Gay Foster carers abused young boys

[Barrel of Fun]

Because biologically they cant have children. Thats their choice through their sexuality and they should be able to deal with that.

However that is not to say that gay couples would probably be better 'parents' than some of the wankers that treat their kids like shit.

I am not saying I whole heartedly believe they should have children, but the law states they are allowed so that is why I answered the first question positively.

We can then move over to 'choice of lifestyle' - I don't think they choose to be gay, as I believe it is potentially genetic or maybe upbringing. If homosexuals really want kids, then they will find a way through surrogacy etc. Better to keep it all above board and legal, than black market babies etc.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Society?

If You have evidence of this I would like to see it. What about the entitlement of the children to have a parent of each sex?

Socially it has become far more acceptable and hence the law to allow same sex adoption was passed. Pretty clear evidence.

I would agree that perhaps the children should be taken into account, but then you are on the uneven ground of - why should a same sex couple be any different from a male/female couple... You get stats thrown at you single mothers etc. Does a child have a right when his/her parents are crack addicts?

 

[Pigsy]

Does a child have a right when his/her parents are crack addicts?

Err....yes

 

[Dandyman]

what has this to do with protecting vulnerable kids?

You were arguing that Paedophiles are mostly homosexual and therefore homosexuals are unsuitable as foster parents. I was pointing out the flawed logic.

As part of my job, I occassionally have to attend child protection strategy meetings. IMO the "rights" of straight or gays to adopt/foster misses the point, which should be the paramount interests of the child. If a youngster has been thrown out their home for coming out, it might be that a gay carer is the best environment for them to be in. In other cases a stable hetrosexual environment may be in the best interests of the child.

Put away the prejudice and look at the merits of individual cases.

 

[Les Biehn]

what has this to do with protecting vulnerable kids?

So thats what your doing Looney, not just a gay witch hunt? We are debating gay sexualites relationship with child molesting. You seem to be implying that the two are explicity linked so therefore gay men should not be allowed to adopt children. In other words gay people are prone to these sort of criminal activity. Yet the same thinking could be applied to the rape of women in relation to straight men. So are all straight men prone to this sort of criminal activity? Obviously not, it is a minority, but we aren't gonna start banning men from working or living with women are we? They are also vulnerable.

 

[looney]

Socially it has become far more acceptable and hence the law to allow same sex adoption was passed. Pretty clear evidence.

acceptable to who? this is nothing more than fancifull thinking to underpin a political agenda.

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

Why can't we just shoot paedophiles whether they be gay, straight, bi, man, woman martian etc

 

[looney]

You seem to be implying that the two are explicity linked so therefore gay men should not be allowed to adopt children. In other words gay people are prone to these sort of criminal activity. Yet the same thinking could be applied to the rape of women in relation to straight men. So are all straight men prone to this sort of criminal activity? Obviously not, it is a minority, but we aren't gonna start banning men from working or living with women are we? They are also vulnerable.

the flaw in your arguement is that I imply no such thing.
The main thrust is about protecting children from high risk groups.

 

[Les Biehn]

the flaw in your arguement is that I imply no such thing.
The main thrust is about protecting children from high risk groups.

The flaw in your argument is you say gay men should not be allowed to adopt because of the percentage of 'supposed gay' men who molest children, thus taring the majority of gay men with the same brush. That is like saying straight men should not be allowed to marry because percentage of female rape is acted out by straight men. But you wouldn't say that because straight sex in your eyes is presumed to be non-deviant, so you will happily accept that is a minority. Women are also a vulnerable group, so to trying to come across as if your the moral majority protecting the innocent then perhaps you shouldn't do it from such a clearly homophobic bias.

 

[looney]

The flaw in your argument is you say gay men should not be allowed to adopt because of the percentage of 'supposed gay' men who molest children, thus taring the majority of gay men with the same brush.

Yes true but the intent is to protect children not smear Gay men. There are other reasons as well but thats not the topic of this thread

That is like saying straight men should not be allowed to marry because percentage of female rape is acted out by straight men.

no it isn't.Men do not seek the instutution of marrage to rape, they can do that without it. Wereas Pedophiles seek out institutions where they can get access to children, especially vulnerable ones.

But you wouldn't say that because straight sex in your eyes is presumed to be non-deviant, so you will happily accept that is a minority.

I wouldn't say that because it is not a fair comparison and its something your insinuating.

Women are also a vulnerable group, so to trying to come across as if your the moral majority protecting the innocent then perhaps you shouldn't do it from such a clearly homophobic bias.

Women are responsible for a large percentage of domestic violence.

Also maybe you shouldn't go around smearing people as "homophobic", as this leads people not to express their veiws and then idiots like barrel of fun beleive that society has changed when in fact free speach has been stiffled, untill you see the poll for one of those Caucescu moments. Even in liberal Brighton their is no clear majority for gay adoption or Fostering.

Face it your a fringe group whos riding their luck as people voted for the NHS not gay rights etc, you abuse people who disagree with you and then arogantly interpret the silence as growing acceptence.If anyones narrow minded its you.

 

[Les Biehn]

Well that has certainly shown me Looney, clearly you are not homophobic in any way. Also, when I have I abused you on here?

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Also maybe you shouldn't go around smearing people as "homophobic", as this leads people not to express their veiws and then idiots like barrel of fun beleive that society has changed when in fact free speach has been stiffled, untill you see the poll for one of those Caucescu moments. Even in liberal Brighton their is no clear majority for gay adoption or Fostering.

Society today, is far more accepting of homosexuality. Could you really see Gay Pride day happening in Britain 10 years ago or more? British society has become far more accepting as a whole, but then there is still, obviously, a propoertion of people that will never accept this as anything more than a ghastly sin or a sickness.

Believing society has changed, does not make one an idiot. Labelling someone an idiot for believing this, is verging on idiotic and an offensive way of trying to stiFle my views and freedom of speech.


Looney. Why do you label people as idiots, if they do not agree with you?

 

[Les Biehn]

Yes true but the intent is to protect children not smear Gay men. There are other reasons as well but thats not the topic of this thread

But deeming all gay men as potential child abusers is not smearing them.

Men do not seek the instutution of marrage to rape, they can do that without it. Wereas Pedophiles seek out institutions where they can get access to children, especially vulnerable ones.

Ok then, should Male bosses not be allowed to take on women staff? They could potentially be using a position of power within an institution to get access to vulnerable women?

I wouldn't say that because it is not a fair comparison and its something your insinuating.

What is an unfair comparison? I have merely drawn a conclusion from you pro hetrosexual, anti homosexual stance.

Women are responsible for a large percentage of domestic violence.

So that makes it ok for them to be raped? What has that got to do with them being a group that is vulnerable to sexual abuse?

Also maybe you shouldn't go around smearing people as "homophobic", as this leads people not to express their veiws and then idiots like barrel of fun beleive that society has changed when in fact free speach has been stiffled, untill you see the poll for one of those Caucescu moments. Even in liberal Brighton their is no clear majority for gay adoption or Fostering.

See barrel's post. And if you think referring to you as homophobic is a smear I suggest you check out you numerous homophobic posts.

Face it your a fringe group whos riding their luck as people voted for the NHS not gay rights etc, you abuse people who disagree with you and then arogantly interpret the silence as growing acceptence.If anyones narrow minded its you.

I'm narrow minded because I don't think all homosexual's are sex crazed deviants on the prowl for underage boys? Well if that makes me narrow minded then so be it.

 

[looney]

Society today, is far more accepting of homosexuality. Could you really see Gay Pride day happening in Britain 10 years ago or more? British society has become far more accepting as a whole, but then there is still, obviously, a propoertion of people that will never accept this as anything more than a ghastly sin or a sickness.

Believing society has changed, does not make one an idiot. Labelling someone an idiot for believing this, is verging on idiotic and an offensive way of trying to stiFle my views and freedom of speech.


Looney. Why do you label people as idiots, if they do not agree with you?

Try not to confuse tolerance with acceptance and I'm yet to see any kind of social attitudes survey trend. There were gay pride marches 10 20 30 years ago, and yes compared to a lot here your not an idiot. Sometimes I use the word as punctuation it saves time.

 

[Dandyman]

But deeming all gay men as potential child abusers is not smearing them.



Ok then, should Male bosses not be allowed to take on women staff? They could potentially be using a position of power within an institution to get access to vulnerable women?



What is an unfair comparison? I have merely drawn a conclusion from you pro hetrosexual, anti homosexual stance.



So that makes it ok for them to be raped? What has that got to do with them being a group that is vulnerable to sexual abuse?



See barrel's post. And if you think referring to you as homophobic is a smear I suggest you check out you numerous homophobic posts.



I'm narrow minded because I don't think all homosexual's are sex crazed deviants on the prowl for underage boys? Well if that makes me narrow minded then so be it.

 

[looney]

But deeming all gay men as potential child abusers is not smearing them.

No its defining them as a risk group, like young male drivers. You spin it your way if you like its your veiw. Its not minr



Ok then, should Male bosses not be allowed to take on women staff? They could potentially be using a position of power within an institution to get access to vulnerable women?

This arguement has been used for keeping women out of the command structure of the armed forces. It depends in my opinion on the imbalance of power.



What is an unfair comparison? I have merely drawn a conclusion from you pro hetrosexual, anti homosexual stance.

I haven't actually said anything pro hetro or anti homo. Its a pro child stance. Are you antichild then?



So that makes it ok for them to be raped? What has that got to do with them being a group that is vulnerable to sexual abuse?

Eh?






I'm narrow minded because I don't think all homosexual's are sex crazed deviants on the prowl for underage boys? Well if that makes me narrow minded then so be it.

No your narrowminded because you beleive the questioning of gay adoption/fostering rights is some emotional prejudice against homosexuals rather than as I have already stated twice concern for child welfare.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Idiot instead of punctuation!!

The point is Looney that there is no proof that a same sex couple will harm a child. There is no obvious reason why the different environment would. A child can't choose it's parents in any walk of life, why should this be different?

 

[Richard Whiteley]

80% of child abuse victims are boys, mainly by men.

wasn't it 80% of child abusers are known to the children/family members?

can't be arsed to read the rest ofthe thread but I'm guessing Looney has plucked that stat out of the air. His air.

 

[Pigsy]

A child can't choose it's parents in any walk of life, why should this be different?

Surely the point of adoption/fostering is that the relevant authorities can choose the "parents", and should be able to try to filter out some sections of society (drug addicts, convictions for violence, known sex offenders etc) to ensure the child is safe.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Surely the point of adoption/fostering is that the relevant authorities can choose the "parents", and should be able to try to filter out some sections of society (drug addicts, convictions for violence, known sex offenders etc) to ensure the child is safe.

Quite. So the authorities should pick loving 'parents', as opposed to filtering out all same gender couples. That is the point I was trying to make subtely. I think the whole process needs to be shored(sured?) up anyway, as there have been quite a few cases recently of child abuse by foster parents(sexual, physical or mental).

Anyway, I hope this couple in question get what they deserve or at least spend a long long time in jail.