Grandchildren taken away because the grandparents were "too old" 115 replies

Please wait...

Penguin_Unit

Uh-oh.

50 XP

8th May 2007

0 Uploads

6,077 Posts

0 Threads

#1 10 years ago

Couple forced to give grandchildren up for adoption by gay men because 'they're too old' - at 46 and 59 | Mail Online Is this what all you people were advocating when you said you were for "gay rights"? Nobody has the right to take your grandchildren because of your age.




Ipse

The Great Charm

50 XP

14th April 2007

0 Uploads

5,446 Posts

0 Threads

#2 10 years ago

Not really. Grandparents shouldn't be taking care of grand children anyway.




Tas

Serious business brigade

50 XP

4th September 2004

0 Uploads

7,275 Posts

0 Threads

#3 10 years ago
Penguin_Unit;4793769Couple forced to give grandchildren up for adoption by gay men because 'they're too old' - at 46 and 59 | Mail Online Is this what all you people were advocating when you said you were for "gay rights"?

-Mother has to give up kids. -Grandparents want to adopt. -Many other couples want to adopt also. -Grandparents don't actually take care of the kids. -Agencies believe they got a valid reason for these grandparents not to be eligible for the adoption. -Agency grants a gay couple the adoption. -Buncha talk about gays not being bad people but possibly bad parents.

= Gays gunna take ur kids away.

:rofl:

Seriously though, good job mixing the "evil government taking kids from their family" story in with the "gay rights" movement. It's just a tad transparent though, you might try being a little more subtle next time.




Penguin_Unit

Uh-oh.

50 XP

8th May 2007

0 Uploads

6,077 Posts

0 Threads

#4 10 years ago

My point is that this is just politically correct. Homosexuals get their wish, but it can't end there. They have to take an innocent couple's grand children away (the original couple had every right to take care of them; it's utter BS to say otherwise) and give them to said gay couple. It had no reason behind it other than for brownie points. Let's also not forget that they were in fact lied to. That is not excusable.




Tas

Serious business brigade

50 XP

4th September 2004

0 Uploads

7,275 Posts

0 Threads

#5 10 years ago

Regardless of what the reasons were for the adoption agency to grant the adoption to the gay couple. For you to propose or even accuse supporters of "gay rights" in any way of supporting any unscrupulous acts by whoever is just.. wrong.

If you got an ax to grind with gay people or their political goals come out for it straight and level, if you got an ax to grind with any "pc" tendencies within your government come out for it equally straight and level. But don't hide your point in a sensationalist sob story in some paper.




Junk angel

Huh, sound?

166,880 XP

29th January 2007

0 Uploads

15,678 Posts

0 Threads

#6 10 years ago

Actually from what I've read, the gays don't figure actively in this. The grandparents were told (for a number of reasons I presume - at least so I understand from the article) the children for adoption.

THEY AGREED

Then they learned that the ones to do the adoption are two gays and they began protesting, stating the best interests of the children and what not.

Also the grandparents/or article seems to be biased in the direction, that because non gay couples wanted to adopt the children as well, they should have been given said adoption because as they are not gay they are better.

Then they continued on how supposedly the girl is wary around men. How do we know this?

We don't. Unless we have reasons fro mthe social agency, we can't really say yes or no, except that the whole article seems somewhat biased.

I also love how the article is more or less factual until the point were the grandparents learned of the identities of the adoptive parents. Then the whole article suddenly grows far far more emotional.




Inyri Forge VIP Member

[Insert User Title Here]

55 XP

15th March 2005

0 Uploads

25,940 Posts

0 Threads

#7 10 years ago

The whole article is a subtle "gays make bad parents because they're both the same gender!" bash. By that logic single mothers/fathers should have their children taken away.




Crazy Wolf VIP Member

Snipes With Artillery

277,420 XP

22nd March 2005

0 Uploads

27,192 Posts

0 Threads

#8 10 years ago

Oh, yeah, clearly. Of course this is the fault of those homo-lovers. It's not like there's a selection process that would weed out any parents deemed unfit to adopt children. I'm sure that those fanny bandits will convert those poor children to their God-abhorred, sinful ways. What's next, gay people adopting dogs?

[/sarcasm]




Rogue Nine

Imperial Russian

50 XP

26th October 2008

0 Uploads

669 Posts

0 Threads

#9 10 years ago
Penguin_Unit;4793792My point is that this is just politically correct. Homosexuals get their wish, but it can't end there. They have to take an innocent couple's grand children away (the original couple had every right to take care of them; it's utter BS to say otherwise) and give them to said gay couple. It had no reason behind it other than for brownie points. Let's also not forget that they were in fact lied to. That is not excusable.

Affirmative action sucks, huh. Well, look on the bright side, at least they weren't a black gay couple, right?




Mr. Pedantic

I would die without GF

234,620 XP

8th October 2006

0 Uploads

23,127 Posts

0 Threads

#10 10 years ago
Not really. Grandparents shouldn't be taking care of grand children anyway.

Why not? If the parents are unavailable, then the next best people would be grandparents, because they would generally share the same ethics, morals, customs, traditions as the parents that would have brought them up.