Forums > General > O/T Opinions?

O/T OPINIONS?
Previous | 12345678 | Next

CLICK

No, they aren't a forward thinking party, possibly harbour some racists, but this making them unfit to be foster parents is ridiculous IMHO. Any thoughts?

Chris.

UKIP's main thrust is that we should be out of the EU. Their immigration policies aren't racist, IMO; there's no suggestion that they want to kick out existing settled immigrants. More importantly, they have greater support from the electorate than the Lib Dems currently so they're a mainstream party now.

Stupid ignorant decision.

--

JL said...

Oh b*llocks you're right

You would hope that the people involved in Child welfare were more rational. Surely a decision like this is discriminatory in itself.

It's a stupid decision, unless there was evidence that the children were being mistreated they should have been left alone. Isn't fostering supposed to protect children from exactly the kind of upheaval and instability this is causing?

--

I often drive for a road travel

Jobbo said...

UKIP's main thrust is that we should be out of the EU. Their immigration policies aren't racist, IMO; there's no suggestion that they want to kick out existing settled immigrants. More importantly, they have greater support from the electorate than the Lib Dems currently so they're a mainstream party now.

Stupid ignorant decision.

Hope it'll start a debate about the people in control of this system. It's good in theory, but was listening to Radio 4 the other day, and there was a debate about the adoption process. People were calling in with tales of refusals that beggared belief, they can't all have been making it up.

speedingfine said...

Hope it'll start a debate about the people in control of this system. It's good in theory, but was listening to Radio 4 the other day, and there was a debate about the adoption process. People were calling in with tales of refusals that beggared belief, they can't all have been making it up.

Sometimes it makes you wonder if the kids actually need protecting from the people whose job it is to protect them.I am sure the majority of Social workers do an excellent job, but we still keep hearing about unbelievable decisions where child have been put in serious danger.

Terrible for the kids involved.

But then I'm and old fart who doesn't think same-sex couples should be the first choice when finding parents to foster kids either. The thought police will be probably be around to re-educate me any moment.

Updated November 24, 2012 at 1:12 PM

A correct decision occured on that front recently Exiges, so it seems as long as you fight, free speech still exists... a bit anyway.

Don't agree with it of course, but would fight for his right to say it[/Thatcher]

speedingfine said...

A correct decision occured on that front recently Exiges, so it seems as long as you fight, free speech still exists... a bit anyway.

Jeez, he was demoted for that ? The world (well UK) has gone mad. The lunatics have taken over the asylum.

I don't understand it either, civil partnerships have been created to recognise same-sex couples and give them similar legal protection that married couples have. So why isn't that enough ? I don't think hetero-couples can have a civil partnership though right ?

Marriage is the formal union of a man and a woman. To change its usage would change the meaning of the word. I don't get it.

Updated November 24, 2012 at 1:39 PM

exiges said...

Terrible for the kids involved.

But then I'm and old fart who doesn't think same-sex couples should be the first choice when finding parents to foster kids either. The thought police will be probably be around to re-educate me any moment.

Not trying to be the thought police but why do you think that? Surely the ability to provide a stable homelife is more important than whether both parents are the same sex.

--

I often drive for a road travel

Jobbo said...

Stupid ignorant decision.

Jobbo sums my thoughts up well enough.

Barry said...

Jobbo said...

Stupid ignorant decision.

Jobbo sums my thoughts up well enough.

Correct.

--

DeskJockey
---
Now fueled by heavy oil...

zedleg said...

Not trying to be the thought police but why do you think that? Surely the ability to provide a stable homelife is more important than whether both parents are the same sex.

A stable homelife should be a condition of all fostering anyway so I don't know why you bring that up. Are you suggesting that hetero carers cannot offer this ?

Updated November 24, 2012 at 4:12 PM

exiges said...

zedleg said...

Not trying to be the thought police but why do you think that? Surely the ability to provide a stable homelife is more important than whether both parents are the same sex.

A stable homelife should be a condition of all fostering anyway so I don't know why you bring that up. Are you suggesting that hetero carers cannot offer this ?

Are you suggesting same sex couples can't?

--

Jobbo said...

Rev is correct, of course

NotoriousREV said...

Are you suggesting same sex couples can't?

No, but I didn't bring up the subject of a stable homelife. I don't know why it was mentioned. It should be a given.

It's a fact that kids of same-sex parents get bullied at school for their "parents". I can't imagine what would a kid at my school would have been subjected to for having "benders" as parents. All the political correctness in the world can't combat what kids do to each other in the playground/classroom.

I also think children need both a male and female parenting influence in their upbringing. There are endless studies which substantiate this.

I see the rights of a same-sex couple as secondary to the rights of the child.

Updated November 24, 2012 at 4:43 PM

It was brought up because you said that same sex couples shouldn't be the "first choice". The argument is that the "first choice" should be based on being able to provide a stable home regardless of whether the parents are a hetero couple or not.

How many same sex couples do you know with kids? What experience do you have to back up your prejudice?

--

Jobbo said...

Rev is correct, of course

exiges said...

NotoriousREV said...

Are you suggesting same sex couples can't?

No, but I didn't bring up the subject of a stable homelife. I don't know why it was mentioned. It should be a given.

It's a fact that kids of same-sex parents get bullied at school for their "parents". I can't imagine what would a kid at my school would have been subjected to for having "benders" as parents. All the political correctness in the world can't combat what kids do to each other in the playground/classroom.

I also think children need both a male and female parenting influence in their upbringing. There are endless studies which substantiate this.

I see the rights of a same-sex couple as secondary to the rights of the child.

I wasn't trying to deflect the argument, nor am I saying that same sex couples should get preferential treatment. I don't think that the sex of the parents should be a factor in the decision.

The bullying argument is weak at best. Children get bullied for a variety of reasons and using that to not put them in an otherwise perfectly good home is nonsense.

There are as many studies that say that the physical sex of the parents has little effect on children as there are that say it makes a difference. It depends on what other factors are taken into account and who reports the findings a lot of the time.

--

I often drive for a road travel

According to Exiges' argument, we shouldn't let kids be fostered by black, Asian, ginger, fat, ugly, poor or disabled parents, just incase their kids get picked on.

I find that pretty repugnant to be honest.

Updated November 24, 2012 at 4:58 PM

--

Jobbo said...

Rev is correct, of course

NotoriousREV said...

It was brought up because you said that same sex couples shouldn't be the "first choice". The argument is that the "first choice" should be based on being able to provide a stable home regardless of whether the parents are a hetero couple or not.

OK, you didn't understand me the first time, so perhaps you'll get it if I reword it.

Whoever is considered for fostering should be able to offer a stable homelife, so that notwithstanding I maintain that all else being equal the first choice should be heterosexual couples for the reasons I've mentioned.

I only know of one same-sex-couple-with-a-kid and I'm not a clinical psychologist so you'll have forgive me for only sharing a personal opinion on a car forum rather than providing a critical precis.

It's clear I've hit a nerve so I'll leave you to it

Updated November 24, 2012 at 5:02 PM

No, no, I understand you perfectly. In your opinion same sex couples should not be considered to be as good parents as heterosexual couples, all other things being equal.

I disagree with you entirely.

--

Jobbo said...

Rev is correct, of course

Previous | 12345678 | Next

Jump to forum: Go

Please contact the webmaster if you have any problems or queries relating to this forum.

MEMBER LOGIN

|
Connect
Company Website | Media Information | Contact Us | Privacy Notice | Subs Info | Affiliate Programme
Our Other Websites: The Week | Auto Express | Custom PC | IT Pro | MacUser | Men's Fitness | Micro Mart | PC Pro | bit-tech | Know Your Mobile | Octane | Expert Reviews | Channel Pro | Know Your Cell | Know Your Mobile India | Digital SLR Photography | Den of Geek | Magazines | Computer Shopper | Mobile Phone Deals | Competitions | Cyclist | Health & Fitness | CarBuyer | Cloud Pro | MagBooks | Mobile Test | Land Rover Monthly | Webuser | Computer Active | Table Pouncer | Viva Celular