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

First topic message reminder :


Richard Page, 69, who served as a magistrate in Kent, told the BBC last year it would be better for a man and a woman to be the adopted parents.

The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office deemed this serious misconduct.

His lawyers say they will bring an employment tribunal for discrimination over his religious beliefs.

Mr Page, who served in Sevenoaks and Maidstone, sat on the Kent Central family panel and was a magistrate for 15 years. He was sacked earlier this month.

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


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.

sassy wrote:So Tommy, as you think mothers are so important, would you be happy for a child to have 2 mothers?

I refer him to my previous post.

eddie wrote:Tommy do you have a problem with MALE same sex couples having children or FEMALE same sex couples, or both?

I am pointing out the double standards around adoption and custody awards of children... and the complete ignoral of the higher risks to children and the lack of care of what the child's best interests are when bending over backwards to pander to the sensitivities of homosexuals by awarding adoption children to them instead of to a normal and natural mf home environment.


Maybe try addressing the points I made earlier...?


If a court will routinely award custody of a couples own children to the mother because of the perceived better environment the mother would provide and best interests of the child etc... how can anyone seriously claim that a mm couple would be the same as a ff couple... and equally in the child's best interests...!?


They would obviously be vastly different... just as a mother and father would be different in a family custody battle... and they woukd also be totally different to a mf couple home environment too!!!


So when so different... must also follow that the differences must be better or worse and of varying benefit or detriment to the child's best interest etc...!?


So how can it possibly be justified to place a child in one that is worse than the other and totally ignoring what is in the child's best interests when dealing with homosexual couples...!?


Are the child's rights and best interests not paramount...!?

Or do the homosexuals sensitivities override what the child's best interests are...!?

Tommy, in spite of all the stats you throw up from your one source, do you presume that every decent gay couple, will no history of drugs or promiscuity and who have decent jobs and a good home, would still be bad parents for a child to have?

eddie wrote:

sassy wrote:So Tommy, as you think mothers are so important, would you be happy for a child to have 2 mothers?

I refer him to my previous post.

Going to answer Tommy?

Eilzel wrote:Tommy, in spite of all the stats you throw up from your one source, do you presume that every decent gay couple, will no history of drugs or promiscuity and who have decent jobs and a good home, would still be bad parents for a child to have?

They wouldn't be the same as a mother and a father...

That wasn't my question.

Or mine, or Eddies.

See my earlier answer to eddie...

Obviously its not the same as a mother and father, and in an ideal world straight couples wouldn't have babies they didn't want. But that is not the case.

But my question was, would a decent gay couple with good jobs and a good home be bad for a child?

Tommy - posted
Maybe try addressing the points I made earlier...?

If a court will routinely award custody of a couples own children to the mother because of the perceived better environment the mother would provide and best interests of the child etc... how can anyone seriously claim that a mm couple would be the same as a ff couple... and equally in the child's best interests...!?

They would obviously be vastly different... just as a mother and father would be different in a family custody battle... and they woukd also be totally different to a mf couple home environment too!!!

Asked and answered in my prior post where I set aside each and everyone of your 'WILD ASSED' suppositions POINT BY POINT --- asked and answered and by Didge as well!

You are switching up/jumping the tracks and trying to force apples and oranges to make your point seem valid when you aren't able too; PERIOD.

Divorce isn't the same as an adoption; the reasoning you are feebly trying to use for a DIVORCE is based on 1970's standards and as Didge and I both have tried to explain to you --- it's not the same bases for awarding custody in todays legal system!  They all are taken CASE BY CASE AND MOST OFTEN WILL BE AWARDED 50/50 CUSTODY!!!

But continue to live in the ignorant bubble of your own making; you do not have a vote/a say in how the adoption process is handled!!! 
THANK ALL THAT IS HOLY - you and your ilk are of the Neanderthal era and soon to be totally obsolete.

eddie wrote:Tommy do you have a problem with MALE same sex couples having children or FEMALE same sex couples, or both?

This question Tommy

See my earlier answer eddie...


And maybe aspca should have gone to specsaver... and actually read my points properly... then we wouldnt be getting more waffle and hyperbole from it...



It previously accused me of not reading the study I posted a link to and for making up the findings about higher rates of sexual abuse suffered by children in same sex couple home environments...


Then I posted the direct quote but it is still here trying to claim a moral victory and claim that I'm misrepresenting facts!!!

Tommy I have hunted for the answer to that question but can't find it, sorry.

Les said...

But my question was, would a decent gay couple with good jobs and a good home be bad for a child?



What like these two...?


http://gopthedailydose.com/2015/07/03/gay-couple-face-trial-for-raping-at-least-5-of-their-9-adopted-sons/






But the main point is that a mf couple home environment is the only one that is normal and natural for a child to grow up in.


Anything else is different and therefore unless better... must be worse!


Given that a child's best interests are paramount... anything other than the best possible environment should not be considered!!!

Eddie... my answer again...


I am pointing out the double standards around adoption and custody awards of children... and the complete ignoral of the higher risks to children and the lack of care of what the child's best interests are when bending over backwards to pander to the sensitivities of homosexuals by awarding adoption children to them instead of to a normal and natural mf home environment.


Maybe try addressing the points I made earlier...?


If a court will routinely award custody of a couples own children to the mother because of the perceived better environment the mother would provide and best interests of the child etc... how can anyone seriously claim that a mm couple would be the same as a ff couple... and equally in the child's best interests...!?


They would obviously be vastly different... just as a mother and father would be different in a family custody battle... and they woukd also be totally different to a mf couple home environment too!!!


So when so different... must also follow that the differences must be better or worse and of varying benefit or detriment to the child's best interest etc...!?


So how can it possibly be justified to place a child in one that is worse than the other and totally ignoring what is in the child's best interests when dealing with homosexual couples...!?


Are the child's rights and best interests not paramount...!?

Or do the homosexuals sensitivities override what the child's best interests are...!?

Tommy, if a couple are decent and loving and kind, won't they make good parents, whatever their sexual preference?

Isn't the only difference (taking away political leanings) between you and Les, for instance, that you're straight and he's gay?

What would make you a better father than Les? Is it only who you are sleeping with?

Still not answering my question.

And obviously not like that couple (which you know and were just being an idiot).

Tommy Monk wrote:See my earlier answer eddie...


And maybe aspca should have gone to specsaver... and actually read my points properly... then we wouldnt be getting more waffle and hyperbole from it...
It's not the fact that you are very capable of mammoth amounts of C & P; it's the way in which you can't twist what is printed and turn it into something to suit your narrow minded POV.  You willfully chose to only paste the first section for your opening OP'd piece and the entire article clarifies what you so feebly tried to flip on!
SHAME - SHAME and you got BUSTED for it!

It previously accused me of not reading the study I posted a link to and for making up the findings about higher rates of sexual abuse suffered by children in same sex couple home environments...
Just as with that horrid posted F'd up opinion {based on F'd up ideology over on global warming}...you and YOU alone cause your own twisted/convoluted mass hysteria and then lay some real stinky eggs out here for PROOF about your opinions!  Only to have those thrown back at you for pseudo facts & made up data!

Then I posted the direct quote but it is still here trying to claim a moral victory and claim that I'm misrepresenting facts!!!
  

You have every right to your narrow minded - OCD opinion about the GLBT community; but you just can't prove with the feeble BS links that you provide and/or trying to pull into the conversation, how the judicial systems awards custody to ANY PARENT!

Specsaver... you claimed I lied about the content of the study and that I hadn't even read it!!!


I posted a direct quote from the study that confirmed exactly what I had said!!!



You haven't apologised yet...

Obviously a loving gay couple of either sex would be preferable to a mum and dad who were not as loving, but surely a loving mum and dad would provide both male and female guidance in a childs formative years?

I don't see how the sex act comes into this debate though....what a couple do in the privacy of their own bedroom doesn't determine who they are as people.

Evening Syl, there are lots of single parent families where the child only has one parent of a particular gender and they turn out all right.
There are lots of ways to include the influences of a missing gender in a home - ie uncles and aunts, family friends, godparents etc

sassy wrote:So Tommy, as you think mothers are so important, would you be happy for a child to have 2 mothers?

What!!!!!!!!!!!!! like you? heaven forbid, those poor chilen

eddie wrote:Evening Syl, there are lots of single parent families where the child only has one parent of a particular gender and they turn out all right.
There are lots of ways to include the influences of a missing gender in a home - ie uncles and aunts, family friends, godparents etc

Hi Eddie, yes it's true that many children have only one parent (I was one) and my mum did a brilliant job even if I say so myself.

I just think in a perfect world it's more balanced to have one parent of each gender.

I sometimes wonder if people who say they cant tolerate homosexuals are just thinking of the sexual side.
I can understand that being off putting to some straight people if they dwell on that, but i'm sure it works the other way round too.....if gays dwell on what straights get up to no doubt some would find that pretty sickening.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:Evening Syl, there are lots of single parent families where the child only has one parent of a particular gender and they turn out all right.
There are lots of ways to include the influences of a missing gender in a home - ie uncles and aunts, family friends, godparents etc

Hi Eddie, yes it's true that many children have only one parent (I was one) and my mum did a brilliant job even if I say so myself.

I just think in a perfect world it's more balanced to have one parent of each gender.

I just think that a child has to be really lucky to be born into a family and of parents, who love each other, laugh together, fight and make up, have most meals together at a table and at least one "fun family day" a week, where love and respect and honesty are taught and celebrated....if a child is born into a group of people like that, then that child is lucky and blessed enough to have a true "family".
Lucky, lucky, lucky.....regardless of how many different genders it involves.

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:

Hi Eddie, yes it's true that many children have only one parent (I was one) and my mum did a brilliant job even if I say so myself.

I just think in a perfect world it's more balanced to have one parent of each gender.

I just think that a child has to be really lucky to be born into a family and of parents, who love each other, laugh together, fight and make up, have most meals together at a table and at least one "fun family day" a week, where love and respect and honesty are taught and celebrated....if a child is born into a group of people like that, then that child is lucky and blessed enough to have a true "family".
Lucky, lucky, lucky.....regardless  of how many different genders it involves.

Put like that I would agree with you.
.
I am always open to rethinking views...actually my generation has had to move a lot with the times, some find it easier than others.
Don't forget in our lifetime it was against the law to even be a practicing homosexual, electric shock treatment could be used to "cure" a mans sexual preference if it wasn't the correct one.
Thank God times have changed...but like the religious views that are discussed on the other thread......it's often hard even impossible for some people to completely change the morals and laws they grew up with.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:

Hi Eddie, yes it's true that many children have only one parent (I was one) and my mum did a brilliant job even if I say so myself.

I just think in a perfect world it's more balanced to have one parent of each gender.

I just think that a child has to be really lucky to be born into a family and of parents, who love each other, laugh together, fight and make up, have most meals together at a table and at least one "fun family day" a week, where love and respect and honesty are taught and celebrated....if a child is born into a group of people like that, then that child is lucky and blessed enough to have a true "family".
Lucky, lucky, lucky.....regardless  of how many different genders it involves.

Put like that I would  agree with you.
.
I am always open to rethinking views...actually my generation has had to move a lot with the times, some find it easier than others.
Don't forget in our lifetime it was against the law to even be a practicing homosexual, electric shock treatment could be used to "cure" a mans sexual preference if it wasn't  the correct one.
Thank God times have changed...but like the religious views that are discussed on the other thread......it's often hard even impossible for some people to completely change the morals and laws they grew up with.

Green for that Syl X

I can understand, when you put it in terms of generational understanding, and having to "acclimatise with the times" so to speak....that you have probably come a long way.

Gosh, did not mean that to sound patronising and was going to re-word it but I trust you'll get where I'm coming from....hopefully

Thanks for that Eddie and yep I do know what you mean. x

Syl wrote:

Obviously a loving gay couple of either sex would be preferable to a mum and dad who were not as loving

No... it would just be preferable that the mum and dad were more loving...

but surely a loving mum and dad would provide both male and female guidance in a childs formative years?

Only a mf home environment would provide the best and most normal and natural growing up environment and experience for a child!

I don't see how the sex act comes into this debate though....what a couple do in the privacy of their own bedroom doesn't determine who they are as people.

And it's not about any sex acts of any two consenting adults behind closed doors... it's about whether it's in a childs best interests to be placed/forced into a mm or ff couple home environment with two dad's or two mums being the 'parents' during what are the most important and formulative years for every one... or if the child's best interests would only have any chance of being served if they were only placed with a mother and father couple as parents which would provide the best and most normal and natural as well as balanced home environment...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Syl wrote:

Obviously a loving gay couple of either sex would be preferable to a mum and dad who were not as loving

No... it would just be preferable that the mum and dad were more loving...

but surely a loving mum and dad would provide both male and female guidance in a childs formative years?

Only a mf home environment would provide the best and most normal and natural growing up environment and experience for a child!

I don't see how the sex act comes into this debate though....what a couple do in the privacy of their own bedroom doesn't determine who they are as people.

It's not about any sex acts of any two consenting adults behind closed doors...

The sex act has been mentioned in this thread....that's what I was addressing.

If someone was ill and their child was given to 2 bent geezuz to look after said parent would not like it.

Sorry... I did a long edit above that will probably be missed so re posting here...


And it's not about any sex acts of any two consenting adults behind closed doors... it's about whether it's in a childs best interests to be placed/forced into a mm or ff couple home environment with two dad's or two mums being the 'parents' during what are the most important and formulative years for every one... or if the child's best interests would only have any chance of being served if they were only placed with a mother and father couple as parents which would provide the best and most normal and natural as well as balanced home environment...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:Sorry... I did a long edit above that will probably be missed so re posting here...


And it's not about any sex acts of any two consenting adults behind closed doors... it's about whether it's in a childs best interests to be placed/forced into a mm or ff couple home environment with two dad's or two mums being the 'parents' during what are the most important and formulative years for every one... or if the child's best interests would only have any chance of being served if they were only placed with a mother and father couple as parents which would provide the best and most normal and natural as well as balanced home environment...!?

And who are you to say what is in the best interest of a child?

Stormee wrote:If someone was ill and their child was given to 2 bent geezuz to look after said parent would not like it.

that depends on how primtive said parent was......

Lord Foul wrote:

Stormee wrote:If someone was ill and their child was given to 2 bent geezuz to look after said parent would not like it.

that depends on how primtive said parent was......

I would hope my child would be placed with loving people.
Worse case scenario would be them being placed in care.
After reading and hearing about the way youngsters (mostly girls) have been neglected used and abused by gangs in places like Rochdale, Rotherham, Oxford, Blackpool and other places......I cant think of anywhere worse.

Stormee wrote:If someone was ill and their child was given to 2 bent geezuz to look after said parent would not like it.

Homophobic bastard!

Specsaver also said...



Divorce isn't the same as an adoption; the reasoning you are feebly trying to use for a DIVORCE is based on 1970's standards and as Didge and I both have tried to explain to you --- it's not the same bases for awarding custody in todays legal system!  They all are taken CASE BY CASE AND MOST OFTEN WILL BE AWARDED 50/50 CUSTODY!!!



The truth...


"...the estimates are that mothers receive primary custody 68-88% of the time, fathers receive primary custody 8-14%, and equal residential custody is awarded in only 2-6% of the cases..."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-hughes/are-custody-decisions-bia_b_870709.html



So wrong again specsaver...!!!


When you gonna start apologising...!!!???

Didge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Sorry... I did a long edit above that will probably be missed so re posting here...


And it's not about any sex acts of any two consenting adults behind closed doors... it's about whether it's in a childs best interests to be placed/forced into a mm or ff couple home environment with two dad's or two mums being the 'parents' during what are the most important and formulative years for every one... or if the child's best interests would only have any chance of being served if they were only placed with a mother and father couple as parents which would provide the best and most normal and natural as well as balanced home environment...!?

And who are you to say what is in the best interest of a child?

??

I would also add as well Tommy, by saying homosexuals cannot adopt children, you are saying they do not have a right to have a family.
You need to justify why you are denying them the human right to have a family.

Didge wrote:

Didge wrote:


And who are you to say what is in the best interest of a child?

??

I think everyone would agree that a child's best interests are met by being brought up by a mother and a father in a stable and loving home environment...!?


And a child's best interests are paramount when considering the placing of them through adoption...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge wrote:
??

I think everyone would agree that a child's best interests are met by being brought up by a mother and a father in a stable and loving home environment...!?


And a child's best interests are paramount when considering the placing of them through adoption...

Really?

A child's best interest is being raised by loving parents or a loving parent, someone that wants them to be their family. Your view is that it has to be male and female, based on nothing your can reason

Why not ask the children to see?

As are not the children's interest also important Tommy?

Or did you not think of that?

Until a child is of a certain age a court would decide where the childs best interest lay in re to parenthood.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge wrote:

Didge wrote:


And who are you to say what is in the best interest of a child?

??

I think everyone would agree that a child's best interests are met by being brought up by a mother and a father in a stable and loving home environment...!?


And a child's best interests are paramount when considering the placing of them through adoption...

So dispute this:


I just think that a child has to be really lucky to be born into a family and of parents, who love each other, laugh together, fight and make up, have most meals together at a table and at least one "fun family day" a week, where love and respect and honesty are taught and celebrated....if a child is born into a group of people like that, then that child is lucky and blessed enough to have a true "family".
Lucky, lucky, lucky.....regardless of how many different genders it involves.

Syl wrote:Until a child is of a certain age a court would decide where the childs best interest lay in re to parenthood.

So your saying a child should have no say in what makes them happy?

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:Until a child is of a certain age a court would decide where the childs best interest lay in re to parenthood.

So your saying a child should have no say in what makes them happy?

I'm saying that till a child is of a certain age the courts will decide what is in the best interest of the child.

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:


So your saying a child should have no say in what makes them happy?

I'm saying that till a child is of a certain age the courts will decide what is in the best interest of the child.

And I am asking whether you think a child should no say in what makes them happy?

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:

I'm saying that till a child is of a certain age the courts will decide what is in the best interest of the child.

And I am asking whether you think a child should no say in what makes them happy?

Every child should have a happy settled home life....when that home life is disrupted often the child has no idea what he/she wants, he just wants his parents back together......that's why the courts decide.

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:


And I am asking whether you think a child should no say in what makes them happy?

Every child should have a happy settled home life....when that home life is disrupted often the child has no idea what he/she wants, he just wants his parents back together......that's why the courts decide.

That is not what I asked

 I am asking whether you think a child should have no say in what makes them happy?

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:

Every child should have a happy settled home life....when that home life is disrupted often the child has no idea what he/she wants, he just wants his parents back together......that's why the courts decide.

That is not what I asked

 I am asking whether you think a child should have no say in what makes them happy?

And I have answered....sorry if it's not in the precise way you want.

Maybe the child would pick the parent who buys him the most toffee or lets him have his own way more.
Children cannot always be the ones to decide which parent would be the better one to have custody....would you not agree?

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:


That is not what I asked

 I am asking whether you think a child should have no say in what makes them happy?

And I have answered....sorry if it's not in the precise way you want.

Maybe the child would pick the parent who buys him the most toffee or lets him have his own way more.
Children cannot always be the ones to decide which parent would be the better one to have custody....would you not agree?

You have not answered and its clear you do not want to 

I will highlight the important part

 I am asking whether you think a child should have no say in what makes them happy?