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

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:
Not just two...I said use your search engine, there are plenty.

If you are trying to win an argument by counting numbers, have you taken into consideration that homosexuals have only been allowed to adopt or foster for a short time?

Thought not.

Yes I am show how small minded you were being as you present one case from 2006 and one from 2013, yet I asked oput of the cases from the worst ones last year presented.

The fact is its actually rare for such abuse cases with homosexuals couples.
One was not even adopted parents but I guess you did not even check that either

So again my questions still stand

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:

Yes I am show how small minded you were being as you present one case from 2006 and one from 2013, yet I asked oput of the cases from the worst ones last year presented.

The fact is its actually rare for such abuse cases with homosexuals couples.
One was not even adopted parents but I guess you did not even check that either

So again my questions still stand

You are the small minded one if you think your selected list of abusers is the only one that counts.

In the 11 years homosexuals have been allowed to foster and adopt obviously there will be fewer cases of them abusing children in their care.
I'm not sure what you think this argument proves though........it's ridiculous.
Accept the fact that some people think  a loving mother and father is preferable to a father/ father or mother/ mother......you cant brow beat people to agree with you....as this thread proves.

Tommy Monk wrote:Sassy... that was a loaded question!


Dodge... the study asked a group specifically... the findings were shockingly higher for the children raised in same sex couple homes!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:Sassy... that was a loaded question!


Dodge... the study asked a group specifically... the findings were shockingly higher for the children raised in same sex couple homes!!!

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:

You are the small minded one if you think your selected list of abusers is the only one that counts.

In the 11 years homosexuals have been allowed to foster and adopt obviously there will be fewer cases of them abusing children in their care.
I'm not sure what you think this argument proves though........it's ridiculous.
Accept the fact that some people think  a loving mother and father is preferable to a father/ father or mother/ mother......you cant brow beat people to agree with you....as this thread proves.

I never said it was the one that counted

The point was to show to Tommy, and you came bounding in trying to look a smart arse and came off looking silly as all you could do is post one foster case and one adopted parent case.

The fact is like I say its rare for there being abusive homosexual adopted parents and for good reason, based on why many start to have families. The points is all you could post up is one single case through adoption

This is not brow beating people to agree with me, but show up mindless idiots who try to deny gay people their fundamental right to have a family

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:

I never said it was the one that counted

The point was to show to Tommy, and you came bounding in trying to look a smart arse and came off looking silly as all you could do is post one foster case and one adopted parent case.

The fact is like I say its rare for there being abusive homosexual adopted parents and for good reason, based on why many start to have families. The points is all you could post up is one single case through adoption

This is not brow beating people to agree with me, but show up mindless idiots who try to deny gay people their fundamental right to have a family

I didn't bound in...I merely typed a response to your waffling.

I could have posted plenty examples of abusive gay parents....no point as I have already said a persons sexuality does not determine whether they abuse children or not.

You are whining about bias against gay adoptive parents yet you are incredibly biased against straight parents......which makes you a hypocrite.

Oh....and is anyone on this forum who disagrees with you not silly or mindless idiots in your eyes?

That's it from me....night.

sassy wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Sassy... that was a loaded question!


Dodge... the study asked a group specifically... the findings were shockingly higher for the children raised in same sex couple homes!!!

Absolutely straight question, you are just a coward and don't have the courage of your convictions.  You want to say care, but daren't because it will expose you for the homophobe you are.

Tommy Monk wrote:The best interests of the child is paramount!!!
Which you are in no position or experience to decide on

And enshrined in law!!!
Which allows both heterosexual and gay parents the right to both have families and adopt


A mother and a father is best!!!
Is it? Tell that to the children abused by a mother and father. What is best for a child is loving parents who will care for them no matter if heterosexual or gay and the law backs this



It not fair on children to give this to some and deny it to others in favour of an extreme and unnatural alternative!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

sassy wrote:

Absolutely straight question, you are just a coward and don't have the courage of your convictions.  You want to say care, but daren't because it will expose you for the homophobe you are.

Sassy... it was a loaded question...


Look it up and then conclusively explain to me how it wasn't a loaded question and I'll be happy to answer it...

Lord Foul wrote:and....my question has still not been answered...


HOWEVER

isnt the REAL point this

IF he allowed his religious beleifs to interfere with his judgement in this case is it not lilely that it would interfere with other unrelated cases. EVEN when he "sticks to what the law says"

vis isnt it likely that his religious fervour would result in the imposition of harsher penalties to a pagan than a christian...?

so say a pagan get done for some minor crime...he gets 5 years (the max a magistrates court can impose...any more required they have to refer it to crown court)

a few weeks later a christian gets 6 months for the same offense??

HMMM...I can see WHY they sacked him...

RELIGION has NO part in LAW......

Raggamuffin wrote:It seems to me that some people place a lot of importance on gender roles in parenting. That doesn't make them bad people does it?

Tommy Monk wrote:The best interests of the child is paramount!!!
And enshrined in law!!!
A mother and a father is best!!!
It not fair on children to give this to some and deny it to others in favour of an extreme and unnatural alternative!!!

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:and....my question has still not been answered...


HOWEVER

isnt the REAL point this

IF he allowed his religious beleifs to interfere with his judgement in this case is it not lilely that it would interfere with other unrelated cases. EVEN when he "sticks to what the law says"

vis isnt it likely that his religious fervour would result in the imposition of harsher penalties to a pagan than a christian...?

so say a pagan get done for some minor crime...he gets 5 years (the max a magistrates court can impose...any more required they have to refer it to crown court)

a few weeks later a christian gets 6 months for the same offense??

HMMM...I can see WHY they sacked him...

RELIGION has NO part in LAW......

He might give the Christian a longer sentence on the grounds that they should have known better.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It seems to me that some people place a lot of importance on gender roles in parenting. That doesn't make them bad people does it?

It seems that some will be blind to the fact that 2 men/dad's will be totally different to 2 women/mums... and that both will be totally different again to a 1 man 1 woman  Couple being a mum and dad as is the normal and natural way of things...


You cannot say they are all equal for a child to experience growing up in because they are clearly totally different so in no way and they the same!!!

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:and....my question has still not been answered...


HOWEVER

isnt the REAL point this

IF he allowed his religious beleifs to interfere with his judgement in this case is it not lilely that it would interfere with other unrelated cases. EVEN when he "sticks to what the law says"

vis isnt it likely that his religious fervour would result in the imposition of harsher penalties to a pagan than a christian...?

so say a pagan get done for some minor crime...he gets 5 years (the max a magistrates court can impose...any more required they have to refer it to crown court)

a few weeks later a christian gets 6 months for the same offense??

HMMM...I can see WHY they sacked him...

RELIGION has NO part in LAW......

He might give the Christian a longer sentence on the grounds that they should have known better.

Lord Foul wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

He might give the Christian a longer sentence on the grounds that they should have known better.

In which case it would be just as unfair would it not.....?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

In which case it would be just as unfair would it not.....?

Yes of course, but the question is - are his religious beliefs influencing his decisions? He disapproves of homosexuality, but he might disapprove of gay adoption for other reasons - like gender roles, or the possibility that the child might be bullied or something.

I don't suppose we'll hear any more about it in the press, but it would be interesting to follow the claim he's making.

sassy wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Sassy... it was a loaded question...


Look it up and then conclusively explain to me how it wasn't a loaded question and I'll be happy to answer it...

Only loaded in your eyes because you were scared to answer.  It was a straight question between one situation or another.  I don't need to look anything up Tommy, my command of the English language and my use of it is just fine thanks.

However, you are still a coward.  You will not answer because you know it will let the forum know you are a complete homophobe, you don't have the courage to say 'this is what I believe and hard luck'.  You like to hide behind you little 'lol' man in case people censor you.   That makes you not only a coward, but weak and pathetic.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Simple analogy... when wild animals are kept in zoos etc... isn't it considered best to provide the animals with as much a normal and natural home environment as possible...!?

Why should some children be treated worse than animals by being deliberately placed in home environments that deny them the basic normal and natural environment of a mother and a father while all the others get this as standard requirement...?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes of course, but the question is - are his religious beliefs influencing his decisions? He disapproves of homosexuality, but he might disapprove of gay adoption for other reasons - like gender roles, or the possibility that the child might be bullied or something.

I don't suppose we'll hear any more about it in the press, but it would be interesting to follow the claim he's making.

But he is supposed to know the law on families and not to discriminate, so clearly its more than likely it is his religious views
So his choice would be over a child possible bullied remaining in care to a child possible bullied for having gay parents? That is just absurd, as its about raising a child in a home, not what might happen ion a school. Again why would he have issues over gender roles?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

But he is supposed to know the law on families and not to discriminate, so clearly its more than likely it is his religious views
So his choice would be over a child possible bullied remaining in care to a child possible bullied for having gay parents? That is just absurd, as its about raising a child in a home, not what might happen ion a school. Again why would he have issues over gender roles?

Some people do have issues over gender roles. Look at custody issues - they generally give the mother custody. The implication is that women are better parents. I'm not saying they are, but the courts seem to think they are.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Some people do have issues over gender roles. Look at custody issues - they generally give the mother custody. The implication is that women are better parents. I'm not saying they are, but the courts seem to think they are.

Whether he has an issue or not is irrelevant Rags, as by law he cannot discriminate couples having a family, which would render him unfit to make any ruling on such cases. This is not about whether women are better which matters on custody cases though either is it?
Its about the adoption of children to gay parents

HoratioTarr wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


Why should some children be treated worse than animals by being deliberately placed in home environments that deny them the basic normal and natural environment of a mother and a father while all the others get this as standard requirement...?

That's like asking a child of mixed race, which parent does it prefer?  Black or white?   I'm sure a child brought up with two homosexual parents would love them regardless of who they are.

Tommy Monk wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

That's like asking a child of mixed race, which parent does it prefer?  Black or white?   I'm sure a child brought up with two homosexual parents would love them regardless of who they are.

No... it's not the same at all as that would still include one mother and one father... the loaded question would be about race not mf home environment...... ask any child whether 2 dad's or 2 mums woukd be the same... and whether either would again be same as a mum/dad parent home...!? If it's different then there must also be reasons why and this will come down to only one being the best!!! All children should get the best!!! Not some given to a known worse level of basic care for the sake of keeping a few homosexuals happy...

Tommy Monk wrote:

sassy wrote:

Only loaded in your eyes because you were scared to answer.  It was a straight question between one situation or another.  I don't need to look anything up Tommy, my command of the English language and my use of it is just fine thanks.

However, you are still a coward.  You will not answer because you know it will let the forum know you are a complete homophobe, you don't have the courage to say 'this is what I believe and hard luck'.  You like to hide behind you little 'lol' man in case people censor you.   That makes you not only a coward, but weak and pathetic.

Look up 'loaded question'... then tell us how your question was 'straight'... and I'll be more than happy to answer it..!!!


Your misconception of basic meanings in English may explain a lot about your perceived stupidity in general discourse...!


And your refusal to improve your education in such areas just confirms you unsuitability to enter any intellectual debate... because you quite simply refuse to allow yourself to understand exactly what it is that you are trying to argue about...!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

That's like asking a child of mixed race, which parent does it prefer?  Black or white?   I'm sure a child brought up with two homosexual parents would love them regardless of who they are.

No... it's not the same at all as that would still include one mother and one father... the loaded question would be about race not mf home environment...


... ask any child whether 2 dad's or 2 mums woukd be the same... and whether either would again be same as a mum/dad parent home...!?



If it's different then there must also be reasons why and this will come down to only one being the best!!!



All children should get the best!!!



Not some given to a known worse level of basic care for the sake of keeping a few homosexuals happy...

Lord Foul wrote:Not to mention that he simple fact he has shown religious bias in this case, renders him unfit to judge on ANY case.....

Tommy Monk wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

That's like asking a child of mixed race, which parent does it prefer?  Black or white?   I'm sure a child brought up with two homosexual parents would love them regardless of who they are.

No... it's not the same at all as that would still include one mother and one father... the loaded question would be about race not mf home environment...


... ask any child whether 2 dad's or 2 mums woukd be the same... and whether either would again be same as a mum/dad parent home...!?



If it's different then there must also be reasons why and this will come down to only one being the best!!!



All children should get the best!!!



Not some given to a known worse level of basic care for the sake of keeping a few homosexuals happy...

HoratioTarr wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


No... it's not the same at all as that would still include one mother and one father... the loaded question would be about race not mf home environment...


... ask any child whether 2 dad's or 2 mums woukd be the same... and whether either would again be same as a mum/dad parent home...!?



If it's different then there must also be reasons why and this will come down to only one being the best!!!



All children should get the best!!!



Not some given to a known worse level of basic care for the sake of keeping a few homosexuals happy...

Not so long ago it was deemed shameful to have a mixed race child.   This is my whole point.  What was deemed normal years ago, is now not an issue.  Hopefully,  the same might be applied one day to the attitudes about homosexuals being bandied about here.

Stormee wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Not so long ago it was deemed shameful to have a mixed race child.   This is my whole point.  What was deemed normal years ago, is now not an issue.  Hopefully,  the same might be applied one day to the attitudes about homosexuals being bandied about here.

It still is SHAMEFUL and worse..

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:Not to mention that he simple fact he has shown religious bias in this case, renders him unfit to judge on ANY case.....

I don't think that's fair. You would have to ban any Christian or anyone with any religious faith from being a magistrate.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Stormee wrote:

It still is SHAMEFUL and worse..

You're disgusting.

Tommy Monk wrote:Raggs... others would also have biased views if pro leftie or pro gay etc... should they also be sacked because it may influence their decisions etc...!?

Stormee wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Stormee wrote:

It still is SHAMEFUL and worse..

You're disgusting.

You ar because yo do not have any idea how it equates out.

Lord Foul wrote:

Stormee wrote:

You ar because yo do not have any idea how it equates out.

huh?

Lord Foul wrote:

Stormee wrote:

You ar because yo do not have any idea how it equates out.

huh?

Lord Foul wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't think that's fair. You would have to ban any Christian or anyone with any religious faith from being a magistrate.

only if i could be shown, or was admitted as in this case, that they were allowing their religious beliefs to interfere with their judgements and actions .....

HoratioTarr wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

huh?

I know