UK: Christian magistrate doesn't accept law re gay adoption

I assume the same sex (gay) couple wanted to adopt, because one of them was infertile. Well, that's the reason most/many heterosexual couples adopt. So, isn't my assumption correct, since gay couples are no different than heterosexual couples?

Now back to reality. If heterosexual couples were all clamoring to adopt children (it suddenly became as fashionable as ipods), would there really have been an effort to allow gay couples to adopt? Or, was the reason to allow gay couples to adopt (from the Social Services perspective) reflecting, perhaps, the old maxim, "Any port in a storm"? (When the supply of parents wanting to adopt is so much less than the number of children available for adoption.)

Let's assume gayness is not by choice, must society foist the whole gayness thing on a child (that gets adopted)? Especially, when society is still so divided in its attitude towards the issue? In effect, these children, that would get adopted by gay couples, might feel they were "used" as society's experiment, to prove gayness is "normal."

I'd guess there's many people that would not think a child raised by a gay couple will turn out no different than if it was raised by a heterosexual couple. For one thing, that child adopted by a gay couple will have fewer places to live, when an adult, since some places don't appreciate the "progressive" view of a child that was raised by a gay couple. In other words, a parochial/provincial view of the world may be better for some people. Who has the right to thrust a child into a world that is still a sub-culture in some people's view? And, for those in the U.S., homosexuality was referenced in the Diagnostic Statistics Manual, that the psychology field uses for diagnoses, just a number of decades ago.

Three cheers for Gay Liberation, but why should everyone have to participate?

0 Replies

The Equality Act (the effect law in England, Wales and Scotland), outlaws discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services on the basis of sexual orientation.

That's the law a judge in the UK has to follow. Nothing else, how many assumptions are made by Foofie or others.

0 Replies

if you don't want your child to get adopted by gays, have an abortion. it's that simple!

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

The Equality Act (the effect law in England, Wales and Scotland), outlaws discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services on the basis of sexual orientation.

That's the law a judge in the UK has to follow. Nothing else, how many assumptions are made by Foofie or others.

Machts nichts (makes no never mind) what the current adopting laws in Britain are. In my opinion they don't reflect the welfare of the child, since in all likelihood a child will grow up heterosexual, and if adopted by a gay couple, society is potentially giving that child one more problem to cope with, in having to explain (to friends) why he/she has two mommies, or two daddies. Adolescence is hard enough, without this added albatross.

What ever happened to the orphanages run by Nuns? They made good citizens out of many children.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babe_Ruth

Since Britain is a nation of laws, the day might come when an adult, adopted as an INFANT by a gay couple, might sue the Social Services agency that gave him/her to the gay couple, since it might be perceived that his/her adolescence was very problematic with friends from heterosexual couples, and he/she always had to explain his/her two mommies, or two daddies. I believe, in context of these current laws, only older children should be adopted by gay couples, and only after the older child was specifically asked if he/she wants to be adopted by these two daddies, or two mommies.

In my own opinion, by allowing for gay couples to adopt a child, that will likely grow up to be heterosexual, society is just giving that adopted child an unasked for burden that it did nothing to deserve. I say this because, assuming that one doesn't choose to be gay or straight, being gay in a society where the vast majority is straight is problematic. And, being a child of a gay couple can be problematic. I see this as another form of bullying of children.

Let's just bring back good orphanages run by Nuns.

0 Replies

tinygiraffe wrote:

if you don't want your child to get adopted by gays, have an abortion. it's that simple!

I believe you left out of your analysis the scenario where a couple's child is home with the babysitter, and the couple dies in a car crash. No relatives available to care for that child that suddenly became an orphan.

But, aside from the above scenario, it is society's reponsibility to care for orphans. Adopting is only one solution. Another solution is orphanages. It has nothing to do with the preferences, of who would adopt an infant, of a pregnant woman, since abortion is not an acceptable alternative to many women. That is the reality. The whole world is not, nor need be, "secular progressive." It's THAT simple!

0 Replies

Foofie wrote:

Machts nichts (makes no never mind) what the current adopting laws in Britain are. In my opinion they don't reflect the welfare of the child, since in all likelihood a child will grow up heterosexual, and if adopted by a gay couple, society is potentially giving that child one more problem to cope with, in having to explain (to friends) why he/she has two mommies, or two daddies. Adolescence is hard enough, without this added albatross.

Actually, it 'macht' a lot, for UK-citizens and especially for judges: citizens should be lawful, and what society do you promote where the judges are outside the law?

0 Replies

Quote:

I believe you left out of your analysis the scenario where a couple's child is home with the babysitter, and the couple dies in a car crash. No relatives available to care for that child that suddenly became an orphan.

i believe you left out the scenario that there are human beings, not robots, that attempt to find suitable parents for a child. with a traumatic experience like losing your parents, they're not going to add the challenge of living with a gay couple when they never have before.

you're also leaving out the scenario of children that have no one to care for them, that would be happy with anyone that would take them at that age and treat them well. an obvious difference between you and me is that i think people can do that regardless of preference. and you don't.

for a guy that tells everyone to trust the system and be grateful so often, you certainly do buck authorities when it tries to help people. but then i'm sure that's only when those old japs are involved- if we tried to do institute such a thing here, i'm sure you'd just nod and shut up exactly like you do when they bomb other countries and tap our home phones Smile

and that's what i like about you foofie, you're consistant.

0 Replies

Foofie wrote:

Quote:

Let's just bring back good orphanages run by Nuns.

Let's just ignore the fact that there are many cases of child abuse currently being (and waiting to be) heard by the courts, involving nuns and the many other religious establishments. I know someone personally, who is currently going back and forth to Ireland to give testimony in such a case...

Would you really want to give a child over to nuns, to be raised? What? Do you think they're going to turn out well-rounded, able adults?

There is no reason for gay couples not to adopt. Being in a loving and supportive household matters more than the sexuality of the carers. It's basic bigotry, a simple as that, to suggest otherwise.

I went to a convent, and I wouldn't wish it on anybody. And that was just day care, I shudder to think of any child in full time care of any religious establishment.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foofie wrote:
Machts nichts (makes no never mind) what the current adopting laws in Britain are. In my opinion they don't reflect the welfare of the child, since in all likelihood a child will grow up heterosexual, and if adopted by a gay couple, society is potentially giving that child one more problem to cope with, in having to explain (to friends) why he/she has two mommies, or two daddies. Adolescence is hard enough, without this added albatross.

Actually, it 'macht' a lot, for UK-citizens and especially for judges: citizens should be lawful, and what society do you promote where the judges are outside the law?

The judge resigned. So, based on his personal values he resigned. He, as a judge, was not outside the law. He just made a career decision that law was no longer for him to pursue - he resigned. Sequence the events.

The judge did not make a case decision against the law; he resigned. His soliciting his superiors was within his rights; when it went against his values, he resigned. Sequence the events.

Like if one likes to speed in a car, which is against the law, that's fine, as long as one then chooses not to drive. It's the act that's unlawful, not the thought.

And, I can't really relate to this case, since U.S. law takes cases to higher courts, where it might just be overturned as a law, due to unconstitutionality. (The law might be interpreted in the U.S. as going against a child's rights?)

0 Replies

Foofie wrote:

The judge resigned. So, based on his personal values he resigned. He, as a judge, was not outside the law. He just made a career decision that law was no longer for him to pursue - he resigned. Sequence the events.

He was forced to resign bcause he didn't want to follow the law.
(See the quoted report above.)

The judge did not make a case decision against the law; he resigned. His soliciting his superiors was within his rights; when it went against his values, he resigned. Sequence the events.

No, the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and the Lord Chancellor as reprentatives of the Soereign thaught differently. As did the Appeal Court.

Like if one likes to speed in a car, which is against the law, that's fine, as long as one then chooses not to drive. It's the act that's unlawful, not the thought.

He acted - because he didn't act according to the law and his oath.

And, I can't really relate to this case, since U.S. law takes cases to higher courts, where it might just be overturned as a law, due to unconstitutionality. (The law might be interpreted in the U.S. as going against a child's rights?)

The House of Lords as the highest court of the UK have a different opinion to yours.

0 Replies

you're implying that the right of a child to have straight parents trumps the right of homosexuals to adopt children? man, the world we live in.

you're assuming most children care which two people genuinely love them, or you think gays can't love children. and don't give me any of that stereotype about pedophilia, it's more common in heterosexuals. it takes indoctrination by idiots to care which two parents love you.

0 Replies

Foofie wrote:

And, I can't really relate to this case, since U.S. law takes cases to higher courts, where it might just be overturned as a law, due to unconstitutionality. (The law might be interpreted in the U.S. as going against a child's rights?)

The UK currently has no single overarching constitutional document or rights charter, although its working "unwritten constitution" includes a variety of fundamental statutes such as the Magna Carta supported by a long judicial tradition of protecting civil liberties; the famous Bill of Rights of 1689 actually addresses taxes more than fundamental freedoms.

Blair had announced last January that rules under the Equality Act protecting same-sex couples' rights to adopt children without discrimination wpuld apply without exception, denying special exemptions for faith-based adoption agencies opposed to same-sex unions and/or homosexuality.

Full text of "Equality Act 2006"

0 Replies

tinygiraffe wrote:

you're implying that the right of a child to have straight parents trumps the right of homosexuals to adopt children? man, the world we live in.

you're assuming most children care which two people genuinely love them, or you think gays can't love children. and don't give me any of that stereotype about pedophilia, it's more common in heterosexuals. it takes indoctrination by idiots to care which two parents love you.

I'm not talking about whose rights trumps anyone else's rights, or whether gays can love children (sure they can), or whether there would be pedophilia (never entered my mind). I'm just attempting to point out that there is still a large segment of society that does not think of gays as part of mainstream society. Therefore, to have a child, that already had the misfortune to not be born to a biological parent that could take care of him/her, and add the burden to that child of a family history that is not accepted as equal, by all of society, is unfair to a child.

Or, put it this way, with gay liberation, gays can come out of the "closet" and live openly in some parts of society. That's the way it should be. However, with the reality that not all of society is so progressive, this adopted child, who likely grows up straight, may then have reason to put his/her family history into the proverbial closet.

So many examples can be imagined: the adopted child meets someone in college. The young couple wants to get serious; however, the individual from the straight set of parents tells the adopted child (of a gay couple), "I'm sorry, but my folks say we should stop seeing each other; they are not comfortable with my marrying someone that was raised by two mommies/daddies." That's the reality. The adopted child is now living in the closet with his/her family history, even though his/her gay parents were able to live outside the closet in the 21st century. Something is wrong with this picture, if the child has this burden.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foofie wrote:
And, I can't really relate to this case, since U.S. law takes cases to higher courts, where it might just be overturned as a law, due to unconstitutionality. (The law might be interpreted in the U.S. as going against a child's rights?)

The UK currently has no single overarching constitutional document or rights charter, although its working "unwritten constitution" includes a variety of fundamental statutes such as the Magna Carta supported by a long judicial tradition of protecting civil liberties; the famous Bill of Rights of 1689 actually addresses taxes more than fundamental freedoms.

Blair had announced last January that rules under the Equality Act protecting same-sex couples' rights to adopt children without discrimination wpuld apply without exception, denying special exemptions for faith-based adoption agencies opposed to same-sex unions and/or homosexuality.

Full text of "Equality Act 2006"

Are you talking about the same country where it's royalty cannot marry Catholics?

0 Replies

do they wear pointy hoods?

Quote:

I'm just attempting to point out that there is still a large segment of society that does not think of gays as part of mainstream society.

you bring up an interesting point. there is still a large segment of society (we call them "racists") that think blacks aren't part of "mainstream society." shall we scrap interracial placement also, or leave office in protest? it's funny how people are against abortion, and yet when it comes to finding foster parents, no one is allowed to be qualified. it sure is difficult working around fundamentalist christianity sometimes- cut us a little slack!

0 Replies

Re: do they wear pointy hoods?

tinygiraffe wrote:

Quote:
I'm just attempting to point out that there is still a large segment of society that does not think of gays as part of mainstream society.

you bring up an interesting point. there is still a large segment of society (we call them "racists") that think blacks aren't part of "mainstream society." shall we scrap interracial placement also, or leave office in protest? it's funny how people are against abortion, and yet when it comes to finding foster parents, no one is allowed to be qualified. it sure is difficult working around fundamentalist christianity sometimes- cut us a little slack!

I'm not a Christian; Fundamentalist or otherwise.

I do think growing up adopted by parents of a different race can make for future complexities as an adult. Not as complex/difficult as having gay parents, since homosexuals will likely be outsiders in some segments of society for a very long time (just like non-Christians in a very Christian oriented society).

I also believe one shouldn't compare Black Americans to gay Americans, as far as fitting into society. One's Blackness relates to having had African ancestry. Gayness does not relate to having had Gay ancestry.

My point is simple: gays are not heterosexuals. So, if they can't reproduce and have children like heterosexual couples, I believe they should not treat themselves like infertile heterosexual couples and say they have the right to adopt. In my opinion, gay couples have the right to be gay and not reproduce biologically, nor should they mimic heterosexual couples that have nuclear families with biologically produced children.

Let's assume Mother Nature deemed gayness quite normal for a percentage of society (that is gay). Why do gays then want to mimic heterosexual couples with that whole nuclear family thing? If gayness is "normal," why would the nuclear family of heterosexual couples be for them; otherwise, Mother Nature would have made gays able to reproduce biologically also. Perhaps, nuclear families for gays was not meant by Mother Nature to be part of their paradigm?

To me it's like when little girls "play house" with dolls. They just want to do what they hope to do one day as adults. Gay males might be attracted to the same sex, but are still males. They can't be mommies. They can only be daddies. I just believe a child deserves a real mommy and daddy, not a facsimile.

0 Replies

Quote:

I'm not a Christian; Fundamentalist or otherwise.

i realized that the moment i posted, and had a good laugh at both of us.

Quote:

I do think growing up adopted by parents of a different race can make for future complexities as an adult.

probably. but then show me a parent, or two, that didn't complicate the life of their children.

Quote:

Not as complex/difficult as having gay parents, since homosexuals will likely be outsiders in some segments of society for a very long time

well that was the point behind comparing gay parents to black ones like i did.

Quote:

(just like non-Christians in a very Christian oriented society).

absolutely.

Quote:

I also believe one shouldn't compare Black Americans to gay Americans, as far as fitting into society. One's Blackness relates to having had African ancestry. Gayness does not relate to having had Gay ancestry.

no, but i'm of the opinion- as many are, that "gayness" is just as natural as being black, and thus discriminating based on "gayness" would be morally wrong, not to mention unconstitutional.

Quote:

My point is simple: gays are not heterosexuals.

well that foofie, is truly the soundest point you've ever made, and i'm sure that neither i nor anyone on this forum will be successful in an any attempt to refute it.

Quote:

So, if they can't reproduce and have children like heterosexual couples, I believe they should not treat themselves like infertile heterosexual couples and say they have the right to adopt.

i'm not sure i follow you there.

Quote:

In my opinion, gay couples have the right to be gay and not reproduce biologically,

can i quote you on that (again?) i wonder if it's what you meant.

Quote:

nor should they mimic heterosexual couples that have nuclear families with biologically produced children.

well that's interesting. i thought the "nuclear family" was just a social construct- perhaps even a mere observation- i didn't know that it was part of the united states constitution or had any affect on constitutional rights.

will the neocons abandon their definition of "marriage" and try to amend the constitution to enforce their defintion of family?

Quote:

Let's assume Mother Nature deemed gayness quite normal for a percentage of society (that is gay).

besides the penguins and so on- not to mention seahorses, where the male carries the gestating young. but let's move forward.

Quote:

Why do gays then want to mimic heterosexual couples with that whole nuclear family thing?

this is a strawman. i don't like to throw the word around like some people do here, but if gays wanted to imitate a nuclear family, i think they'd start by being straight. call me crazy. i've never heard such a claim made by anyone but you- some people just want to help a child grow up, foofie. you're inventing reasons why they would that are absurd. what would you call "strawman?"

Quote:

otherwise, Mother Nature would have made gays able to reproduce biologically also.

so by this logic, correct my logic if you see a flaw i missed, that mother nature chooses who should have families and who shouldn't. gays can't reproduce, so they shouldn't have familes.

also, the sterile can't reproduce, so they shouldn't adopt either. that's a logical conclusion of your own theory, isn't it?

Quote:

Perhaps, nuclear families for gays was not meant by Mother Nature to be part of their paradigm?

well, in that case, adoption is just unnatural, and any parent of someone else's child should have it taken away and aborted to comply with mother nature's intentions. people just aren't meant to adopt.

Quote:

To me it's like when little girls "play house" with dolls. They just want to do what they hope to do one day as adults. Gay males might be attracted to the same sex, but are still males. They can't be mommies.

i take it then you're also against single fathers? if some nuclear family loses a mother, should the child be taken and placed in the care of a proper couple, after maybe a waiting period for the single (thus unsuitable) father to remarry? i mean we're talking about the well-being of a child here.

or maybe you'll just disqualify all single men from adopting. i'm sure they lean away from it, but after many, many background checks i imagine it happens. and i think it's good, but then my values aren't as natural as yours.

Quote:

They can only be daddies. I just believe a child deserves a real mommy and daddy, not a facsimile.

well i agree, foofie. they deserve everything in the world. but short of that, they deserve good parents- period. and gays can be good parents, and i just believe you've given no good reason why they shouldn't be allowed to be good parents. i suspect you're merely discriminating, which is the sort of thing that they're trying to fix in the uk, despite the best efforts of old closeted homosexual bigots.

i call it progress. you call it the destruction of the family. isn't that what's great about america? we all get to have an opinion, no matter how baseless.

0 Replies

Foofie wrote:

Quote:

Are you talking about the same country where it's royalty cannot marry Catholics?

You're wrong there, Foofs...

They can, and do marry Catholics. A catholic just can't be on the throne. But as most Brits don't give a toss about the 'royal' family, who the hell cares?

All that nonsense is for American tourists.

x

0 Replies

tinygiraffe wrote:

Quote:
In my opinion, gay couples have the right to be gay and not reproduce biologically,

can i quote you on that (again?) i wonder if it's what you meant.

The above only makes sense when taken in context of the entire posting of mine. I was only stating the obvious, to emphasize the obvious, since gays most certainly have a right to be gay (what else can they be?), and they don't have the right to reproduce biologically (since Mother Nature only constructed our mammalian reproduction one way).

I cannot continue this "debate" because it is based on, I believe, whether gays should be allowed to substitute for adopting heterosexual couples.

And, my belief is that once there is no adopting female mommy and male daddy for a child/infant that has no biological parent(s) to care for him or her, a good old fashioned orphanage would least complicate the adult life of that child. A gay couple would complicate the life of that child in many a circumstance, simply because society has not all adopted a progressive view of gayness. An adult, having lived in an orphanage as a child, might only engender sympathy, but not be possibly ostracized (because having gay parents is still considered too different for many people to accept for their level of comfort).

So, since children are innocent, I believe, it would be more ethical to take a child to an orphanage (when there was no heterosexual couple to adopt him/her) where caring Nuns would teach that child how to survive in a harsh world, rather than put that child in the marriage of a loving gay couple.

On one hand the argument can be made that a "loving" gay couple is better than the "unloving" world of an orphanage; on the other hand, I believe, the negative effects of an unloving orphanage, in childhood, is less than the complications that child faces, as an adult, when he/she might feel his/her family history has to be in the "closet."

I still believe the irony of gay adoption is that while the gay couple has come out of the proverbial "closet," the child they may adopt would then have to decide whether his/her family history should be in the proverbial "closet" in many a situation (especially as an adult).

In effect, I believe, that for a child, that will grow up heterosexual, putting that child in the care of a gay couple is just sacrificing the child's ability to be totally forthcoming with his/her "life history" when an adult (in a society that is not totally progressive). I am not saying it complicates the "child's" life, since the gay couple will likely be living in a progressive area, where that child will not be ostracized, because of his/her gay parents.

I believe gays would understand exactly what I've said here, since they have experienced being ostracized for their gayness. The fact that any would be willing to complicate the adult life of an adopted child makes me wonder whether the stuggles of being gay in society has made many a gay individual unfeeling for the reality of being heterosexual in society?

So, we agree to disagree.

0 Replies

UK: Christian magistrate doesn't accept law re gay adoption

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know