Janx Posted 26 January 2007 Posted 26 January 2007 There are lots of heterosexual couples who would be willing to adopt. But they have no desire to go through the invasive and judgemental procedures which are conducted by and on behalf of people who may quite easily have their own agendas concerning who they consider right and worthy potential parents. I've brought my three kids up. I am bloody sure I'm not answerable to some authoritarian inquisitor about whether I can do it or not. Especially as, nowadays, you are probably speaking to "judges" whose personal home life and relationship is a complete mess. Of course, you suspect that the social manipulators we all know are within the system are aware of this and realise that most traditional heterosexual family couples wouldn't dream of putting themselves through such a miserable and dissuading vetting procedure. That leaves only the people who are so fanatical about adoption that they'll put up with anything. You would have to wonder if such people really are the best as adopters though because I'd say that one major requirement for someone being adopted is that they go to parents who have brought children up before and who are familiar with all the problems that go with parenting. It is those parents who will have an infrastructure in place to ensure that the new family member has brothers and sisters, together with their friends, all around him/her. In that environment they would soon feel "at home" and a part of something. nice bit of swerve there thracian...avoid the question why dont you?
Manwell Pablo Posted 26 January 2007 Posted 26 January 2007 It's so good that everyone is thinking of the children. That's right, being raised by a loving same sex couple would definitely open the child up to targeted abuse from school bullies and obviously this should be the primary concern when deciding whether or not to leave children in care or place them with welcoming families of whatever orientation. Consequently, it should be written into adoption laws that children should also be prevented of being allowed into families where they may influence the child to: study a musical instrument wear glasses look a bit different do their homework have a hairstyle different to that of the school bullies wear shoes that are too clean/new/expensive or a hundred other shite reasons Yes sir, no bigoted ignorance at play here - no sir. Everyone has the concerns of the child at heart and thinks that protecting them from bullies is the best course of action. Of course, some people would say that bullies should no be tolerated and that everyone has a duty to stand up to them...that we should accept people for who they are not question what they are. Some people would say that leaving a child in care because of stupid homophobic attitudes based on ignorance are spouted by people that would be better off slamming their heads in doors. Some people would say that, but I wouldn't dare...considering there's so many of you that have voted 'no' so far. ****s sake! Do you seriously think a child is better served by remaining in care? You can not have ever been in care. Any of you. What children need in love and consistency and it is blinkered attitudes like this that deny them that happiness. Don't cover your bigotry with justification that "I am thinking of the child" because all it screams is "I am full of shit!" Bit one dimensional that Dave, it is quite possible to have the view no without being a ignorant biggot. The kids life would be hell at school, kids are cruel always have been always will be, the kind of stick that child would get would be on a differnt scale to the average claranet playing little girl. It's all well and good mr Finnegan pointing out the fact that no one knew who is parents were at school, but then he's parents weren't in a same sex relationship were they? All it takes if for one kid to find out that so and so's parents are gay and it will be round the school quicker than a stomach bug. Then theres the arguement that a child needs both a Mother and Father around it as it grows up. The confusion and upset it might cause the child when it learns it's differnt. The fact that it's probabley going to work out it was adopted before it's old enough to understand. All kinds of issues. I'm not gay, and last time I checked I wasn't up for adoption either so I'm really not bothred but your post is a bit dismissive of the other pov.
Alexikokopops Posted 26 January 2007 Posted 26 January 2007 Hard to tell. I think a child needs a woman for a proper upbringing. Tend to a "No" here. Surely you can have female homosexual couples?
MC Prussian Posted 26 January 2007 Posted 26 January 2007 ' date='Jan 26 2007, 12:38 PM' post='514968']Surely you can have female homosexual couples? Of course, you can.
Zingari Posted 26 January 2007 Posted 26 January 2007 i always assumed being gay meant that you could have loads of sex without the risk of kids\babies.........and another thing does anyone else feel that a "life of brian" ( waddya mean you wanna hav babies ) moment creeping in
Daggers Posted 26 January 2007 Posted 26 January 2007 There are lots of heterosexual couples who would be willing to adopt. Totally, utterly, factually incorrect. But they have no desire to go through the invasive and judgemental procedures which are conducted by and on behalf of people who may quite easily have their own agendas concerning who they consider right and worthy potential parents. I do not dispute that the process is far from perfect - but you seem to be suggesting that anyone willing to adopt should be allowed to do so without any vetting whatsoever - that is rank stupidity. I've brought my three kids up. I am bloody sure I'm not answerable to some authoritarian inquisitor about whether I can do it or not. Especially as, nowadays, you are probably speaking to "judges" whose personal home life and relationship is a complete mess. Irrelevant and wrong. I'd say that one major requirement for someone being adopted is that they go to parents who have brought children up before and who are familiar with all the problems that go with parenting. Nonsense, my cousin adopted two young children without having had any prior experience of child rearing. They're doing fine because they have entered a home dedicated to them. Your flawed logic would prohibit first time parents...children should only be born to those with prior experience of children. Just because you have had three children does not make you an expert on child rearing - personally, I would not have allowed my son to repeatedly climb onto the roof of a bank You are stuck in a Daily Express 'social manipulation rut Thracian. Those views are tired and anachronistic.
Manwell Pablo Posted 26 January 2007 Posted 26 January 2007 ' date='Jan 26 2007, 11:38 AM' post='514968']Surely you can have female homosexual couples? Judging by this thread obviously not
Janx Posted 26 January 2007 Posted 26 January 2007 Louise mentioned it earlier atch, OK SO SUMMING UP...as I am off to the pub soon (surprise!) The NO vote basically comes from as I mentioned on my first post" the kiddie will get bullied and that poor little chap" THIS IS A REFLECTION OF THE BIGOTTED ATTITUDE IN THIS COUNTRY, HAS NO BEARING ON WHETHER HOMOSEXUALS WOULD BE GOOD PARENTS... If no-one thought that gay was bad, we would have no problem... by the way GAY ISNT BAD!!
Leicfox Posted 26 January 2007 Posted 26 January 2007 Judging by this thread obviously not Well you cant really can you ? As one of the women is in most cases is a big butch mamma, female yes, but a man wannabe ala that black bird in Shameless. Fit lesbo's only appear in porno's.
Daggers Posted 26 January 2007 Posted 26 January 2007 Bit one dimensional that Dave... but your post is a bit dismissive of the other pov. One dimensional? Cock. Dismissive? Absolutely.
The People's Hero Posted 26 January 2007 Posted 26 January 2007 Half of this stuff could slot straight in to the Daily Mail with a huge reactionary, sensationalist headline.
Daggers Posted 26 January 2007 Posted 26 January 2007 Half of this stuff could slot straight in to the Daily Mail with a huge reactionary, sensationalist headline. Or the Express...
MC Prussian Posted 26 January 2007 Posted 26 January 2007 Half of this stuff could slot straight in to the Daily Mail with a huge reactionary, sensationalist headline. Let's make our own newspaper. With all that shit already in circulation, that's good money.
Dr The Singh Posted 26 January 2007 Posted 26 January 2007 Let's make our own newspaper. With all that shit already in circulation, that's good money. Call it: The Daily Shite
Manwell Pablo Posted 26 January 2007 Posted 26 January 2007 Or the Express... I tell you what I love about the express, those poll questions they have after one of their stupid stories. For example if this was reported. Readers Poll "SHOULD DIRTY FAGGOTS BE ALLOWED TO RAISE CHILDREN IN THEIR SEEDY HOMO LOVE NESTS" NO 0845 270 63 62 Yes 0845 270 63 61 Not leading in the slightest.
Janx Posted 26 January 2007 Posted 26 January 2007 Well LCFC already do a Sunday Paper with that name... The Weekly Shite
Geo V Posted 26 January 2007 Posted 26 January 2007 Let's make our own newspaper. With all that shit already in circulation, that's good money. Smashing. I`ll audition the page 3 girls and we`ll make it different by having two prerequisites. Firstly, the girls are natural and have never had any cosmetic surgery on there baps and the second one that they are all lesbians. I`ll just grab the digital camera.
Daggers Posted 26 January 2007 Posted 26 January 2007 "SHOULD DIRTY FAGGOTS BE ALLOWED TO RAISE CHILDREN IN THEIR SEEDY HOMO LOVE NESTS" NO 0845 270 63 62 Yes 0845 270 63 61 Godammit - I just tried to phone NO...pretty persuasive writing
Lord Nibblington Posted 26 January 2007 Posted 26 January 2007 Smashing. I`ll audition the page 3 girls and we`ll make it different by having two prerequisites. Firstly, the girls are natural and have never had any cosmetic surgery on there baps and the second one that they are all lesbians. I`ll just grab the digital camera. At least your staying on topic. Ahem.
Leicfox Posted 26 January 2007 Posted 26 January 2007 Smashing. I`ll audition the page 3 girls and we`ll make it different by having two prerequisites. Firstly, the girls are natural and have never had any cosmetic surgery on there baps and the second one that they are all lesbians. I`ll just grab the digital camera. And ring your ex-missus.
MC Prussian Posted 26 January 2007 Posted 26 January 2007 Smashing. I`ll audition the page 3 girls and we`ll make it different by having two prerequisites. Firstly, the girls are natural and have never had any cosmetic surgery on there baps and the second one that they are all lesbians. I`ll just grab the digital camera. Good lord, I'm talking to an insider!!! I'll make up the reports then, alright? I can write. That's enough.
Lord Nibblington Posted 26 January 2007 Posted 26 January 2007 Good lord, I'm talking to an insider!!! I'll make up the reports then, alright? I can write. That's enough. In many ways, it makes you over qualified.
Geo V Posted 26 January 2007 Posted 26 January 2007 And ring your ex-missus. No mate she had some surgery on them and they didnt look that good IMO despite being a fair size BTW to be serious for a sec, I obviously met the ex`s friends and to say they were a strange bunch was an understatement. One thing that did come out of it was that quite a few of them sadly had issues as kids. The ex herself was raped by her stepdad when she was about 10. There undenyably is a link between some problem kids and the lifestyles that they end up adopting.
MC Prussian Posted 26 January 2007 Posted 26 January 2007 In many ways, it makes you over qualified. No prob, I just go down to the Pub to lose a few unnecessary brain cells.
Lord Nibblington Posted 26 January 2007 Posted 26 January 2007 No prob, I just go down to the Pub to lose a few unnecessary brain cells. A cunning plan of the highest order. It'll also help you err... 'discover' some exciting stories no doubt.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.