Comments on: Woman launches legal battle after son is placed with gay foster parents

By: Bishop Ioan

Bishop Ioan — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:24:50 +0000

I get so tired of this nonsense about LGBTQ people "recruiting" children or that simply by being with an LGBTQ couple, a child will turn out to be LGBTQ. If an LGBTQ person cannot be made straight, then a straight child cannot be made LGBTQ people.

I agree that the REAL force behind the whole thing is bigotry. Popele like this make me sick.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Keith

Keith — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 01:01:13 +0000

Jay-Pea
"Don't ass me"…?
Is that a noo voib…?…'to ass'.?
Hahah p'raps 'ask'…?
And "Safford"..?
Dunno.
I live in Salford…jess teezin'..
Ooops…veerin' off the subj.
I'll get shouted at 'gin.
Pretty damned wetttt in Slowford at the mo.
K

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Jean-Paul

Jean-Paul — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:46:28 +0000

Keith:

Not all straight couples are fit to have children. Agreed.
Not all straight persons are fit to marry, agreed.
Not all children are perfect, agreed?
Social engineering? OK.
Ecological engineering? OK.
Who's doing the engineering?
Power to the people?
People to the power?
Don't ass me!

Greetings from Acadia.
How are things in Safford?

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Keith

Keith — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:28:26 +0000

Jean-Paul in Acadia
Well.. we certainly need something along social engineering lines if only to curb the kinds of child abuse we have had here in recent times and not from LGBT folks either, I might add; from presumably sraight women, towards their own babies.
There was a mite called Victoria Climbie, tortured to death, not too many years ago here in London and more recently, a small, beautiful, blue-eyed toddler boy, named in the press as Baby 'P' (Peter), also tortured to death.
Just before that, there was some scumbag trollopy slag from Doncaster who arranged to have her young, (I think teen-aged ) daughter imprisoned/abducted.
The daughter would later be 'found' by the abducter(s) themselves and out would stretch the stinking little mit for the press' reward monies; they are acquainted now with a different sort of stretch.
All these turds are straight (my arse).
So why the general populace always puts 2 and 2 together when they read "..WWWooowwww!!! Gay couple adopt…..!(shokkk horrrrrorororororor…).. er , I have no idea!
They need not look any further than their own middens.
These straights, these cruel abusers most definitely need to be put under the scalpel and it made doubly sure that they never 'baby' a-bleedin'-gain..!
If that is right-wing, fascist, spew on my part then I am sorrow sorrow in the deep fundamold! It is right-wing fascist spew..! Ask me if I am bovvered…
K

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Kenny

Kenny — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:20:14 +0000

How very ungrateful and stupid of the mother. The child will be better off away from the mother, and the Catholic 'charity' involved is just the icing on the cake! There's no Punch without Judy, lol

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Jean-Paul

Jean-Paul — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 21:01:03 +0000

Andy & Steve, & you too Keith:

Wow, you guys are way ahead of me. Talk about your social engineering. Hello Aldous Huxley! It's as good a vision as any.

For the moment. I see this woman as a victim of her circumstances who is in a vulnerable state of mind. In fact, this is the kind of person who could gently be persuaded to visit a clinic to cure her homophobia, if such a thing existed.

Speaking of things that exist, i have often wondered if anyone in the LGBT community is taking notes. Are there LGBT Archives anywhere in the UK? Not just historical, but contemporary material. We have the Canadian Gay & Lesbian Archives on the Internet and boy, if you go in there, it can become a passion to learn so many concretes names and events, etc. and such material can give such a feeling of belonging to a real minority group with a history that goes back to time immemomerial really. We have always been around!

Yea, Judy Garland would have been 87 today. What a voice, what a performer! I believe she visited Danny La Rue every now and then.

I love visionaries like youse guys. More, more, more!

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Keith

Keith — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 18:56:32 +0000

#35
ANDY AND STEVE.
MY SENTIM'S EGGZACKLY…AND IT WILL COME… NOT IN OUR LIFETIMES, & CERTAINLY NOT IN MINE, BUT IT WILL COME; GOT TO.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Andy & Steve

Andy & Steve — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 13:13:22 +0000

Another reason to support enforced sterilisation of the bewildered and feckless. Or, failing that, a licence to be obtained by persuading a panel of Doctors and Psychiatrists you are actually capable of looking after your progeny to be issued BEFORE procreation begins.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: bentham

bentham — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 05:37:50 +0000

HAPPY BIRTHDAY JUDY GARLAND (1922-1969)

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Clara

Clara — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 02:07:02 +0000

Everything everyone else said, inc. Clementine, I guess although her views are homphobic, if I was her and ignorant I would feel very helpless.

Also.. she lives in freaking Brighton! How can she be so ignorant? and also, I'm sorry but the first thing most people think when they hear Brighton is "gay" (and I'm from Brighton). Obviously nobody owns anywhere, but I do feel a bit like, when in Brighton… no you don't have to be gay obviously, but its a bit ridiculous to be homophobic. The majority of Brightoners dislike homophobes, or am i wrong?

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Clementine

Clementine — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 20:54:41 +0000

Simon writes:

Sorry, I was extending fundies to mean anyone who took a literalist view of the truth of the Bible, an anathema to me – and something they'd be likely to convey to a child in their care, even if they weren't directly exclaiming 'you're gonna burn!' 24/7.

I wonder if there are checks and balances that allow children to stay in touch with their parents affiliations: e.g. to go to church – or conversely to some queerfest – once a week, so they weren't abruptly withdrawn from the world view they'd grown up with. The positive thing about this is that i. they'd see that adults have a variety of views and ii. that they can choose for themselves. It would also take the wind out of the sails of the likes of the Thomas More legal centre.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: john sharp

john sharp — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:46:01 +0000

the mothers stupidity can be contagious
but if the kid is gay he will be gay
if he is not he will have still caring gay parents.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Boi Polloi

Boi Polloi — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:36:28 +0000

I do have to agree. If they were straight hotel owners, I'm sure this wouldn't be an issue. But of course, gay hotel owners must cater to the gays, so this boy is going to be up to his tiny little eyeballs in glitter and rainbows.

Sometimes I really hate people.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Bud Burgoon-Clark

Bud Burgoon-Clark — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:26:06 +0000

"You can meet them in shops, or in trains, or at tea …" as the grand old Anglican hymn goes …

Children are SURROUNDED by gay people every day … at school, at church, at malls … everywhere.

The idea that gay hotel owners can't protect a child from meeting gay boarders is ludicrous.

And, as many have said,

"YOU CAN'T CATCH 'THE GAY'."

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Joe E in California

Joe E in California — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 15:23:55 +0000

And what about all the non-gay hotel owners with children?
And why a catholic legal representation?
We know why!
Bigotry. That's the what and why of it!

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Simon Murphy

Simon Murphy — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 15:18:02 +0000

#25: Clementine: You say: "'caring and responsible' religious fundies"

Well isn't that a contradiction in terms? It is not possible to be a caring and responsible person if you promote hatred and bigotry therefore you disqualify yourself from being a foster parent.

Hatred and bigotry and opposition to democracy is what defines religion as they try to pervert the laws to suit the rules of their cults at the expense of opposing beliefs.

Don't get me wrong – if a religious fundie believes in 'god' it is absolutely no problem so long as they accept that opposing views are just as valid as their own and they don't try to impose their bigotry on the foster child.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Jean-Paul

Jean-Paul — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 15:16:23 +0000

Keith:

No, I do not see it yet. What I do see is more and more people like us, gay and/or straight, who are gathering the facts future generations will use to smarten themselves up.

On the downside, I do not believe in Utopia. There will always be positive and negative things happening on this planet as in the cosmos.

My personal hope is that it will play itself out in the ecological arena. Call me a fool!

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Clementine

Clementine — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 14:44:21 +0000

There's some interesting issues here – not least that her wider family appear to want to look after the boys but aren't being allowed to.

Of course her idea about gay fosterers is wrongheaded. But if I knew that my child was being taken away to be looked after by 'caring and responsible' religious fundies, I might equally be appalled and fear indoctrination. So my reaction to all this isn't straightforward… does anyone else feel ambiguous?

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Keith

Keith — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 14:03:41 +0000

Darrien
Robert ex – Pat
Jean Paul

EXACTLY SO!
EACH OF YOU, SPOT ON..!
BUT JEAN PAUL…I don't see it yet…do you really..?
It's hard to kill a bad thing!
And that RCC is a cunch of bunts…from top to bottom, with very few exceptions.

(Report comment to the moderator)

By: Darrien

Darrien — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 13:46:41 +0000

I'm with Simon Murphy on this one. Clearly the woman has her own mental health problems and recognises that she can't look out for her child. It's the Catholic legal centre that seems to be leading the way on this. But I can't see what they hope to achieve. The law is completely secure on insisting that the best interest of the child trumps everything else. If this couple have passed all the incredibly stringent tests to become foster parents, and have fostered in the past, then it's already officially accepted that they will act in the best interest of the child. I can't see that the Thomas More will succeed in any case and all they'll really do is close down the opportunity for religious organisations to make cases against gay or lesbian adopters and fosterers.

(Report comment to the moderator)