|
Couple forced to give grandchildren up for adoption by gay men because theyre too old – at 46 and 59 | Mail Online — Too old at 46??? Of course this will be turned into a gay bashing issue, when it is an ageism issue.
Two young children are to be adopted by a gay couple, despite the protests of their grandparents.
The devastated grandparents were told they would never see the youngsters again unless they dropped their opposition. The couple, who cannot be named, wanted to give the five-year-old boy and his four-year-old sister a loving home themselves. But they were ruled to be too old – at 46 and 59.
For two years they fought for their rights to care for the children, whose 26-year- old mother is a recovering heroin addict. They agreed to an adoption only after they faced being financially crippled by legal bills.
The final blow came when they were told the children were going to a gay household, even though several heterosexual couples wanted them.
Good night! This just seems like someone had it in for them, or wanted to do some social engineering. Don’cha think?
What political party has been running the UK? The Nazi party?
This is one of those cases where you gather up the kids and go to the an embassy and request asylum. Which embassy? Shop around. Maybe Australia, the US, or Canada.
I second the vote for asylum. I don’t even want to visit the UK now after reading about all of their insanity. I think a lot of the nanny-state big government bullshit originates in England & Israel and makes it’s way over to the U.S. (that is, if we choose to take it).
I hate Nazis.
All the more reason to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan anyway lets invade Britain and save them from tyranny.
Whats wrong with you freaks?????
ANYBODY makes better parents than a pair of numbskulls who already produced a heroin addict.
Why should proven failures get a second shot over the great unknown?
“Some local authorities forbid adoption by smokers and obese people but actively support gay fostering and adoption – even though research shows overwhelmingly that children are best brought up by a mother and father.”
From the article.
Social engineering.
If nature intended gay men to raise babies, they would be able to impregnate each other. They can’t, so they shouldn’t be able to raise them. Period. End of story.
I object to this story on the account of government intervention. I doubly object to this story due to the gay parent adoption.
They have a boy they can play with, without any supervision. Another male that was “born gay.”
I agree with bobo (#6), however I also think there must be something else at work here.
#8 The gay thing is irrelevant, as is the grandparent’s age (my mother was 45 when she had my brother), there is something that the grandparents are keeping quiet and the media hasn’t dug up yet, give it a few days and I think we’ll find out the real reason why granny and gramps have been deemed unsuitable.
@bobbo: depends, did the girl get addicted at 25 or 15? If it was 25 the parents couldn’t do a thing about it. The fact that the grandparents fought for their grandkids to the point of financial ruin shows they are likely invested.
perhaps the grandparents should try fixing their first mistake before creating another. Giving the grandparents custody would probably still leave the mother in the childs life, giving it a bad influence.
#9
By your argument, you should also oppose heterosexual couples from adopting any children, as the Father would be abuse it if it were a girl and the mother would abuse it if it were a boy. Would that also mean that you would support a gay couple raising a child of the opposite sex?
Gay foster parents, particularly the urban affluent, have a good record of adoptive parenting.
#11–Marcucci==I agree. Everything should be fact dependent and we rarely have all the facts. I’m just going on the information we have, limited as it always is.
This is a horribly written article. It shouldn’t mention that the people who want to adopt are gay if it wanted to have some sort of attempt at objectivity. Moreover, they don’t even say until more than half way through the article that the grandparents aren’t allowed to adopt because they are too old — and sick. Now it doesn’t seem as if their medical conditions are all that serious but still I’m sure it has something to do with the situation.
I call shenanigans. I think JCD should have put the bullshit meter on this one. Not to disparage such a ‘reputable and unbiased’ institution as the Daily Mail .
I am deeply disturbed that there are people posting here who think it’s OK to seize children because the parents raised a bad apple. Does anyone here have siblings who are screw ups? Jesus.
Next-of-kin should trump everything that’s not an immediate danger to the child’s life. But of course, we have people like bobbo who would prefer that all parents pass an IQ test before they’re allowed to have kids.
You goddamned fascist. And you wonder why we hate left-wingers like you.
By the “old age” logic, all 41-year old mothers should have their children taken from them at birth.
#17–brm==those words really hurt. I AM NOT A FASCIST!!!!
I am a strict eugenicists based on objective performance measures on an otherwise non-discrimination basis, unless you are religious.
Big, BIG difference. Jeesh!!!!!!
Isn’t raising a bad sibling raising a bad kid? How much demonstrated failure do you need? and why can’t you take a clue from #10.
Whattadope!
I love it when they make kids guinea pigs. Assholes.
#19 bobbo –
“Isn’t raising a bad sibling raising a bad kid?”
What I meant, you idiot, was that by your logic any of us with screw-ups for siblings would have been taken away from our parents.
The gay men are not forcing them to give up their children. The government is.
# 22 Stritch84 said, “The gay men are not forcing them to give up their children. The government is.”
Yes, and?
#21–brm==now come down from your hissy fit and explain to us all how laws that should or should not apply to PARENTS should or should not apply to GRAND PARENTS.
Are the “natural rights” of GRANDPARENTS exactly the same as Parents?????
But to the implication of your question, which somehow cannot come to grips with what I clearly and expressly said==yes, any parent, grand parent, foster parent, adoptive parent, overnight guardian or whatever that raises a drug addicted kiddie should be looked at more closely than a similar person who has not.
Don’t YOU think bad child rearing should have some consequences or as you imply, how kiddies come out is a random act of chance?
All your soma are belong to us.
If it is in the Daily Mail it must be true and accurately reported…. I am sure they wouldn’t twist a story just to sell papers…
http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/
Our mother was 46 when she gave birth to my youngest brother. Our father was 49. We all lived through the experience.
This fascination with gays must stop. Just enroll and be done with it.
Tell them I referred you so I can get to 50,000 points.
# 28 Dallas said, “Tell them I referred you so I can get to 50,000 points.”
Hmmm, what can you buy with those points?
Don’t worry. The gays won’t be around in Britain after Europe becomes Islamic. I think it is against Sharia law or something.
#24 bobbo:
The court is supposed to decide in the interest of the child. Breaking up a family just because the grandparent’s child is a screw-up is not appropriate, and most people would agree.
The criterion you propose is too broad, and really doesn’t say a lot about the safety of the child. An example: parents have their children taken away because their eldest is a schizophrenic who ends up in jail.
If we start judging the fitness of parents based on the behavior of one of their *adult* children, we’d be on a path of misery and pain.