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

by Tommy Monk Sun Mar 13, 2016 8:00 pm

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.

by Syl Tue Mar 15, 2016 8:35 pm

A child should have some say in what makes it happy if possible.... sadly it's not always possible...especially if the parents are splitting up....which presumably is what we are talking about now.

Do you ever answer questions btw....I asked you one.

by Tommy Monk Tue Mar 15, 2016 8:35 pm

The custody courts view that there are enough significant differences between what would be a mother/father provided home environment that it is overwhelmingly the ruling of the magistrates that the best interests of the child would be served by being placed with the mother!!!

Therefore saying it would be worse being placed with the father!!!

So it must follow that there must also be huge significant differences between a mm and ff couple home environment too!!!

As well as both being hugely significantly different to a mf couple home environment!!!

AND SUBSEQUENTLY... these differences MUST result in each being better or worse than the others overall!!!

Therefore... given the fact we have a paramount duty of care to the child and the requirement to only do what is best for the child... and given that only a mother father couple home environment will provide the best environment for the child and be in the best interests of the child... Surely it is wrong to consider placing children in anything other than is best!?

by Guest Tue Mar 15, 2016 8:38 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:The custody courts view that there are enough significant differences between what would be a mother/father provided home environment that it is overwhelmingly the ruling of the magistrates that the best interests of the child would be served by being placed with the mother!!!

Therefore saying it would be worse being placed with the father!!!

So it must follow that there must also be huge significant differences between a mm and ff couple home environment too!!!

As well as both being hugely significantly different to a mf couple home environment!!!

AND SUBSEQUENTLY... these differences MUST result in each being better or worse than the others overall!!!

Therefore... given the fact we have a paramount duty of care to the child and the requirement to only do what is best for the child... and given that only a mother father couple home environment will provide the best environment for the child and be in the best interests of the child... Surely it is wrong to consider placing children in anything other than is best!?

First point is subjective and dated

Second many fathers are great parents

The premise is based on old sexist beliefs

Its against the law and the European Court of Humans rights to discriminate people having a family

Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“the ECHR”) upholds the right to start a family. The 1998 Human Rights Act enshrines this right in UK law. The right to start a family includes the right to adopt a child. The ECHR does not oblige governments to provide adoption facilities; it does require governments to ensure that any systems for adoption which operate do not interfere with this right.

Article 14 of the ECHR states that the other rights contained in it should be applied without discrimination on any basis including sex, race, birth or “other status”. In broad terms the ECHR protects both the right to adopt a child and to enjoy the other rights contained within it without discrimination - regardless of whether one is adopted or adopts.

by Tommy Monk Tue Mar 15, 2016 9:14 pm

Seems Didge missed out this important bit from his copy and paste link...

Rights of Adoptive Parents

Technically anyone over the age of 21 is eligible, and “has the right”, to be an adoptive parent. However, according to the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the welfare of the child must be the “paramount consideration” of both adoption agencies and of any court asked to make an adoption order. Therefore, a wide range of eligibility criteria can, and will, be applied to prospective parents.

These criteria should only relate to factors likely to influence an applicant’s ability to be a good parent and may vary according to the individual child. The line between discriminating against a prospective parent and protecting the child’s best interests may sometimes be blurred. For example, opinion is divided on whether children should only be adopted by those who share the child's ethnic background. Prospective parents who are rejected because they are from a different ethnic background could claim that they have been discriminated against and had their human rights curtailed. However, if the decision is deemed to be in the child's best interests the prospective parents' rights may have to take second place to the child's welfare.

lol!

by Guest Tue Mar 15, 2016 9:25 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Seems Didge missed out this important bit from his copy and paste link...

Rights of Adoptive Parents

Technically anyone over the age of 21 is eligible, and “has the right”, to be an adoptive parent. However, according to the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the welfare of the child must be the “paramount consideration” of both adoption agencies and of any court asked to make an adoption order. Therefore, a wide range of eligibility criteria can, and will, be applied to prospective parents.

These criteria should only relate to factors likely to influence an applicant’s ability to be a good parent and may vary according to the individual child. The line between discriminating against a prospective parent and protecting the child’s best interests may sometimes be blurred. For example, opinion is divided on whether children should only be adopted by those who share the child's ethnic background. Prospective parents who are rejected because they are from a different ethnic background could claim that they have been discriminated against and had their human rights curtailed. However, if the decision is deemed to be in the child's best interests the prospective parents' rights may have to take second place to the child's welfare.

Not missed anything as

Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“the ECHR”) upholds the right to start a family. The 1998 Human Rights Act enshrines this right in UK law. The right to start a family includes the right to adopt a child. The ECHR does not oblige governments to provide adoption facilities; it does require governments to ensure that any systems for adoption which operate do not interfere with this right.

Article 14 of the ECHR states that the other rights contained in it should be applied without discrimination on any basis including sex, race, birth or “other status”. In broad terms the ECHR protects both the right to adopt a child and to enjoy the other rights contained within it without discrimination - regardless of whether one is adopted or adopts.

Which is why its in the best interested for children to be adopted to loving parents gay or not gay parents, Tommy

Like I say the view of the mother being seen best is based on backward thinking, is subjective and based of sexist views.

Like adoption changed to allow rightly homosexuals to adopt so will the aspect which will place men rightly on an equal footing deemed equivalent to women raising children

So you were saying?

by Tommy Monk Tue Mar 15, 2016 9:34 pm

No... the law says that only what's in the best interests of the child should be considered!!!

And that will only be one of the options... the one with a mother and a father!!!

by Guest Tue Mar 15, 2016 9:36 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:No... the law says that only what's in the best interests of the child should be considered!!!

And that will only be one of the options... the one with a mother and a father!!!

Gay parents as well as heterosexual parents are in the best interested of the child considered.

hence why its law both can adopt, because its against their human right to todeny them a family

by veya_victaous Tue Mar 15, 2016 9:41 pm

a loving parent is still better than no loving parent

end of sotry

Plus many homosexuals will be better as it was harder for them to get a child in the first place and not an 'accident'.

by Tommy Monk Tue Mar 15, 2016 9:51 pm

No... the law says that only what's in the best interests of the child should be considered!!!

And that will only be one of the options... the one with a mother and a father!!!

by Guest Tue Mar 15, 2016 9:54 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:No... the law says that only what's in the best interests of the child should be considered!!!
Which includes Gay parents, end of story, as they can and do adopt children

And that will only be one of the options... the one with a mother and a father!!!

No as seen you are wrong, as again gay parents are considered one of those options

You can deny it until you are blue in the face for all I care, it wont change the fact they are considered and rightly so

by Tommy Monk Tue Mar 15, 2016 9:57 pm

BUT ... the law says that ULTIMATELY only what's in the best interests of the child should ACTUALLY BE DONE!!!

And that will only be one of the options... the one with a mother and a father!!!

by Guest Tue Mar 15, 2016 10:01 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:BUT ... the law says that ULTIMATELY only what's in the best interests of the child should ACTUALLY BE DONE!!!

And that will only be one of the options... the one with a mother and a father!!!

Which again includes gay parents as being one of the options in the best interest of children

No where does it state they are not.

So on every level you are wrong, the law says you are wrong.

End of story

Night

by Victorismyhero Tue Mar 15, 2016 10:03 pm

your whole argument falls to pieces on one thing....

do you consider "in care" to be a viable long term option??

nope

so...given that there is a desperate shortage of adoptive families.....

EVEN IF you were right about pigeon pair parents being some how "better" (which you are NOT)

then it is still surely better to place some kids in good gay homes, rather than leave them "in care"

But since you cannot provide any credible evidence that gay homes are any less "good" than so called "normal" ones....I suppose that point is moot......

by Guest Tue Mar 15, 2016 10:24 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
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

Gored with your very own link & petard; YET AGAIN = Magistrate sacked over views on adoption to same sex couples plans legal action - Page 5 2581891615

you really need to have an aide read articles to you because if you can't get beyond the title/top paragraph then you miss {as usual} the entire jest of the data/facts and basis for the printed word.

In the case in which the parents spent equal time (50-50) with the child prior to divorce, an overwhelming majority (69%) of the participants thought living time should be divided equally between the two parents. The remaining participants selected "live with mother, but spend a lot of time with dad."
So what did the participants choose when the parenting time was described as more by either by the father or the mother (75% -25%)? In these cases about 50% of the participants still selected "equal time" with both parents as the preferred custody arrangement. In the case in which the mother was described as spending more time, another 41% selected "live with mother, but spend a lot of time with dad." Likewise, when dads were described as spending more time, 37% of the participants selected "live with dad, but spend a lot of time with mother." In all these cases in which both parents were described as competent parents from average families, the participants in this study favored "equal parenting time" even in cases in which the pre-divorce parenting routines were described as either equal or in which one parent was more actively involved in caregiving.
The next question that the participants were asked was what they thought would happen in "today's legal system?" Here participants thought the legal system would come to dramatically different conclusions. In the case in which both parents had 50-50 caregiving time, the study participants estimated that the legal system would award equal time in only 28% of the cases, although another 47% estimated that the child would live with mom and get lots of time with dad. In the case in which the mother was described as spending more time with the child, the most common expectation (about 33%) was that the court would rule that the child should live with mom and dad would get "some" time. In the reverse case in which the dad was described as spending more time in caregiving prior to the divorce, again only 27% expected the courts to award equal time to both parents. The study participants did not expect fathers who were caregivers to get the same results as the mothers. Twenty-seven percent expected the judge to rule that the child should live with the mom, but the father would get a lot of time. Likewise, only 24% expected that the judge would rule that the child would live with the father and the mother would get to spend a lot of time with the child.

All of that BS and more hysteria over a study done in Arizona via a polling of 100 jurors ---
This was all conjecture and a hypothetical polling --- add the fact that you couldn't get past the title or even past the first paragraph...just makes you look really foolish and desperate.

BTW - since there is such a rash of WHINERS and COMPLAINERS reporting any and all avatar deviations --- Magistrate sacked over views on adoption to same sex couples plans legal action - Page 5 202592697

Magistrate sacked over views on adoption to same sex couples plans legal action - Page 5 202592697

I would strongly suggest that you learn how to type my name correctly; or I might be forced to join the B & M pack and start flooding the PM's!

by Tommy Monk Tue Mar 15, 2016 10:25 pm

Within the framework of the 'law'... you could easily argue that it may well be in the best interests of a child to be placed with a same sex couple if the child was already behaving in a way that showed they were most likely gay, and being with a set of adoptive same sex couple parents would be a much more understanding and supportive environment than with a mf couple who may not be as supportive etc...

But that would be the only way I can think of that would possibly justify it...

by veya_victaous Tue Mar 15, 2016 10:33 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:No... the law says that only what's in the best interests of the child should be considered!!!

And that will only be one of the options... the one with a mother and a father!!!

NO You Dumb Homophobic FUCKWIT

YOU need to GROW THE FUCK UP AND GET IN THE MORDERN WORLD

2 dads or 2 mums is JUST AS GOOD as a mum and dad

Your kids should be taken away Because their Parent, YOU, is SCUM and ONLY THE INTEREST OF THE CHILD Should BE LOOKED AT WHICH MEAN you COULD NEVER GO NEAR THEM !!!!

It is a Million times Better to be raised by homosexuals than Homophobs and racsits

by Tommy Monk Tue Mar 15, 2016 10:40 pm

ASPCA... I suggest you get another pair of glasses and properly read the bits you highlighted and in the context of it...

All huff and puff waffle!!!

The actual statistics on custody awards showed that fathers only got awarded full custody in 8-14% and equal custody in only 4-6%...!!!

And you try room accuse me of lying and twisting...!?

And you still haven't apologised from before...

by Guest Tue Mar 15, 2016 10:48 pm

Tommy, in 90% of divorce cases the couple decide it between them and it never goes to a family court, so that 8 - 14% is a small number in comparison to the number of divorces, and many of them are when the men have been abusive, so they are not likely to get custody unless the court is utterly stupid, as it sometimes is.

Child Custody in the United Kindom.

The United Kingdom has a completely different approach to child custody than the USA, Canada and Australia. In those countries the child custody is a court decision, in the U.K. the parents decide.
In principle, parents agree on what will happen to the children themselves and there is no intervention from the courts at all.
In the divorce process in the U.K. the courts are involved in the offical documents of the divorce itself (the Decree Absolute) and in the arrangement of the financial matter (Ancillary Relief).
During the divorce process the divorcing couple needs to file a "Statement of Arrangements for Children". This document lists all the children and lists details of their situation: where they go to school, where they live, who takes care of them when their parents are at work. It is purely for information purposes for the court. It does not need to be signed and the parents nor the children can claim anything from its contents.
In almost all divorce cases in the U.K. the parents find a satisfactory "custody" solution together and no intervention from the courts is needed at all. This seems to be the ideal situation.
Compared to other countries where the courts are involved, this approach seems to work very well.
The costs are much lower, because there is no filing to be prepared by a solicitor or other professionals. Custody arrangements are agreed in a very short period between the parents. This works as a big relief for the children. They do not have to wait until the court decides or confirms a proposed custody arrangement. Parents tend to fight less over child custody uk matters. Children of divorce benefit from these side effects.
Only if the divorcing parents explicitly ask the court to help them out because they have issues with the child custody they cannot resolve between them, the court might decide and give orders. This legal process is not related to the divorce. Going to this court comes at a fee.

http://www.children-and-divorce.com/child-custody-uk.html

by Tommy Monk Tue Mar 15, 2016 10:52 pm

Veya... you are a fool!!!

Next you'll be telling us that two left shoes is the same as two right shoes... and both are also the same as having a pair of left/right shoes!!!

Although I'm sure you would complain if a shoeshop told you that and was trying to force you to wear two left shoes or two right shoes...!!!

lol!

by Guest Tue Mar 15, 2016 10:59 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Veya... you are a fool!!!
Next you'll be telling us that two left shoes is the same as two right shoes... and both are also the same as having a pair of left/right shoes!!!
Although I'm sure you would complain if a shoeshop told you that and was trying to force you to wear two left shoes or two right shoes...!!!

So says the member that can't use anything but a 'BLOG' and a poll that surveyed 100 potential jurors as if it's written on the Holy Grail of Facts and PROVEN DATA!

Your abuse of my name has been reported; you were asked to stop! Evil or Very Mad

by Tommy Monk Tue Mar 15, 2016 11:07 pm

And sassy... firstly waffle... but secondly you are confirming exactly what I said!!!

How thick are you...!?

If you're not supporting veya in his view that everyone who doesn't agree with him should be exterminated... and then claiming you are against extremists of all kinds... while not being against yourself and/or veya...!?

Then you are trying to argue against points with evidence that actually supports the points...!!!???

Most amusing!

by veya_victaous Tue Mar 15, 2016 11:14 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:And sassy... firstly waffle... but secondly you are confirming exactly what I said!!!

How thick are you...!?

If you're not supporting veya in his view that everyone who doesn't agree with him should be exterminated... and then claiming you are against extremists of all kinds... while not being against yourself and/or veya...!?

Then you are trying to argue against points with evidence that actually supports the points...!!!???

Most amusing!

Evil should not be tolerated

Any Reason you can give to ban homosexual parents is Million times MORE applicable for YOU, personally YOU.

Your posts in this thread alone make abundantly apparent that you would be COMPLETE SCUM as a PARENT and should not be allowed to open your mouth around Children. It would be Cruelty and Child abuse to allow you to express such Bullshit hate filled opinions to a minor.

Absolutely think anyone that expresses what you have should be in removed from society. Treated like the terrorist threat you are. The world needs to stop appeasing uneducated hill shepherds like you. Solve both RW nationalists and ISIS the same way because they are the same

by Guest Tue Mar 15, 2016 11:20 pm

Tommy, sometimes you surpass yourself with the extent of your stupidity. What I posted in know way bear out what you said. It shows that in 90% of cases the couple work out joint custody for themselve. ONLY 10% OF CASES COME TO THE FAMILY COURT! SO 90% HAVE ALREADY GOT JOINT CUSTODY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by Tommy Monk Tue Mar 15, 2016 11:21 pm

aspca4ever wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Veya... you are a fool!!!
Next you'll be telling us that two left shoes is the same as two right shoes... and both are also the same as having a pair of left/right shoes!!!
Although I'm sure you would complain if a shoeshop told you that and was trying to force you to wear two left shoes or two right shoes...!!!

So says the member that can't use anything but a 'BLOG' and a poll that surveyed 100 potential jurors as if it's written on the Holy Grail of Facts and PROVEN DATA!

Your abuse of my name has been reported; you were asked to stop!

I am still waiting for you to apologise for your last lot of lies and false accusations and insulting language against me...!?

I think the playing with your name is minor in comparison...!

And I have never been asked to stop any name play... so you are just lying even more!!!

by Tommy Monk Tue Mar 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Sassy... when the court decides... what are the figures for what they decide...!?

lol!

Now... isn't that what I said...!?

lol!

Honestly...!?

How thick are you...!?

Most amusing! ! !

by Guest Tue Mar 15, 2016 11:36 pm

No, numpty, I was using your figures to show you that even with your figures that are WRONG, there are still 90% that have JOINT CUSTODY before you come to anything else, so most children DO NOT GO TO JUST THE MOTHERS - BLOODY DOH, DOUBLE DOH AND OFF THE FRIGGIN SCALE DOH!

by Tommy Monk Tue Mar 15, 2016 11:43 pm

So when I said that courts overwhelmingly award custody to the mothers instead of the fathers... what bit of that is wrong...!?

lol!

You are so thick... it is beyond words...!!!

by Guest Tue Mar 15, 2016 11:47 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:So when I said that courts overwhelmingly award custody to the mothers instead of the fathers... what bit of that is wrong...!?

You are so thick... it is beyond words...!!!

Tommy, you really are extremely good at being extremely stupid. You were trying to make out that in the overwhelming number of case of divorce, custody was awarded to the mother. You didn't even know that in the majority of court cases the couple work out joint custody for themselves. Now I'm off to a good book, it's only possible to have patience with fools for so long. You thought that your figures were about all separations, not just 10%, you don't fool anyone.

by Guest Tue Mar 15, 2016 11:47 pm

total count = 5
LordFoul snagged you = 1 time
Aspca4ever snagged you = 4 times and I'm so enjoying your feeble rejoinders and waiting for more 'BLOGS' to support your lack of proven facts and data!
Such a horrid debater and a real whiner as well Magistrate sacked over views on adoption to same sex couples plans legal action - Page 5 919144451

Magistrate sacked over views on adoption to same sex couples plans legal action - Page 5 919144451

by Tommy Monk Tue Mar 15, 2016 11:58 pm

I was talking about the court decisions you idiot!!!

I was only ever talking about the court decisions you twat!!!!!!

The figures I posted were for the court decisions of custody!!!

And only 8-14% to fathers and only 4-6% joint custody!!!

by Tommy Monk Wed Mar 16, 2016 12:02 am

Still waffling bollocks I see specs...!?

'Keep repeating the lie'... eh...!?

by Eilzel Wed Mar 16, 2016 12:05 am

As Vic has said, we have have a major shortage of adoptive parents. Like it or not, gay couples provide a valuable home for children who otherwise wouldn't get one.

In a perfect world heterosexual couples wouldn't have kids they don't want. But they do, a lot. And gay couples do not look to adopt on a whim. Its is a great solution to the problem of leaving kids in care permanently.

by Guest Wed Mar 16, 2016 12:05 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Still waffling bollocks I see specs...!?

'Keep repeating the lie'... eh...!?

total count = 5
LordFoul snagged you = 1 time
Aspca4ever snagged you = 4 times and I'm so enjoying your feeble rejoinders and waiting for more 'BLOGS' to support your lack of proven facts and data!
Such a horrid debater and a real whiner as well Magistrate sacked over views on adoption to same sex couples plans legal action - Page 5 919144451

by Victorismyhero Wed Mar 16, 2016 12:35 am

I'm still waiting to find out if tommy recons In care is a better option

Magistrate sacked over views on adoption to same sex couples plans legal action - Page 5 2190311264

Magistrate sacked over views on adoption to same sex couples plans legal action - Page 5 2190311264

by 'Wolfie Wed Mar 16, 2016 2:26 am

Tommy Monk wrote:No... the law says that only what's in the best interests of the child should be considered!!!

And that will only be one of the options... the one with a mother and a father!!!

WHAT a crock...

IN one sentence, Tommy seems to have declared that he believes that even a grossly abusive parent is better than none ?

ONCE again Tommy just has to confirm what everyone else on here already knows -- what a clueless and supercilious prat he really is..

by Major Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:47 am

Tommy is a realist.

You lot assume instead of reading his script,
most of the time.

by Tommy Monk Wed Mar 16, 2016 1:03 pm

While we have mf adoptive parents denied for reasons like this...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2963523/Loving-couple-banned-adopting-husband-e-cigarette.html

And...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20474120

We have some trying the spurious claim that same sex coupkes are needed because of the shortage of potential adoptive parent couples!!!

And keep repeating the lie specsaver...

by Tommy Monk Wed Mar 16, 2016 2:02 pm

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...

by Guest Wed Mar 16, 2016 2:25 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

While we have mf adoptive parents denied for reasons like this...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2963523/Loving-couple-banned-adopting-husband-e-cigarette.html

And...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20474120

We have some trying the spurious claim that same sex coupkes are needed because of the shortage of potential adoptive parent couples!!!

And keep repeating the lie specsaver...

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jun/03/8000-shortage-foster-families-demand-carers-bbc-series

idiot

You then post up one example of social workers denying a pair as if to claim there is no crisis

That makes you a double idiot

To then add a third story, which was a poor story,

That makes you a treble idiot, because there is still a massive shortfall, and a couple of stories does not tally up to the massive shortfall

And to top that all off the law does not discriminate against people having families because they are gay

Countless evidence shows they raise children as good as if not better than heterosexual parents

You are just being one thick ignorant fuckwit

But research on families headed by gays and lesbians doesn't back up these dire assertions. In fact, in some ways, gay parents may bring talents to the table that straight parents don't.

http://www.livescience.com/17913-advantages-gay-parents.html

Study Finds Same Sex Couples Make Better Parents: Is It Because They're More Prepared?

http://www.medicaldaily.com/study-finds-same-sex-couples-make-better-parents-it-because-theyre-more-prepared-291628

Gay Parents As Good As Straight Ones

http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gay-parents-as-good-as-straight-ones/

by Tommy Monk Wed Mar 16, 2016 2:38 pm

But the study I posted showed numerous negative and detrimental effects on the children!!

Only a mf couple would give the best and most normal and natural home family environment and experience that has any chance of serving the best interests of a child!!!

by Guest Wed Mar 16, 2016 2:42 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
But the study I posted showed numerous negative and detrimental effects on the children!!

Only a mf couple would give the best and most normal and natural home family environment and experience that has any chance of serving the best interests of a child!!!

Well countless more show that your one was bullshit, just like your stance here

The country and law do not agree with you

I suggest you get over it as the majority of the population do not agree with you

There is an alternative for you, where there is still hostility to homosexuality

Choose a Muslim majority country to live

by Tommy Monk Wed Mar 16, 2016 2:47 pm

Only 14 countries in the whole world allow same sex adoption dodge.. it would appear the world agrees that it shouldn't be allowed!!!

And the stud I posted is much more robust than any of the flimsy pro gay studies you refer to...

by Guest Wed Mar 16, 2016 2:50 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Only 14 countries in the whole world allow same sex adoption dodge.. it would appear the world agrees that it shouldn't be allowed!!!

And the stud I posted is much more robust than any of the flimsy pro gay studies you refer to...

Wrong, its legal in 25

The world is adapting and the country you live in does not agree with you.

So you have plenty of countries to go live in as it bothers you so much

So again what matters is rightfully its legal here and its only been because of religious idiocy that has denied it for so long

by Tommy Monk Wed Mar 16, 2016 2:59 pm

Sorry... only 14 in Europe and only another 11 in the rest of the world... That's not a lot is it...?

Looks like the world is overwhelmingly against it!!!

But what matters is inly whats in the best interests of the child... and the study I posted showed numerous negative and detrimental effects on the children!!

Only a mf couple would give the best and most normal and natural home family environment and experience that has any chance of serving the best interests of a child!!!

by Eilzel Wed Mar 16, 2016 3:04 pm

So tommy, as Vic asked, is a child always better off in care than with any gay couple?

by Guest Wed Mar 16, 2016 3:06 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Sorry... only 14 in Europe and only another 11 in the rest of the world... That's not a lot is it...?

Looks like the world is overwhelmingly against it!!!

But what matters is inly whats in the best interests of the child... and the study I posted showed numerous negative and detrimental effects on the children!!

Only a mf couple would give the best and most normal and natural home family environment and experience that has any chance of serving the best interests of a child!!!

So your argument is that when there was little woman's rights and many were against it some how makes it okay for people to be backward?

You see many countries are still heavily influenced by myths called religion

Those now secular do not discriminate, so are you saying you agree with countries like Uganda and Saudi Arabia on human rights issues?

Is that what you are trying to tell me?

by Tommy Monk Wed Mar 16, 2016 3:09 pm

It is in the child's best interests to only be placed with adoptive parents who are a mother and a father as is normal and natural.

by Tommy Monk Wed Mar 16, 2016 3:12 pm

The world's opinion is against it... and I don't remember the UK population ever voting for it either...

by Guest Wed Mar 16, 2016 3:14 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

The world's opinion is against it... and I don't remember the UK population ever voting for it either...

So are you saying you side with the likes of Uganda, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc on human rights issues Tommy?

Simple question, as they are against it

by Tommy Monk Wed Mar 16, 2016 3:25 pm

I'm saying I'm on the side of what's in the child's best interests... and that would only have any chance of being served by only being placed with a mother and a father when adopted out.