THEY GAVE A GAY FOSTER COUPLE BOYS TO LOOK AFTER?

RE: I'd expect the authorities..........

Sort of like Fred and Rose West you mean?

 

RE: FFS

Look, we'll have to agree to disagree - we've both had our say and neither of us is going to change our perspectives. You've posted a research paper - well done mate - its one of many, and there are actually quite a few. There's nothing conclusive to prove beyond reasonable doubt that kids are more at risk when adopted by same sex couples (it doesn't matter how many times the word 'fact' is used). If you believe otherwise, and you're genuinely motivated by a caring attitude towards kids, and not by an unnecessary fear of gay people, all well and good. I believe that same sex parents (two women or two men) are of no greater risk to the children they adopt than hetrosexual couples.

At the end of the day, there are 'research papers' in the United States (supposedly a well developed democratic country) which still argues against the theory of evolution and Darwinism. So much for research. There aren't enough established same sex adoptive parents available in the correct socio-economic circumstances to allow conclusive research to be drawn properly.

I don't mean to put words in your mouth, and if I have done I apologise.

 

If homosexual parents are a danger to foster boys then

surely hererosexual men must be as much a danger to foster girls?

 

I'll just be abusing the narrow-minded today!

 

And majoring in irony.

 

No.

Not like them at all.

 

Majoring in irony?

You're talking about gay couples and irony in the same thread? That's not a subtle way of coming out of the closet is it?

 

So you would agree it was ok to stop

Any vechicle with multiple males occupants going southbound on the A1 / M1 during say June 1984 on the basis that statistically they were going to commit a crime.

Likewise it is OK to stop and search young black men in inner cities as statistically these are the most likely to be commiting gun / drug crime?

And that anyone in a car over 10 years old should expect to be routinely stopped due to these cars being 10 times more likely to be uninsured?

 

RE: If homosexual parents are a danger to foster boys then

Let me spell it out to you.

Firstly our young friend was confusing parents and foster parents. My reply was in response to that.

Secondly far and away the biggest risk area is when a gay male couple adopts a male child. I wish it was not so but there you are.

There are a great many social ills that could be cured if it wasn't for the moronic response generated when a certain section of society's twee view of the world is challenged.

 

Here we go.

Off in all directions again.

Lets forget the political catwalk and stick to the point for a moment shall we?

One combination of foster parent/foster parent/ foster child is more likely to result in sexual abuse than all the others put together. Are you happy to keep sending out children into that situation? And let's be real about the motivation behind those who say "yes" to that eh? Do you think any of the champions of human rights gibbering on in this thread give a **** about anything but their own political posturing?

 

Confusing foster parents and parents?

Do you have proof that foster parents are more likely to abuse children than biological parents? Given the fact that child abuse is likely to be repeated generation after generation and many child abusers were in fact abused themselves as children then are foster parents a greater risk than biological parents? After all you don't have to be investigated by social services to be a biological parent but vetting does take place of foster parents.

 

Jesus.

Tell thi what. You go and find some proof that they aren't and I'll apologise to you.

I won't hold my breath.

 

Well, that's taken the wind out of my sails.

Fancy an argument about fox-hunting?

 

FACT??

u express an opinion as fact. who is the ******* idiot.........idiot?

 

It's not that difficult to understand.

Foster parents are usually only used when a child or children are considered to be open to some kind of abuse/neglect from their natural parents. Therefore many of those fostered have been abused already by their biological parents. Getting there yet?

 

RE:Here we go.

Your arguement is based on the fact that statistically abuse is more likely to occur when gay men foster boys than all the rest put together.

I don't know the facts but what happens at the next category down (say unmarried couples and young girls for instance). Is that statistically more likely than the next "all the rest". In that instance would you support the next band down being banned from fostering?

There is a chronic shortage of foster carers, and institutionalised care also has a statistically high rate of carer on child / child on child abuse. Which, statistically is safer?

And then onto my original point regarding your view on statistics, as more men are statistically (and actually) murdered by their wives than any other category of person should we ban men from living with their wives for their own safety.

 

RE: Well, that's taken the wind out of my sails.

Yes</p>

But then, perhaps not.</p>

 

RE: I'll be interested..........

LOL Good old Windy eh? Keep it up old boy! (titanic)

You should check your sources though, I mean you're not keeping good company here are you.......

The so called study papers from this group are literally all obsessed with homosexuality. There's some beauties in here.......Have you read all of them old boy? (2gay)

Draw your own conclusions. Quick Google showed this from the American Civil Liberties Union citing a report by the Kempe Children's Center, Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver. It says....(emphasis mine)

http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/parenting/11824res19990406.html

Toodle pip!

 

Eyup. here we go.

The master blinkered, liberal poser steps up for a go.

 

Thats a shocking research article mate

not up to the usual standards