UK Grandparents lose children to homosexual couple

I want to see the other side of the story.

I think either A) one or both of the grandparents has a severe illness or disability, preventing them from being full-time caregivers. While this is no reason to prevent them from seeing their children, if it is a severe disease I could see the logic that it may warrent placement elsewhere.

or b) the grandparents are indeed inept.

For those of you saying "They didn't fail the daughter, she chose to do drugs," that is sadly, often untrue.

While the reason that many drug users choose to begin their addiction is often unrelated to family issues, the sad truth is that many parents intentionally perpetuate their children's addictions.

I think you would call that enabling and ther reasons why parents do this vary greatly, I call it "failing" the child.

If that is the case then again I can see the concern.

reply to post by Jenna



here's a good link and a link to another source, hope it helps.

[edit on 5/2/09 by pieman]

reply to post by pieman


Thanks for the second link. This one doesn't have the same anti-gay stench the originally linked story does. But I'm still not buying it. There is much much more to this story than what has been posted in either article.

What grandparents just give up if someone says they are going to get lawyers to take them to court a fifth time over their grandkids? It simply doesn't make sense. If they won four times already in court, there was no reason to think they wouldn't win a fifth time.

This is a disgrace.I feel so sorry for those children.
Obviously the people who do this are corrupt, and get paid off to steal children for people to adopt.Poor damn kids.
What was it the grandparents were doing so wrong?
The grandma is only 46 ffs.Its not like they are to old.
The fact they are gay is irrelevant.
Its wealthy people who pay these civil servant degenerates to find them the perfect little people to purchase from peasants.
How the hell can courts do this is beyond me.

The grandparents, from Edinburgh, spent two years involved in court cases over the children, whose 26-year-old mother is a recovering heroin addict, and finally agreed to adoption when they were faced with mounting legal bills.

This is how they can do it, the mother agreed to the adoption.
They more than likely PAID HER!
Paid a heroin addict, for her CHILDREN!

Oh and MORE!
At our last meeting with social workers in October we were told the process of finding a couple was fairly advanced. I specifically said I didn't want them to go to a gay or lesbian couple.
They specifically asked for them to NOT go to a gay or Lesbian couple?
So one of the Social workers was probably gay, and SOLD THEM TO A GAY COUPLE ON PURPOSE OUT OF SPITE!

[edit on 5-2-2009 by BorgHoffen]

reply to post by Jenna


the OPl was from the catholic news, it's hardly going to be rainbow hued.

i found the original here, it's a bit slushy, i can see why it was edited. it does give a broader account of the story though.

reading between the lines, i don't think the grandparents were willing to look after the children full time and simply wanted access (otherwise they would have fostered in the first place, courts will always place with family first where possible) but are now freaking because it's a gay couple that are adopting the children.

[edit on 5/2/09 by pieman]

Originally posted by Retseh

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Get some priorities and focus on the real point of this story, don't blur it into a propaganda piece for the homophobic tw*ts

I use this post to illustrate my earlier point about how the British use branding to stifle debate.

The conspiracy at work here is that if you object to anything associated with a "gay agenda" you are by definition a nasty bigoted little homophobe, so kindly cease and desist all further discussion. The gays get the kids, deal with it.

Fellow Americans take note, you're watching a history lesson on the fall of the British Empire right here. The foul and vulgar language is just another sign of moral decay, fascinating stuff.

You are accusing me of doing exactly what you and the original writer of the piece are guilty of.

The story here is not that the foster carers are gay. YOU have made this an issue and therefore are focusing on this from a religious and homophobic opinion.

The story is about kids being taken from family, and being placed in the care of another family. It has nothing to do with sexual persuasion other than the emphasis placed on it by both the original writer and those arguing this case based on this sentiment.

The sexuality of the foster carers is an aspect bolstered in an effort to incite bigoted opinion. That is why I personally find it offensive.

I am more intelligent than to simply focus on the "gay" horror tag-line as the focus of this story. Whereas you are more than happy to push this as the sole core of the story.

It is a biased story, written by a biased person and supported by biased people who have completely neglected the realities of this story to support their homophobic argument.

Would people accept the article if the word gay was replaced be Asian, Hindu or Muslim? What difference would it make?

It's weak, it's pathetic, and I'm sure most others here find it an insult to their intelligence that anyone would think they could blind them with "immoral gay people steal kids from grandparents!!!!". This is what you are trying to change this story into, and that is what the story has focused on.

The way this story is being pushed as a gay issue by the religious zealots is a gross disservice to those kids. It really is shameful.

Originally posted by detachedindividual
The way this story is being pushed as a gay issue by the religious zealots is a gross disservice to those kids. It really is shameful.

from the link in my last post.....

Then, less than two weeks ago they learned in a phone call the kids were to be adopted by a gay couple.

Their heartbroken grandmother said: "If we had known how it would turn out, that social workers would choose a home without a mother for them and we'd have to like it or not see them again, we'd never have given up the fight.

seems to me, the only issue the grandparents have is the gay issue.

reply to post by pieman


I think you are reading much more into the article than there is. The quotes from those two don't sound like grandparents that didn't want custody of their grandchildren anymore. There are many things missing from all of these articles, such as why they were taken to court four times over it already. This isn't just a "Oh they threatened us with lawyers so we caved." There is more to it than that, but I highly doubt it has anything to do with them not wanting to have custody of their grandchildren.

Would this story have even made the headlines if the couple who the court approved to adopted the children were *straight*?
Most likely not.
There's your story.
And it stinks.

peace

1984

line2

line3

reply to post by Jenna


yeah, i know i am, i'm reading between the lines.

But social workers got involved after the children's mum failed to bring them home from a visit and police were called in.

The children were put in foster care - an arrangement the grandparents thought was temporary.

i'm assuming that the grandparents decided at this point that they were unable to protect the children from their mum, for whatever reasons

She said: "Even after they went into foster care, we had special times with them. Christmas 2007 was great.
so the grandparents had no issue with the foster care arrangements

the whole "no mother" quote suggests, to me, that the womans main issue is with the sexuality of the adopting couple.

also, bear in mind that the court cases weren't to decide who should be the children's guardians, it was to determine weather they should remain in foster care or should be permanently adopted, the grand parents weren't contesting guardianship itself, which suggests they didn't want it.

What a joke.

"OOH OOH Look at the GAYS taking kids away from their families! Gays are EVIL!!!"



A sad story to be sure, but obviously only part of the story.

reply to post by pieman

The couple thought the fostering was temporary but the local council went to court four times to have the children permanently removed and adopted.

Each time the court ruled in favour of the grandparents but when the council threatened to hire lawyers the couple reluctantly agreed to let them go.

They were taken to court four times to have the children permanently removed. Thus the reason they thought it was temporary. Sure doesn't seem to me that someone who doesn't want their grandkids anymore would go to court to prevent them from being permanently removed and adopted. Especially not four times.

Thus my reasoning for saying there is more to it than just they were threatened. They went to court four times and won, and then they just give up when threatened with lawyers? It doesn't add up.

[edit on 5-2-2009 by Jenna]

Originally posted by detachedindividual
The story here is not that the foster carers are gay. YOU have made this an issue and therefore are focusing on this from a religious and homophobic opinion.

This may come as a shock to you, but not everyone believes that gay couples make good adoptive parents, and that doesn't make them homophobic any more than believing that a gay couple wouldn't make a good tag wrestling team, it's simply a recognition of skill-sets. There is also the question of how many heterosexual couples were passed over by this loony left council before they found a gay couple they could hand the kids over to.

Being in favor of a nuclear family does not make someone a homophobe. If I prefer a Ford to a Toyota, its doesn't make me anti-Toyota, it makes me pro Ford, something that always confuses the "I'm looking to be offended about something" brigade.

As for your highly predictable rant against religion, other than the link, religion was never mentioned, I could just as easily linked this to the same story in the Telegraph or the Daily Mail. You are the only one knocking on that door.

The sexuality of the foster carers is an aspect bolstered in an effort to incite bigoted opinion. That is why I personally find it offensive.

There you go again, typical British PC mud slinging, something that has made your country the paradise that it is today. I once again point you to the basic point that some people don't believe that gay couples have the best skillset for raising young children and the alleged preference shown for gay couples over heterosexual couples.

The way this story is being pushed as a gay issue by the religious zealots is a gross disservice to those kids. It really is shameful.

"Bigots" and "Homophobes" and "Religious Zealots", oh my !! They lurk unseen behind every corner.

The only thing that's shameful is how people like you put their social agenda ahead of the welfare and well-being of children, or the happiness of their extended family. A far more vile form of evil than any mere homophobe could aspire to.

Originally posted by Retseh

This may come as a shock to you, but not everyone believes that gay couples make good adoptive parents, and that doesn't make them homophobic any more than believing that a gay couple wouldn't make a good tag wrestling team, it's simply a recognition of skill-sets.

Uh huh.

I applaud the UK for not discriminating against qualified adoptive parents.

Originally posted by skeptic1
reply to post by Retseh

 

Where I firmly believe that homosexual couples should be able to adopt children legally everywhere in the world, this isn't right.

The grandparents should not be punished for their daughter's heroin problem. They should be allowed to raise their grandchildren in peace without the police and social services getting involved (except where the mother is a danger to her kids due to the heroin).

Unless there is more to the story, it basically sounds like the government just railroaded these people with threats of upheaval for the kids and bankrupting the grandparents in court. Unless there is more to this story, I don't see anything unfit about the grandparents, and they certainly aren't too old.

I am not against homosexual couples, but I am against their marriage and privilege of adopting children. By being homosexual they are not able to have biological children, they should not be allowed to adopt! You might say better having homosexual parents rather than being raised without parents, but I strongly disagree. Children who have homosexual parents grow up with more problems, I have witnessed this multiple times. In the future there will be more evidence to support this claim as this is a relatively new trend.

If gay people want children, then they should go through the "trouble" of acting straight as it will be in the best interest of the child, I mean that's the whole point, making the children's life better at any cost.

reply to post by MrAtomicspace


Agreed, homosexuals i feel forfeit there right to have children based on the fact they have chosen a lifestyle that biologicaly prevents them from having children in the first place. Yes, yes i know nature is a big meany homophobe, but that essentialy seems to be the way it is.

Trust a catholic news source to make an issue of the homosexual aspect
The main issue is why were they taken away full stop? In that respect maybe the homosexual thing IS relevant. When I worked for Social Services, I remember when an adult with learning disabilities was placed with a gay couple. There was a case conference and the majority were against it happening - for a whole variety of reasons. But also, it has to be said, because she was just coming into puberty and we had spent an age teaching her about relationships with men. And suddenly it was all going to be turned on it's head as they would need to go into toilets with her etc and give personal care. The supposed democratic decision of the case conference was overruled by political correctness (the Department had to meet its equality targets).

reply to post by Retseh


First of all, courts don't just take kids away because the new parents are too old. I live in the UK, and have 2 mates who grew up with their grandparents. In one case, both grandparents were in their late 60s.

Secondly, the source you posted is clearly biased as they highlight the kids went to homosexuals (OMGOMGOMG). Last I checked, homosexuals aren't worse people, but I might be mistaken and we still live in the middle ages

In short...what a bunch of nonsense. You might wanna get yourself a better source of news, because the one you're using is GARBAGE!