Bye Bye Britain....

[flobbergob]

An absolute disgrace

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-113006 6/They-say-old-care-grandchildren-Social-worke rs-hand-brother-sister-gay-men-adoption.html

- and it's not just the Mail, it's being widely reported on BBC and LBC

[Hotlardlife]

Whether you are for or against sodomy is not the question here. Although not for me I personally I couldn't care less what anyone does behind closed doors providing it is between consenting adults.

However this involved minors. Children are notoriously cruel. Noo labour luvvies can winge all they like and legislate all they like but you wont change the bully.

And it is not natural for same sex,whatever animal, to have children as I pointed out earlier it is physically impossible !

This startement does NOT mean that same sex couple induging together is not natural. Two quite different things.

And oh yes, oops wrong dictator 2/10 !

[Quinlad]

Yes, all laws should be based around the whims of bullies. Good policy-making.

[DaisyMae]

It is not 'impossible' for same sex couples to procreate, only not with each other. There are as many heterosexuals who are unable to 'naturally' have children together, are you saying that it is unnatural for them to adopt children too?

[Davethedog]

Flobbegob - The situation I have described about cultural adoption has been well documented for a number of years.

But maybe it hasn't been on the Mail for a couple of weeks.

[flip_flop]

Assuming I have understood your post correctly DaisyMae, your comment that there as "as many" heterosexual couples who are unable to procreate naturally is simply not true.

100% of same sex couples cannot naturally procreate. The same cannot be said for heterosexual couples.

(apologies if I have misunderstood your meaning).

[R1Geezer]

Sherman, we are always being told Gay's are born and you cannot "turn".


Daisy, not impossible as you say, however in nature gay genes would not progagate by going against that, gay genes would go on to the next generation.

[Verix]

R1Geezer, you only need to put an apostrophe in gays if you are talking about something that a gay person owns or if you're trying to say 'gay is', otherwise there is no need for it.

Your ridiculous comments are bad enough, why do feel the need to abuse the english language as well!

[HatlessJack]

R1Geezer, if you are accepting of 'gay genes', why are you so against gay people having exactly the same rights as heterosexual people ?

[Oneeyedvic]

HotlardlifeChildren are notoriously cruel. Noo labour luvvies can winge all they like and legislate all they like but you wont change the bully. True - let's make sure that ginger people can't procreate as well as people with glasses.

flip-flopIt is a specious argument suggested by OEV - the two don't even remotely compare (you'd be happy to kiss somebody on the mouth I assume - would you be quite so happy to kiss them on the anus?). It is a valid argument - I was pointing out that flobbergob mentioned that the anus was not used for sexual intercourse - neither is the mouth. Both the mouth and the anus are used for pleasurable purposes - not procreation.

[flip_flop]

Fair enough - I misunderstood your meaning.

Verix, shouldn't 'english' have a capital E?

[R1Geezer]

Thanks verix my mistake. I assume you otherwise agree as you pick on punctuation.

Jack, I accept Gay people for what they are. In nature they would not reproduce and that particular strain would end. Ie selected out by evolution as a dead end. There are constant variants in genes and it is not surprising that occasionally a combination arises where the entity in question would not propagate. Natural selection really!

I am not against Gays having the same rights I am against them bringing up impressionalble children other than that they should have the same rights.

[The Sherman]

R1 as I wrote that I thought the term was wrong however when they 'come out' then are we suggegesting that then they are not fit parents and cannot see their own children?

Or are they allowed as long as they pretend to be straight around their kids?

[HatlessJack]

Was my son impressionable when I brought him up ?

[DaisyMae]

No flip-flop I was not talking about percentages but about numbers in a broad sense. There are not that many gay people in this country, it might surprise you to know, but there are many heterosexual couples who are for one reason or another, unable to breed naturally. Stonewall will probably give you the figures if you are truly interested not just trying to score points.

[Nannyjill]

I understood that the grandparents only agreed to the adoption as they were told they wouldn't see the children otherwise and clearly the children think they are having a new mummy and daddy.

When will they be told?

[R1Geezer]

Sherman, in that situation the relationship that produced the child was normal. Ok the dad decided he was gay later on, if he stays with the child mother and carries on as before then fine, if he moves his gay boyfriend in then not fine.

As you well know I m talking about known gay couples from the outset.

[eltelioni]

It's a shame this thread has been hijacked, because there are some important issues here. For example, when children are adopted, should they be separated completely from their original families? Suppose the mother recovers from her addiction, will she be able to see them? What about their father? Even if the grandparents cannot care for the children is it reasonable to limit them to seeing the children twice a year?

Alas, I suspect anyone genuinely interested in these questions will have gone away. Actually, I doubt the original poster was interested in these questions, this was just an excuse for a homophobic rant.

[LoftyLottie2]

eltelioni. I honestly believe that Social Services would have made the decision in the child's best interest - not to keep quotas up, etc. as people have suggested.

Most children would surely have been allowed to live with the grandparents until reaching 16 and there would have been no need for fostering or adoption. The children are not babies and their views will have been considered too.

I don't see why in this case the council should be obliged to make their decision public. It's not as though the children have been subjected to any abuse.

None of us will know why a same sex couple was chosen over the others but I am absolutely sure it was not a decision that was lightly taken.

How did the press become aware of this issue - was it through the grandparents? It has made a really great News item that will have the desired results of shock and horror that the media aim for.

[flobbergob]

I'd bet my bottom dollar that the decision was taken very lightly, to fill a quota, tick a politically correct box.

P.S. "Normal" is the way the (huge) majority of people behave.