them,keeping a close eye on the situation Who was that little black girl not so long ago? She ended up dead because of her adoptive/foster parents.i cant remember her name right now, but nothing really surprises me these days if im honest. Social services often make momentous **** ups. Despite that, it WAS only an expression and a bit trivial of you to pick up on it.

[Loosehead]

so because I don't go along with the trendy liberal elite thinking, my views are "vile".

OK, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Thank you all for your contributions.

[B00]

Undercovers has it hit the nail on the head

[purpose]

You only think it's trivial because it's a valid point!

Lol...

To make things clear, THIS post was not about 'biological child remaining within the family' situations such as the one you mentioned.

[Pippa68]

I don't quite understand why two gay men abusing a teenage boy is more likely to happen than a straight foster father abusing a 14 year old girl.

Sorry..I just don't get it ~ and I don't think any amount of explaining is going to help me!

When I was 14 I was sexually abused by a straight 50 year old man. I don't ever recall of being abused by a lesbian, or anyone I know being abused by a gay person. I can only go by what I know.

[Quizmonkey]

It's both sad and frightening that there are probably thousands of people like Loosehead around, on our streets, who get all their opinions from right-wing rags, see absolutely nothing wrong with their fascistic prejudices; and cannot even partake in a rationed argument. Well done to everyone else who has been so patient and put forward so many good, reasoned views - sadly all in vain.

[unruliejulie]

I think Gay men have this image which they are finding hard to shrug off.maybe you have the gay image of cottaging and lewd sexual acts in public toilets. That does happen as we all know, but these are not the same loving couples who get accepted for fostering. there are many many thousands of Gay couples who are more preferable as parents than many many straight ones. I think you have to look at the wider picture Loosehead and see that there are child abusers of all sexual conatations out there.These vile pair just slipped through the net.It could, and has been hetrosexual couples in the past but they don't make quite such good news do they? purpose, i think to call Loosehead vile for his views is a little extreme. There are still a lot of people with these sort of opinions, mainly the older generation, i hear it regularly, working with older people. Its just the way they think, a little ignorant of modern day living, but nevertheless its what they believe. No doubt you hold some views that others would not find acceptable.purpose, i was only giving a different slant on this argument. I did not disagree with your opinion so get off my case.I take it you get very defensive. Look at what i'm saying properly before nit picking.I was merely pointing out that social services DO make mistakes occasionally, they are only human after all.Some very valid points have been made especially by WaldoMcFroog