Homophobia Alive and Well in Sheffield Part II

[Bud]

A Christian JP in Sheffield has left the bench over new laws allowing gay couples to adopt children.

link

Cheerio, cheerio, cheerio...

In a statement at a Sheffield employment tribunal, he said new legislation enabling gay couples to foster or adopt children "was incompatible with the welfare of the child, who was becoming a 'guinea pig' in an experiment of social science".

Cheerio, cherio, cheerioooo-o

The 63-year-old, a member of the Christian People's Alliance...

Cheerio, cheerio, cheerio. Cheerio. CHEE-RI-OO!

Prick.

[Pyrogenesis]

*sigh*

[verte]

Everyone knows that children would be ever so much more happy living in an orphanage or on the street.

[AspenMama]

GRRRR.

[Beth]

Homophobia is alive and well everywhere. It is for the best that he step down. That way he is not in a position to find some way to discriminate against potential adoptive parents.

[Glen Livet]

The stupid thing is that magistrates ( which is what this moron was ) do not have to act on these issues in the family court.

Any magistrate has the right to withdraw from a case, prior to comencement, without giving reason.

[Beth]

Maybe he thinks that he is making a statement?

[verte]

Originally Posted by Beth

Maybe he thinks that he is making a statement?

As you said, better he make such statements from his retirement, so he doesn't ruin things for children who need loving homes.

[Glen Livet]

I can't imagine they'll be too sorry to lose him from the bench.

[Jinx]

I love this line from the article:

The 63-year-old, a member of the Christian People's Alliance, claims he was discriminated against on the grounds of his philosophical and religious beliefs.

Maybe he could explain to the slower of us what's wrong with discrimination...

[Cybernicus]

Homophobia in gay old England, the very cradle of buggery? I'm shocked.

[Bud]

This, in support of the magistrate:

Gay adoption deprives children of a mother or father

84 per cent of the public are against allowing homosexual men to adopt.

Only 0.2 per cent of households are same-sex couples.

Allowing gay adoption is more about normalising homosexual behaviour than about increasing opportunities for adoption.

Same-sex relationships are much more unstable and short-lived than heterosexual relationships.

Even some researchers in favour of gay adoption admit that children raised by homosexual parents are more likely to be homosexual.

Despite repeated assertions to the contrary, studies indicate significant differences between homosexual and heterosexual parenting outcomes for children.

One of the largest pro-gay studies found that children raised by homosexual couples had the worst outcomes in terms of education and social adjustment.

Children raised by cohabiting couples were better, but those raised by married couples had the best outcomes.

Gender confusion seems to be rife with daughters of lesbian mothers.

Pro-gay studies commonly ditch the most basic research methods:
o They fail to test any hypothesis or use a proper control group.
o Sample sizes are so small that no deductions can be made.
o One study which was headlined as "Gay men make better fathers" did not even have any children in the study but merely asked opinions.

Pro-gay sociologists argue that gay adoption should go ahead despite the lack of evidence in support.

I despair, I really do.

[Don Alhambra]

They go on about assertions and then make some of their own. Do they have any links to any of these studies?

[Bud]

Originally Posted by Don Alhambra

They go on about assertions and then make some of their own. Do they have any links to any of these studies?

Oh, Don stop it...you're killing me...

He was called on all of the issues to provide evidence. Repeatedly. Personally, I went easier on him, and only required him to back up one assertion: "Same-sex relationships are much more unstable and short-lived than heterosexual relationships." I asked him for evidence related to gay marriage, and he came up with the following three sites as proof:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas...cons_split_up/

http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/celebrity/71252004.htm

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/...1253_db042.htm

I'll think you'll find the third one to be particularly relevent to the debate...

[Don Alhambra]

...

OK. So by 'studies', this person actually means 'random newspaper articles that mention the word gay somewhere in the text'?

Fucking hell. I hate people. *slams door of ivory tower and refuses to come down, ever*

[Bud]

Uh-huh. Then again, he does have this as his signiture:

Having sought in vain for the origin of primordial protoplasm and its marvellous properties that makes evolution possible we are compelled to accept nothing less than a far-seeing intelligent designer. (Paraphrased from Wikipedia.)

So any concept of evidence or burden of proof is completely lost on him.

[Quath]

The sad thing is you could go point by point and offer a valid counterpoint. Yet people like that tend to just seek reasons for their convictions. They do not seek to reason to make convictions.

[Bud]

Originally Posted by Quath

The sad thing is you could go point by point and offer a valid counterpoint. Yet people like that tend to just seek reasons for their convictions. They do not seek to reason to make convictions.

I did say to him that his repeated linking to individual cases demonstrated nothing more than a desire to confirm his own prejudices. But I don't think he understood.

[Bud]

btw, I googled one of his points, and unsurprisingly I found he'd copy pasted that list from a website:

http://www.christian.org.uk/pressreleases/2002/march_14_2002.htm

[Bud]

Aaaargh! Damn this guy. Damn him to 'hell'!

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=182862

That's a link, for anyone who wants to understand why I'm tearing my hair out over this crap. He's Grahame, I'm Gypsy Hack.

[verte]

Originally Posted by Stupid Homophobic Guy

It can't happen. Any "marriage" between same sex people is a man made concept and is not what nature intended.

He's so stupid I want to keep him for a pet.

Civilization in general is a man-made concept. If he wants nature's way, let's see how he likes it when he's aging and some 20 year old stamps the ground, leaps on him, bites out a chunk of his throat and takes his woman.

[Bud]

Originally Posted by verte

Civilization in general is a man-made concept. If he wants nature's way, let's see how he likes it when he's aging and some 20 year old stamps the ground, leaps on him, bites out a chunk of his throat and takes his woman.

Thusfar, I've been trying not to think about the possibility that he might have a woman. And breed.

[verte]

Originally Posted by Bud

Thusfar, I've been trying not to think about the possibility that he might have a woman. And breed.

Perhaps he only thinks he has one.

[Storm_Raven]

Verte, it just goes to show you how little this guy really knows, homosexuality happens throughout the animal kingdom. Next, I expect him to claim that monogamy is exclusive to humans or something equally ridiculous.

Storm Raven

[Bud]

Update on this story: Andrew McClintock, the CPA member and JP who quit the bench, has lost his discrimination case.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...re/6411165.stm

And the following quote...

Mr McClintock, 63, said the decision meant children would escape "one kind of harm only to face another hazard".

...pretty much demonstrates that for him this was more about his own personal bigotry than about any kind of religious conviction. Which is fairly typical of the CPA generally.

Anyway, no one is really surprised at the ruling.