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 Guest Thu Mar 17, 2016 4:16 pm

So it now leaves you with an even bigger dilemma Tommy

Because if two parents are better then one, you should have no objection to gay couples by your methodology taking preference over single parents adopting then?

As seen single parents can adopt and where they have no other partners raising that child.

Opps, are you enjoying me make you look utterly stupid?

Razz

by Guest Thu Mar 17, 2016 4:26 pm

For those interested:

As a single man, Matthew thought it was unlikely he'd be allowed to adopt, but he soon had twins who felt right at home

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/nov/02/adoption-success-story-one-for-the-boys

by Victorismyhero Thu Mar 17, 2016 4:39 pm

yes well...the problem we have is that tommy is "not normal"

by eddie Thu Mar 17, 2016 5:08 pm

It's like debating with a programmed robot.

No point.

by Tommy Monk Thu Mar 17, 2016 5:57 pm

Didge wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:I know what happens... I'm just saying that maybe it shouldn't. .. because the best interests of the child are not necessarily being met...

And you do realise that in most cases with one parent... the other parent is normally still involved too...!?

So still a mother and a father...!

Bullshit alert

Single means raising that child either when with one or the other singularly has the children

You stated the best way is with a mother and father, when separated that is not possible and many times they are at odds with each other the parents, showing you have no comprehension what you are talking about.

You just got owned big time and you know it

Dodge... parents can split up with one of them having primary custody, but they are still the mother and the father, and normally both will still be involved with child...

Everyone would agree that this is not ideal... and it could be better... and I'm sure we would all agree that it would be better if the parents hadn't had problems and had stayed together and provided the best environment for the child...

Of course it wouldn't justify removal of the child... although the best interests of the child may not be being met by parents being apart... the best interests of the child are still being met by the fact that the child IS in the custody of A natural parent and the other natural parent hopefully continuing to play a major part involved etc and of course still with the involvement and support of the wider family network etc...

Plus the law is totally different in the criteria of deciding the removal of children from their natural parents and into care... to the laws governing the considerations that should be met when handing away children into the total care of adoptive parents!!!

You wouldn't take a child away from its natural parent/s because one of them smoked or chose to vote Ukip etc (although lefties also wish this and much harsher punishment on Ukip voters!!!)... but the authorities refuse to hand adoptive children to people who even only use an 'e-cig', and remove foster care children from people because they vote ukip!!!

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

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2328341/Council-removed-foster-children-parents-Ukip-membership-discovered-finally-apologises-handling-case-seven-months-on.html

There are countless examples where authorities wouldn't take children away from parent/s but would also not consider placing an adoptive child into!!!

lol!

Dodge... don't you see the difference...!?

Most amusing!!!

by Tommy Monk Thu Mar 17, 2016 6:08 pm

eddie wrote:It's like debating with a programmed robot.

No point.

Eddie... you know I love ya baby... but it seems that your mind is made up on this subject and no matter how many times I provide answers and arguments, you are a closed book on it... normally on other topics you would have said that I had a point by now...!

by Guest Thu Mar 17, 2016 6:08 pm

OMG never laughed so much at such stupidity in all my life

They are not being raised together by the parents and even then single people can adopt who do not have any partners.

Of which you blatantly keep ignoring.

10% of adoptions are by "single" people which renders your view utterly idiotic and would deny them adopting children

Can you not see how utterly and supremely thick you are being Tommy?

So going again you came back with yet further bullshit and still avoided the massive point.

You avoided totally widowers of course as well.

Leaving aside those divorced where again they are being raised by one parent in any given situation either the father or the mother because they no longer live together and will see either at given days and even some fathers do not even bother seeing their children, rendering again your view so idiotic its embarrassing

Leaving that even aside, you still render those single being denied to adopt by your idiotic stance.

Seriously never laughed at such stupidity in all my life

You offer the same two examples of couples losing their children temporally, thus lying and can offer no more or explain why there is a massive shortfall of adoptive parents and you want to deny more people the right to have a family?

You are one sick twisted child hater

You would rather spite countless people wanting to adopt children, not for the sake of the children, just so you could deny loving people raising them, just because they are gay.

That is sick on every level and you are using the children as if you care about their interested when you don give a fuck about them.
If you did care about the children, you would never even make the most idiotic claims you are making

So again, you are rendering not only gay couples, but singles, widowers and many divorced people left without families all because you are a prejudiced idiot, based on your hateful views. Not on any facts where many are raised with love and care.

by Guest Thu Mar 17, 2016 6:15 pm

Lord Foul wrote:yes well...the problem we have is that tommy is "not normal"

Ok, have we all beat up this poor human quite sufficiently --- I mean it's not like he's flopped over and given up; he's just standing as resolute as any other SOS human with no basis of facts but do we need to keep Magistrate sacked over views on adoption to same sex couples plans legal action - Page 10 2023022481

Magistrate sacked over views on adoption to same sex couples plans legal action - Page 10 2023022481

Seriously; he's not reading ANY of the information/links/stats that many of us have provided and he's not going to change his POV --- Magistrate sacked over views on adoption to same sex couples plans legal action - Page 10 2190311264

Magistrate sacked over views on adoption to same sex couples plans legal action - Page 10 2190311264

by Guest Thu Mar 17, 2016 6:15 pm

aspca4ever wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:yes well...the problem we have is that tommy is "not normal"

Ok, have we all beat up this poor human quite sufficiently --- I mean it's not like he's flopped over and given up; he's just standing as resolute as any other SOS human with no basis of facts but do we need to keep

Seriously; he's not reading ANY of the information/links/stats that many of us have provided and he's not going to change his POV ---

Can you for once, just stop stirring?

by Guest Thu Mar 17, 2016 6:18 pm

Didge wrote:
aspca4ever wrote:

Ok, have we all beat up this poor human quite sufficiently --- I mean it's not like he's flopped over and given up; he's just standing as resolute as any other SOS human with no basis of facts but do we need to keep

Seriously; he's not reading ANY of the information/links/stats that many of us have provided and he's not going to change his POV ---
Can you for once, just stop stirring?

COULD YOU FUCK OFF --- or better yet, GROW THE HELL UP! Either one would be an improvement for your immature rants and B & M! Magistrate sacked over views on adoption to same sex couples plans legal action - Page 10 2981866455

Magistrate sacked over views on adoption to same sex couples plans legal action - Page 10 2981866455

by Guest Thu Mar 17, 2016 6:22 pm

aspca4ever wrote:
Didge wrote:
Can you for once, just stop stirring?
COULD YOU FUCK OFF --- or better yet, GROW THE HELL UP! Either one would be an improvement for your immature rants and B & M!

No its you that needs to grow up, you sucker up to posters to stir and its pathetic and childish and what a potty mouth for a supposed old widower eh Ayev

by Major Thu Mar 17, 2016 6:33 pm

Lord Foul wrote:yes well...the problem we have is that tommy is "not normal"

Tommy ROCKS, we need more like him to save our island. cheers

by Tommy Monk Thu Mar 17, 2016 6:40 pm

Load of waffle Didge. ..!!!

You do realise that many of the adoption figures would be made up from cases where the main natural parent has become unable to properly look after the child any more for various reasons and the other natural parent is also unable or unwilling to look after the child... so the child is then adopted by other family members...!?

With most of the single adoption figures most likely being where a child has been adopted by a single family member like the child's single grandmother or auntie etc... to prevent child going into care...!!!???

You said that about 10% of total adoptions went to single people... which you also said was just over 400 in a year... I'll bet that almost all of them were where a young single mother had problems/drink/drugs/crime/negligent care for child etc, father unable or unwilling to take responsibility etc, and the child was adopted by one of grandparents or other family members!!!

by Guest Thu Mar 17, 2016 6:46 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Load of waffle Didge. ..!!!

You do realise that many of the adoption figures would be made up from cases where the main natural parent has become unable to properly look after the child any more for various reasons and the other natural parent is also unable or unwilling to look after the child... so the child is then adopted by other family members...!?

With most of the single adoption figures most likely being where a child has been adopted by a single family member like the child's single grandmother or auntie etc... to prevent child going into care...!!!???

You said that about 10% of total adoptions went to single people... which you also said was just over 400 in a year... I'll bet that almost all of them were where a young single mother had problems/drink/drugs/crime/negligent care for child etc, father unable or unwilling to take responsibility etc, and the child was adopted by one of grandparents or other family members!!!

Its not waffle

You would deny single parents

You would deny many divorced parents

You would deny widowers

You would deny gay parents

All because you would rather see children suffer than be loved by any of the above by your ridiculous stance and hate you hold for all the groups above. That to you only a mother and father are best to raise a child.

You have insulted hundreds of millions of people around the world by your backward views

You then claim they are all single mums, why the children needed homes, even though I posted up countless cases of the worst abuse last year and many were from heterosexual parents.

So now you are slagging off single mums as well,. how low can you go with each post.

You really are one sick twisted individual

Please continue, as I am having a field day with you today

by Tommy Monk Thu Mar 17, 2016 6:51 pm

Stormee wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:yes well...the problem we have is that tommy is "not normal"

Tommy ROCKS, we need more like him to save our island.

Thank you storm!

I like to think that I bring solid, well reasoned and evidence backed arguments to a debate...

lol!

by Guest Thu Mar 17, 2016 6:51 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
Stormee wrote:

Tommy ROCKS, we need more like him to save our island.

Thank you storm!

I like to think that I bring solid, well reasoned and evidence backed arguments to a debate...

Magistrate sacked over views on adoption to same sex couples plans legal action - Page 10 Laughing-smiley-face-gif-facebook-secret-smileys-codes

by Tommy Monk Thu Mar 17, 2016 7:00 pm

Dodge... you have tried to make out that single people just rock up at the adoption office and are handed children willy nilly...!

I have just explained that many young single mothers have problems continuing looking after their child, and the fathers can't or won't step up... so the children are adopted by one of the grandparents or aunties etc to stop child going into care... that would most likely be the case for virtually all the single person adoptions!!!

by Guest Thu Mar 17, 2016 7:04 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

Dodge... you have tried to make out that single people just rock up at the adoption office and are handed children willy nilly...!

I have just explained that many young single mothers have problems continuing looking after their child, and the fathers can't or won't step up... so the children are adopted by one of the grandparents or aunties etc to stop child going into care... that would most likely be the case for virtually all the single person adoptions!!!

1) Complete fabrication, as why else would i show a link to show what single parents need to do to adopt?

2) You claimed all those adopted by single people would have been where children had been taken into care from single mums based on nothing you could substantiate.

3) You have explained that you hate single parents, divorced parents, widowers, gay parents, as you wish to deny them adopting based off the view you think only a mother and father should raise a child.

4) So either you believe single parents, divorced parents, widowers, gay parents should rightly be allowed to have families or you are one sick hateful individual, that is using the plight of children in care to promote your hate of all of them

by Syl Thu Mar 17, 2016 7:07 pm

aspca4ever wrote:
Didge wrote:
Can you for once, just stop stirring?
COULD YOU FUCK OFF --- or better yet, GROW THE HELL UP! Either one would be an improvement for your immature rants and B & M!

/\ seconded.

I think it's pretty clear that some people hold a point of view that will not be swayed....and if that's what they truly believe why should it?
All the c&p ing in the world wont make it right if they believe it to be wrong.

by Victorismyhero Thu Mar 17, 2016 7:07 pm

so tommy...the woman of a couple who have 2 kids dies.....and the man of course now has sole custody

then he decides to go gay, cos he only married in the first place to placate his parents, who were people like you, and REALLY he was gay....(and yes Tommy, that happens)

what NOW....there you have 2 kids being raised by a same sex couple.....

by Victorismyhero Thu Mar 17, 2016 7:09 pm

tick tock

by Guest Thu Mar 17, 2016 7:09 pm

Syl wrote:
aspca4ever wrote:
COULD YOU FUCK OFF --- or better yet, GROW THE HELL UP! Either one would be an improvement for your immature rants and B & M!

/\ seconded.

I think it's pretty clear that some people hold a point of view that will not be swayed....and if that's what they truly believe why should it?
All the c&p ing in the world wont make it right if they believe it to be wrong.

Talk about missing the point

She was attempting to stir but never mind I guess that was beyond your comprehension

As to views, well they do change, as they have and why societies have progressed

by eddie Thu Mar 17, 2016 7:09 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
eddie wrote:It's like debating with a programmed robot.

No point.

Eddie... you know I love ya baby... but it seems that your mind is made up on this subject and no matter how many times I provide answers and arguments, you are a closed book on it... normally on other topics you would have said that I had a point by now...!

But I really don't think you do have a point Tommy?! And it seems your mind is a closed book because you're against gays anyway so you'll obviously be agaisnt gay adoption.

So we will have to agree to differ.

And besides that Thomas, you haven't even answered my question!

by Major Thu Mar 17, 2016 7:11 pm

Lord Foul wrote:so tommy...the woman of a couple who have 2 kids dies.....and the man of course now has sole custody

then he decides to go gay, cos he only married in the first place to placate his parents, who were people like you, and REALLY he was gay....(and yes Tommy, that happens)

what NOW....there you have 2 kids being raised by a same sex couple.....

How many such hypotheticul instances doest thou knowest of personally? LF.

by eddie Thu Mar 17, 2016 7:13 pm

Didge wrote:
aspca4ever wrote:
Lord Foul wrote:yes well...the problem we have is that tommy is "not normal"

Ok, have we all beat up this poor human quite sufficiently --- I mean it's not like he's flopped over and given up; he's just standing as resolute as any other SOS human with no basis of facts but do we need to keep

Seriously; he's not reading ANY of the information/links/stats that many of us have provided and he's not going to change his POV ---

Can you for once, just stop stirring?

ASPCA and I are no fans of eachother but that post wasn't shit stirring: I think she literally meant "Tommy ain't listening so let's all give up" (I pretty much feel the same tbh)

Don't think it was a dig at you personally didge.

by Victorismyhero Thu Mar 17, 2016 7:13 pm

that is irrelevant stormee

the point is that it could occur (in fact i'd give odds that it has happened at least once...)

what is important is Tommys view on this....

by Guest Thu Mar 17, 2016 7:14 pm

eddie wrote:
Didge wrote:

Can you for once, just stop stirring?

ASPCA and I are no fans of eachother but that post wasn't shit stirring: I think she literally meant "Tommy ain't listening so let's all give up" (I pretty much feel the same tbh)

Don't think it was a dig at you personally didge.

Ayev is always stirring Eddie and her next post proves that and the one on the video of the guy dressing up as a woman to see what its like on a dating app

Not that it matters

by eddie Thu Mar 17, 2016 7:17 pm

Okay well just thought I'd clarify what I thought she meant.

But it is true, Tommy ain't listening. He has always been stuck on this opnion unfortunately.

by Syl Thu Mar 17, 2016 7:19 pm

Didge wrote:
Syl wrote:

/\ seconded.

I think it's pretty clear that some people hold a point of view that will not be swayed....and if that's what they truly believe why should it?
All the c&p ing in the world wont make it right if they believe it to be wrong.

Talk about missing the point

She was attempting to stir but never mind I guess that was beyond your comprehension

As to views, well they do change, as they have and why societies have progressed

My comprehension is a lot sharper than yours.

1...she wasn't stirring, she had a valid point.
2...The endless C&P ing and attempted brow beating you indulge in never works, neither does the name calling, it has the opposite effect.
3...views can and do change, but it's pretty obvious that on this thread Tommys and Stormees never will.....and that is their prerogative.

by Guest Thu Mar 17, 2016 7:22 pm

Syl wrote:
Didge wrote:

Talk about missing the point

She was attempting to stir but never mind I guess that was beyond your comprehension

As to views, well they do change, as they have and why societies have progressed

My comprehension is a lot sharper than yours.

1...she wasn't stirring, she had a valid point.
2...The endless C&P ing and attempted brow beating you indulge in never works, neither does the name calling, it has the opposite effect.
3...views can and do change, but it's pretty obvious that on this thread Tommys and Stormees never will.....and that is their prerogative.

1) Yes he was shit stirring, as proven
2) The vats majority of my posts have been views, which shows you cannot even read, which also shows the views he made,contradict and end up placing more groups not having children. You call people names, so take a leaf out of your own book before you lay that crap on others
3) Yes people will change the more you show how views are wrong by standing united against those who hate. It shows you have no comprehension of history that brought about change, because it was people with views that changed others views for the good

by Victorismyhero Thu Mar 17, 2016 7:27 pm

Lord Foul wrote:so tommy...the woman of a couple who have 2 kids dies.....and the man of course now has sole custody

then he decides to go gay, cos he only married in the first place to placate his parents, who were people like you, and REALLY he was gay....(and yes Tommy, that happens)

what NOW....there you have 2 kids being raised by a same sex couple.....

tick tock tick tock

by Guest Thu Mar 17, 2016 7:28 pm

eddie wrote:Okay well just thought I'd clarify what I thought she meant.

But it is true, Tommy ain't listening. He has always been stuck on this opnion unfortunately.

TY for trying, but if the KING OF IMMATURITY wasn't being ignored by so many - and the guote wasn't even about HIM---he's gotta make it ALL ABOUT HIM Magistrate sacked over views on adoption to same sex couples plans legal action - Page 10 2728977919

Magistrate sacked over views on adoption to same sex couples plans legal action - Page 10 2728977919

I've put the child back in ignore...Tommy has more discussion value than the irrelevant Magistrate sacked over views on adoption to same sex couples plans legal action - Page 10 2981866455

Magistrate sacked over views on adoption to same sex couples plans legal action - Page 10 202592697

by Guest Thu Mar 17, 2016 7:29 pm

aspca4ever wrote:
eddie wrote:Okay well just thought I'd clarify what I thought she meant.

But it is true, Tommy ain't listening. He has always been stuck on this opnion unfortunately.

TY for trying, but if the KING OF IMMATURITY wasn't being ignored by so many - and the guote wasn't even about HIM---he's gotta make it ALL ABOUT HIM
I've put the child back in ignore...Tommy has more discussion value than the irrelevant

And that is not stirring of course

lol poor Ayev

by Major Thu Mar 17, 2016 7:34 pm

Didge, you continually badger, harangue, annoy people with you name calling, stirring, blaming someone else, attempting to belittle them, trolling, you can't read, grow up and such you are so boring, spamming and
l o n g p o s t s.
You go on and on and on and on and on like Ariston.
You cause a lot of trouble on here, give us a break and discuss the thread/topic, NOT the poster.

Just think about that which I have said, no need to shout back with obscenitiz.

by Guest Thu Mar 17, 2016 7:37 pm

Stormee wrote:Didge, you continually badger, harangue, annoy people with you name calling, stirring, blaming someone else, attempting to belittle them, trolling, you can't read, grow up and such you are so boring, spamming and
l o n g p o s t s.
You go on and on and on and on and on like Ariston.
You cause a lot of trouble on here, give us a break and discuss the thread/topic, NOT the poster.

Just think about that which I have said, no need to shout back with obscenitiz.

If people get annoyed they only have themselves to blame.
As why be bothered about views made on a forum, which are not personal or intended to hurt?
If a person gets upset as you do, then clearly you have to look at why you have allowed yourself to get that way.
Even I get annoyed sometimes but continually try to learn from that.
So you only have yourself to blame if you allow things to bother you

by Victorismyhero Thu Mar 17, 2016 8:12 pm

Lord Foul wrote:so tommy...the woman of a couple who have 2 kids dies.....and the man of course now has sole custody

then he decides to go gay, cos he only married in the first place to placate his parents, who were people like you, and REALLY he was gay....(and yes Tommy, that happens)

what NOW....there you have 2 kids being raised by a same sex couple.....

aaaannnnnd...still we wait....

tommy will either not answer OR will deflect this....

because he knows a true answer will show THE REAL reason behind his pages of inane waffle.....

by Tommy Monk Thu Mar 17, 2016 8:19 pm

eddie wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

Eddie... you know I love ya baby... but it seems that your mind is made up on this subject and no matter how many times I provide answers and arguments, you are a closed book on it... normally on other topics you would have said that I had a point by now...!

But I really don't think you do have a point Tommy?! And it seems your mind is a closed book because you're against gays anyway so you'll obviously be agaisnt gay adoption.

So we will have to agree to differ.

And besides that Thomas, you haven't even answered my question!

I am listening eddie... and I am answering too...!

Aren't the rights and best interests of a child far much more important than whether you are 'for' or 'against' gays...!?

And Vic. .. answered already... the rules on taking children off a natural parent and into care are totally different to the rules on duty of care when giving children away to anyone else...

by Guest Thu Mar 17, 2016 8:23 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:
eddie wrote:

But I really don't think you do have a point Tommy?! And it seems your mind is a closed book because you're against gays anyway so you'll obviously be agaisnt gay adoption.

So we will have to agree to differ.

And besides that Thomas, you haven't even answered my question!

I am listening eddie... and I am answering too...!

Aren't the rights and best interests of a child far much more important than whether you are 'for' or 'against' gays...!?

And Vic. .. answered already... the rules on taking children off a natural parent and into care are totally different to the rules on duty of care when giving children away to anyone else...

But your views discriminate against, gay parents, single people, divorced people, widowers ect from having families based off a disingenuous claim you continue to keep making. As any one of the above can be as a good, better or worse than any mother and father dependent on any given situation. Your claim that a mother and father is always best is thus a falsehood, as this is not always the case.
So you are using a flawed argument deliberately and poorly as if to claim all the above groups have no right to adopt children, which as seen is nonsense. You are in fact then arguing for more children to end up staying in care, which is going to leave them unloved and not cared for by people who want to care and love them.

You just keep regurgitating the same nonsense and its be easily shown to be poor, prejudice driven and lacks any substance

by Victorismyhero Thu Mar 17, 2016 8:26 pm

That doesnt answer the question

do YOU think under those circumstances a same sex couple is OK? sod the "official" line...what do YOU say.....

(I told you tommy would deflect and evade answering)

by Tommy Monk Thu Mar 17, 2016 10:17 pm

Vic... I'm not advocating the removal of children from a natural parent in those circumstances unless there arose t be a known substantial risk of harm to the child or neglect/mistreatment of the child or unless the child themselves requested protection etc...

I support the general laws on this... although it must also be noted that the authorities have been tragically lax in acting in a large number of cases where they should have done so... and have also been overactive in cases where they shouldn't have...

I also support the law that requires the child's best interests are paramount when considering placing them in adoption parent homes!!!

I just don't think all children are getting the same basic level of consideration for their best interests... as required by law...!

The only way to be fair is to establish what Is best and then ensure that all children adopted out to non family members gets the same!

One with 2 mums then another with 2 dad's and another with a mum and dad... is not the same... arguably totally different... only one will be best... so should be required by all!!!

by Guest Thu Mar 17, 2016 10:20 pm

by Victorismyhero Thu Mar 17, 2016 10:23 pm

so you actually hold two opposing view points at the same time....how very .....left.....of you.
in the instance I gave, the child would have 2 dads, and therfore by YOUR opinion disadvantaged.....

so what to do?

If what YOU claim is true...then surely something must be done

on the other hand if you think that that is ok...then whats the difference between that situation and adoption by two "dads"????

by Tommy Monk Thu Mar 17, 2016 10:54 pm

Vic... two separate views based on two separate criteria...

The laws over taking children from a natural parent are separate from the laws over the state considering handing away children to the care of other potential adoptive parents...

I don't know why you are conflating the two issues...!?

by Guest Thu Mar 17, 2016 11:40 pm

Didge wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

I am listening eddie... and I am answering too...!

Aren't the rights and best interests of a child far much more important than whether you are 'for' or 'against' gays...!?

And Vic. .. answered already... the rules on taking children off a natural parent and into care are totally different to the rules on duty of care when giving children away to anyone else...

But your views discriminate against, gay parents, single people, divorced people, widowers ect from having families based off a disingenuous claim you continue to keep making. As any one of the above can be as a good, better or worse than any mother and father dependent on any given situation. Your claim that a mother and father is always best is thus a falsehood, as this is not always the case.
So you are using a flawed argument deliberately and poorly as if to claim all the above groups have no right to adopt children, which as seen is nonsense. You are in fact then arguing for more children to end up staying in care, which is going to leave them unloved and not cared for by people who want to care and love them.

You just keep regurgitating the same nonsense and its be easily shown to be poor, prejudice driven and lacks any substance

And Tommy knows he is done

Case closed

by Victorismyhero Thu Mar 17, 2016 11:49 pm

there is no conflation...both sets would have 2 dads

are you arguing that one is somehow "better" than the other?

and if so...why?

and, more importantly i asked for YOU, opinion, not "how different the law is"

bugger the law for the moment...what do YOU think

by Tommy Monk Fri Mar 18, 2016 4:14 pm

Taking a child away from a natural parent is different to the authorities handing a child over to strangers...

I thought that was obvious!

by Guest Fri Mar 18, 2016 4:23 pm

Tommy again your views would deny over 51% of the population adopting and that is just the stats for people who are single based on the census in 2011, let alone all the other groups I mentioned. Not only that again your reasoning is flawed, your views discriminate against, gay parents, single people, divorced people, widowers ect from having families based off a disingenuous claim you continue to keep making. As any one of the above can be as a good, better or worse than any mother and father dependent on any given situation. Your claim that a mother and father is always best is thus a falsehood, as this is not always the case. Even more so where no Mother and father is available to adopt. So you are using a flawed argument deliberately and poorly as if to claim all the above groups have no right to adopt children, which as seen is nonsense. You are in fact then arguing for more children to end up staying in care, which is going to leave them unloved and not cared for by people who want to care and love them.

If there is a huge shortage of adoptive parents, which there is and you want the best interests of children at heart, then clearly the worst option for these children is to remain in care. So even based on your view of the best option being the mother and father, clearly you would render hundreds if not thousands more children stuck in care based off your poor stance. This is why the law does not discriminate against people having the right to a family. Clearly, whether single, heterosexual and gay parents. So clearly the law see's single, homosexual and hetrosexual couples as in the best interest to raise children. And if one parent is seen as in the best interest to adopt a child, then you have no ground to deny two parents who are gay.

by Tommy Monk Fri Mar 18, 2016 4:49 pm

If you are seriously going to try to argue that there is a shortage of prospective adoptive parents... then surely you would be arguing for the end to mother and father couples being denied because one of the smokes an e cig first rather yuan arguing for a child to be placed in a home environment that doesn't give them all the same basic same level of care of their best interests of a mother and father!!!

by Guest Fri Mar 18, 2016 4:56 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:If you are seriously going to try to argue that there is a shortage of prospective adoptive parents... then surely you would be arguing for the end to mother and father couples being denied because one of the smokes an e cig first rather yuan arguing for a child to be placed in a home environment that doesn't give them all the same basic same level of care of their best interests of a mother and father!!!

Copout, diversion and evading every single point.

You are trying to argue off a separate issue, where all people who used an e-cig would have been denied access to adoptive children, not specifically just heterosexual parents, so that is an utterly moot point, when as seen .

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2974014/Adoption-chiefs-U-turn-ban-placing-young-children-parents-use-e-cigarettes.html

Again I refer you to my points which is not just on adoption by where people have children and on the right to have a family

Tommy again your views would deny over 51% of the population adopting and that is just the stats for people who are single based on the census in 2011, let alone all the other groups I mentioned. Not only that again your reasoning is flawed, your views discriminate against, gay parents, single people, divorced people, widowers ect from having families based off a disingenuous claim you continue to keep making. As any one of the above can be as a good, better or worse than any mother and father dependent on any given situation. Your claim that a mother and father is always best is thus a falsehood, as this is not always the case. Even more so where no Mother and father is available to adopt. So you are using a flawed argument deliberately and poorly as if to claim all the above groups have no right to adopt children, which as seen is nonsense. You are in fact then arguing for more children to end up staying in care, which is going to leave them unloved and not cared for by people who want to care and love them.

If there is a huge shortage of adoptive parents, which there is and you want the best interests of children at heart, then clearly the worst option for these children is to remain in care. So even based on your view of the best option being the mother and father, clearly you would render hundreds if not thousands more children stuck in care based off your poor stance. This is why the law does not discriminate against people having the right to a family. Clearly, whether single, heterosexual and gay parents. So clearly the law see's single, homosexual and hetrosexual couples as in the best interest to raise children. And if one parent is seen as in the best interest to adopt a child, then you have no ground to deny two parents who are gay.

So stop avoiding the points Tommy, either to you only mother and fathers should only raise children according to you, or also single people, divorced parents, gay couples etc can raise children. It can only be one or the other based on your ridiculous stance

Laters

by Tommy Monk Fri Mar 18, 2016 5:37 pm

Only one will be in the best interests of the child...!