Magistrate sacked over views on adoption to same sex couples plans legal action

aspca4ever wrote:

This followed a BBC interview in March 2015 in which he had said that it was his duty as a magistrate to act on the evidence alone, and that there had not yet been a proper analysis of the effects that placing children with same-sex couples had on the child's well-being.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-35796557

That was the last paragraph of your opening OP...
then you applied your very own uniquely biased POV to this topic; with this >>>

Tommy stated > A child is better off in a stable home environment with a mother and a father... so it stands to reason that an adopted child should only be placed in the best environment for them too, which would be with mother and my father adoptive parents.

Over here in the states; a judge {magistrate} can't apply his/her own opinion to anything but what the "LAWS" dictate --- but they are allowed during sentencing phase to give the adjudicated human 'their personal opinions' about any given court awarded ruling! AND THEY OFTEN DO~~~

Having 'an opinion' and explaining that openly - to the media/interviewer causes a sense of being biased and that means that regardless of the LAW that magistrate will - set aside the LAW and fall back onto his/her OPINION and that is not what they are put into office to do!

Once established as the 'Judge/Magistrate' one has to set aside their personal feelings and abide by the LAW!  I doubt that that changes from England to America in any other form of translation! 
Deciding whom is a better parent: LGBT or a 'mom & dad' is highly subjective and has to be decided on a case-by-case situation!  Lots of family based interviews - counseling - evaluations etc., etc., et., and even back ground checks for substance abuse &/or criminal records should be used for that adoption process!  

What any given human being/couple does in the privacy of their own home is a HUGE NON YA = none of our fr'kn business and it most assuredly is not any of yours dear Tommy!  

Tommy stated > I've always said what two consenting adults get up to behind closed doors is up to them... but innocent children shouldn't be forced into it.

Didge wrote:

Stormee wrote:I have always felt sorry for you Didge playing the keyboard warrior.

This is a cowardly way of sh** stirring from you, Didge.

Beware The Ides Of March.

I am really disappointed in you.

I really do not care what you think of me stormee

What matters is I am not going to stand by whilst you make such disgusting homophobic comments and since you cannot grow up, now I am going to report you so in order that you learn

You only have yourself to blame

Stormee wrote:

Didge wrote:

I really do not care what you think of me stormee

What matters is I am not going to stand by whilst you make such disgusting homophobic comments and since you cannot grow up, now I am going to report you so in order that you learn

You only have yourself to blame

Dirty Dingus Didge AKA Judas has reported me.
What sort of lowlife excuse for a man does such.
This means HIS views have preference over mine.

sassy wrote:

Stormee wrote:


Dirty Dingus Didge AKA Judas has reported me.
What sort of lowlife excuse for a man does such.
This means HIS views have preference over mine.

Vic has told you twice that homophobia IS AGAINST THE RULES ON THIS FORUM.   It has nothing to doing with didge's views - what you wrote was absolutely revolting homophobia AND AGAINST THE RULES.

Stormee wrote:

sassy wrote:


Vic has told you twice that homophobia IS AGAINST THE RULES ON THIS FORUM.   It has nothing to doing with didge's views - what you wrote was absolutely revolting homophobia AND AGAINST THE RULES.

It is not as revolting as your chosen bragged about lifestyle.

Jumping in are you, again.

sassy wrote:

Stormee wrote:

It is not as revolting as your chosen bragged about lifestyle.

Every on including myself has religious freedom to express there views, especially on something so revolting to them.

Stifling peoples views so they can put theres on top is wrong..

Jumping in are you, again.

Stormee wrote:

Didge wrote:

Stormee wrote:I have always felt sorry for you Didge playing the keyboard warrior.

This is a cowardly way of sh** stirring from you, Didge.

Beware The Ides Of March.

I am really disappointed in you.

I really do not care what you think of me stormee

What matters is I am not going to stand by whilst you make such disgusting homophobic comments and since you cannot grow up, now I am going to report you so in order that you learn

You only have yourself to blame

Dirty Dingus Didge AKA Judas has reported me.
What sort of lowlife excuse for a man does such.
This means HIS views have preference over mine.

sassy wrote:You do not have freedom to be homophobic, it is against the rules, it's also against the law.

Now you can't even use the quote box properly.

sassy wrote:Likewise, posts that contain racist, homophobic, sexist or other offensive slurs, or that "dox" another member, are unacceptable, and those who create such posts are subject to discipline including permanent banning.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/homophobia.html

Lord Foul wrote:That, sassy  depends on the political leanings of the viewer

Tommy Monk wrote:
a.) I wasn't talking about any higher risk of sexual abuse... but that was mentioned in the study that those brought up in same sex parent homes reported a ten times higher rate of incidents...

b.)But it is well known that same sex couples are more unstable and volatile and also the likelyhood of use of drink/drugs is much higher...!

c.)Whereas heterosexual couples would be instantly refused for adoption if there was any slight suspicion of any of that... even being refused for smoking a few ciggies or for voting Ukip!!!

d.)You seem to think that LGBT parents will not only be great at parenting, but also that a child will have the same growing up experience with a m/m or f/f set of adoptive parents as well as both of those being the same as a m/f set of parents!!!

e.)Even when natural parents split up, the courts routinely award custody of any children to the mother instead of the father for the very reasons of the child's best interests that I'm talking about!

f.)The courts recognise that a child would have a totally different experience with the mother than with the father... and they deem the mother experience to be so much better and so much more in the child's best interests that the father has no chance...

g.)So it stands to reason that a mm couple would also be very different to a ff couple home environment... and both very different to a single m or f home environment... and also very different to a mf couple home environment...

h.)Surely only the one that is in the child's best interests should be considered...!?

Surely only the one that is in the child's best interests should be considered...!?  **BINGO** we've made some progress; though I doubt if you'll understand why that one single sentence is exactly appropriate and SPOT ON!

eddie wrote:Had Tommy said gay couples are more volatile?

Stormee wrote:We were put upon this earth to procreate, keep the world going, not for blokes to slip the ferret to other blokes.

aspca4ever wrote:

Stormee wrote:We were put upon this earth to procreate, keep the world going, not for blokes to slip the ferret to other blokes.

And yet, the sexual act that WE HUMANS do has little justification for only population of our species --- more like RECREATION

It's the one thing that does separate us from many other species; having sex for the sake of sexual gratification/the sensation of erotic pleasure!  We don't just have SEX to make babies; or did you miss that class or skip out that day   

Eilzel wrote:Stormee, you might consider life being about popping kids out, I assume then you never have sex through love, passion or fun then. Some of us think life is about more than that.  

Incidentally, Stormee, how or who do you think 'put' us on this earth?

aspca4ever wrote:

eddie wrote:Had Tommy said gay couples are more volatile?

Just a question; do you EVER go back and pick up the posts - read them from when you dropped by the last time?  EVER???   'Seek And Ye Shall Find' or not and remain clueless as to what has been posted and is being discussed currently

Stormee wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Stormee, you might consider life being about popping kids out, I assume then you never have sex through love, passion or fun then. Some of us think life is about more than that.  

Incidentally, Stormee, how or who do you think 'put' us on this earth?

You are entitled to assume all you wish but remember it makes an ass out of u but not me. You've got that quoted incorrectly ~~~ ASSume: making an ASS out of U and ME! 

It is pointless assuming such, surely you can see that.

We were put here for a reason Eilzel, by whom no one knowz but there will be plenty of guesserz..

Two blokes at each is sickening to say the least.

Eilzel wrote:Sickening to you, I find your views repulsive but don't go on about it.

And why do you think we were put here for a reason? That is the biggest assumption of all. At least my assumption was based on something you said.

eddie wrote:Storm we have been down this road many a time on here with other posters and I can tell you how it's gonna go:

Someone will be along in a minute and ask you where you stick yours and if where you stick yours is a natural place to stick yours?
And also if you pleasure yourself then that doesn't cause procreation, so really you probably shouldn't be a wanker?



Told you someone would ask.

Stormee wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Stormee, you might consider life being about popping kids out, I assume then you never have sex through love, passion or fun then. Some of us think life is about more than that.  

Incidentally, Stormee, how or who do you think 'put' us on this earth?

You are entitled to assume all you wish but remember it makes an ass out of u but not me.

It is pointless assuming such, surely you can see that.

We were put here for a reason Eilzel, by whom no one knowz but there will be plenty of guesserz..

Two blokes at each is sickening to say the least.

Stormee wrote:

eddie wrote:Storm we have been down this road many a time on here with other posters and I can tell you how it's gonna go:

Someone will be along in a minute and ask you where you stick yours and if where you stick yours is a natural place to stick yours?
And also if you pleasure yourself then that doesn't cause procreation, so really you probably shouldn't be a wanker?



Told you someone would ask.

Is the 'queer' word against the rules on here? eddie.

Stormee wrote:

eddie wrote:Storm we have been down this road many a time on here with other posters and I can tell you how it's gonna go:

Someone will be along in a minute and ask you where you stick yours and if where you stick yours is a natural place to stick yours?
And also if you pleasure yourself then that doesn't cause procreation, so really you probably shouldn't be a wanker?



Told you someone would ask.

Is the 'queer' word against the rules on here? eddie.

Eilzel wrote:Queer is ok? It is almost as bad as the f word lol

aspca4ever wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
a.) I wasn't talking about any higher risk of sexual abuse... but that was mentioned in the study that those brought up in same sex parent homes reported a ten times higher rate of incidents...

b.)But it is well known that same sex couples are more unstable and volatile and also the likelyhood of use of drink/drugs is much higher...!

c.)Whereas heterosexual couples would be instantly refused for adoption if there was any slight suspicion of any of that... even being refused for smoking a few ciggies or for voting Ukip!!!

d.)You seem to think that LGBT parents will not only be great at parenting, but also that a child will have the same growing up experience with a m/m or f/f set of adoptive parents as well as both of those being the same as a m/f set of parents!!!

e.)Even when natural parents split up, the courts routinely award custody of any children to the mother instead of the father for the very reasons of the child's best interests that I'm talking about!

f.)The courts recognise that a child would have a totally different experience with the mother than with the father... and they deem the mother experience to be so much better and so much more in the child's best interests that the father has no chance...

g.)So it stands to reason that a mm couple would also be very different to a ff couple home environment... and both very different to a single m or f home environment... and also very different to a mf couple home environment...

h.)Surely only the one that is in the child's best interests should be considered...!?

A.) pure BS - you still haven't acknowledge or bothered to read the entire link/article that you provided for your opening OP --- You were   twice: once my LordFoul and then again by my posting what you so blatantly left behind --- WILLFULL IGNORANCE AND UTTER FALSIFYING DATA FROM YOU VERY OWN SOURCE! 

B.) you have zero credibility for that --- you have a opinion {wrong that it maybe} but you've no facts/data/proof/links to support what YOU FEEL and what YOU FEEL is just pure BS without any foundation for TRUTH! 

C.)"slight suspicion" --- Of what...do you think that sexual deviancy makes humans GLOW IN THE DARK --- that you can hold up a 'black light' and they'll be instantly identified as perverts of the worst sort??? 

D.)"LGBT parents will not only be great at parenting"; you have zero credibility to say otherwise --- Geeze with your grandiose - Self-anointed opinion about your ability to weed out any sexual perverts; WTH aren't you working for law enforcement as a Pervert SNIFFER???  says YOU ARE FULL OF CRAP --- seriously

E.)pre 1990's that might have been the case; mothers were awarded custody more often then the fathers --- not true anymore!  It's 50/50 shared custody and it's been that way over here for years!  You'd best do some better FACT CHECKING about that prior to putting your feet into your mouth, yet again!

F.)OMG --- you just keep dumping the mental-drool and have zero filter for the bilge that is rolling out of your head!!!  Go do some serious reading about family & divorce courts...or better yet, hire a reading tutor!

G.) Once again; you have zero stats and only your bigoted/horrid homophobic/narrow minded opinion to shove that BS around and expect the adults to say - WELL SURE, LITTLE TOMMY - WHAT EVER YOU THINK ~~~ ain't happen DUDE

H.)Surely only the one that is in the child's best interests should be considered...!?  **BINGO** we've made some progress; though I doubt if you'll understand why that one single sentence is exactly appropriate and SPOT ON!

Tommy post > So how could it then be justified up place a child in anything other than what the best environment would be for the child???

Eilzel wrote:Tommy's argument has an onvious bias. The stats he quotes are irrelevant when you consider that children are carefully handed to adopted parents, and the kind of couples who will be looking to adopt are not going to be the kind of couples who spend lots of time at gay bars or taking drugs. All gay people are not the same.

^Eds, I think Vic sums up my feeling on this. It will be clear to everyone, including Stormee, if queer is being used as a gay slur.

Tommy Monk wrote:If a couples own children are routinely awarded to the mother because of the major differences that would be provided in the home environments of the father compared to the mother... and it is overwhelmingly in the child's bet interests to be with the mother etc... how can anyone try your say that a mm home environment would be in any way the same as a ff environment or the same as a mf environment...!!!???


If there are thought to be such major and important differences between what a mother and a father home environment would be for the couples own children... how can anyone seriously try to claim a mm or ff couple home environment would be the same and on top of that..  the same as a mf home environment...!!!???

aspca4ever wrote:

Tommy post > So how could it then be justified up place a child in anything other than what the best environment would be for the child???

1.) your POV about that "best environment for the child" is a real ugly place to dwell and you've no basis for being the magistrate/judge for child welfare in any country
2.) all of your diatribe and continued rants has ZERO foundation for ANY DEALING WITH MENTAL HEALTH issues regarding the GLBT community
3.) you read an article and misinterpret it - twist it - completely deny what it states and that =  both by my reading and LordFouls as well ---

YOU F'D UP ROYALY and it's not the first time nor will it be your last!

I say thanks to all that I hold dear, that the numbers of vile/ignorant humans {such as you} have limited access to what and how adoptive parents are reviewed and chosen!

Congratulations - U R A