Edinburgh City Council has placed a four and five year old brother and sister in the adoptive care of a gay couple, after being removed from their heroin addict mother. Her parents applied for custody but were turned down on the grounds of age and ill health. As you might imagine this has resulted in an outpouring of abuse from Britain’s most bigoted tabloid of all – the Daily HateMail. Leading the war cry against gay people who have the temerity to want to bring up children is Amanda Platell. I don’t know about you but I’m fed up with homophobes, particularly those who try to convince you that they’re just ‘quoting facts’, communicating ‘hard truths’ or standing up for ‘the family’. Amanda Platell is one of these reactionary bigots posing as journalists:
It appears that social services, despite all the evidence to the contrary, still believe that all relationships are equal when it comes to raising children. Indeed, in this case they seem to have decided that a gay relationship is preferable to a couple of opposite sex.
The children’s grandparents want to care for them, but have been told they will be adopted by a gay couple
This is simply not true. They are not equal when it comes to the things children need most – commitment and stability. Yet is is regarded as heretical even to state the facts: which are that marriages last longer than cohabiting heterosexual relationships and they both last longer than gay relationships.
Those are the cold, bare truths. It is too soon to know the statistics on same-sex marriages as there has not been enough time to assess the trends and many same sex couples enjoy enduring and truly fulfilling relationships.
But if commitment and stability matter most to children’s happiness and success, the least suitable place for them to be raised is by a gay couple. That’s not homophobia, that’s not bigotry, that’s a fact – unpalatable as it might be to the Left consensus.
When you read of such shocking decisions, you can only wonder how any sane judge could put two small children with two men. Are they trying to meet some target they have been set for placing children for adoption with gay couples? Who knows, because shamefully all of this process is conducted in secret.
(But) against all the evidence social services choose to take two small children away from their natural family and give them up for adoption – to a gay couple.
It beggars belief and seems guaranteed to do only one thing: to give those innocent children the poorest possible start to their lives, the slimmest chance of happiness and the greatest likelihood of anger, bewilderment and failure.
Those who made this decision should hang their heads in shame.
Oh that’s rich. So gay relationships aren’t committed or stable? So my three year marriage and seven year relationship are a figment of my imagination? So the five-to-ten year long relationships my best friends are currently involved in are figments of their imaginations? So the gay friends I have who are bringing up children are deluded in their commitment and stability? My longstanding friend and former counsellor, who recently entered into a civil partnership with his boyfriend of thirty years is equally deluded? Just what planet is Platell on? She says that all married and unmarried heterosexual relationships last longer than gay ones – really? Did she get that from the Office of National Statistics or did she just make that one up? She says she’s not a homophobe or a bigot. I laugh in her general bigoted direction.
Somehow this bigoted pseudo-journalist has decided that she knows better than social services, and is the defender of the ‘traditional family’, even though the decision was clearly made in the best interests of the children regardless of family make-up. All the evidence from every study and anecdotal account shows that it’s the quality of parenting that determines a child’s start in life, not the sexual orientation of the parents. A gay parent is not preferable to a heterosexual one – noone has ever suggested that, nor indeed has this case. The parents who were awarded custody were judged to offer the greatest stability and most loving home by social services; they just happened to be gay. It must be so difficult to be someone like Amanda Platell, knowing the world is completely different to how she wishes it were.
Platell isn’t alone. Try Melanie Phillips:
The reason why adoption is so successful at raising healthy, well-adjusted children is that it replicates as far as possible the biological mother and father whose presence in the family is so crucial to the well-being of their children.
The prevailing argument that all types of family are as good as each other as far as the children are concerned simply isn’t true. While some children emerge relatively unscathed from irregular households, children need to be brought up by the two people ‘who made me’ – or, in adoptive households, in a family which closely replicates that arrangement.
Where that does not happen, the child’s deepest sense of his or her identity as a human being is at some level damaged.
A child needs a mother and father because their roles in bringing that child up, and the way the child sees each of them, are not interchangeable. They are different and complementary, which is why if one of them is absent the child suffers, in many cases very badly indeed.
For very young children the absence of a mother, whose nurturing role cannot be replicated even by the most loving and attentive of fathers, is particularly tragic.
This is pure psychobabble. Adoption works because it provides stable and loving parents in the absence of the same. Children brought up by single or gay parents aren’t damaged by not having two, opposite sex parents. It’s pretty ludicrous to say that fixed gender roles determine success in bringing a child up – not all women are inclined to nurture, and men (despite her anti-male claim) are equally able to nurture as women, should they so choose. There are plenty of children from single parent households who are extremely well-adjusted and who lead extremely happy lives, equally many brought up in gay households (single or not). The reasons why some single parent households bring up badly adjusted children are socio-economic, not gender-based, but I suppose that’s probably beyond Phillips’ reach to understand (or even care about).
Therefore to say that depriving children of a mother figure is in their best interests – as the Edinburgh social workers have said – is clearly ridiculous.
Yes, in certain very unusual cases a lesbian couple or individual might be the best option for a child without a functioning family – if for example the child already has a particular attachment to such individuals, or if the only alternative is life in a children’s home.
But where an adoptive mother and father are available, to place children instead with two gay men is beyond perverse. Quite obviously, the interests of these children have been subordinated to politically correct considerations.
But in this case, it is Edinburgh social services department that has grossly abused its position of trust by intentionally placing these most vulnerable children in a position of disadvantage and maybe even harm for nothing other than ideological reasons.
Harm? Really? Disadvantage? Really? She uses these words without substantiating what she even means. She may not even know herself.
Despite the fact that gay adoption is opposed by most people – polls suggest that some 90 per cent are opposed in Scotland – the law that enabled it was rammed through Parliament with the help, to their eternal shame, of the politically correct Cameroons. Ever since, it has been promoted assiduously by left-wing councils – some of which forbid adoption by smokers and obese people but actively support gay fostering and adoption.
Such people routinely claim that research shows there are no adverse outcomes for children from same-sex adoption. These claims are totally untrue. The fact is that there are virtually no studies of children adopted by gay couples – or raised by male same-sex couples. In general, studies of same-sex child rearing are in turn extremely thin on the ground and methodologically too unsound to be authoritative.
I call you publicly Melanie Phillips – prove that there are adverse outcomes for children who have been adopted by gay people. Prove that there are no studies to disprove your case though – oh wait she’s covering herself isn’t she? Just in case someone actually does the legwork for her she’s preemptively saying these studies (which apparently don’t exist) are methodologically unsound. I see. So actually asking the children in question what they think of their parents is unsound eh? Disgusting.
Nevertheless they do suggest cause for concern: their emerging theme seems to be that children raised by same-sex couples exhibit poor outcomes not so dissimilar to those raised by divorced heterosexual parents.
While such studies can’t be relied upon they can’t be dismissed either. An American account published 20 years described what happened when a male child was conceived by a surrogate mother for two homosexual men. They hired various nannies to help look after the child – who developed severe behavioural problems, fantasising about ‘buying a new mother’ because of his profound need for a mother figure in his life.
Let me try the same argument. A child named Baby P was brought up by a monstrously violent, heterosexual mother. Despite numerous interventions by social services she was allowed to keep Baby P on ideological grounds, and she, her boyfriend and their lodger ended up killing him. Children raised by heterosexuals are routinely subjected to monstrously violent behaviour and often die. It is politically correct social workers who are to blame, as they could have placed Baby P into a perfectly stable, safe same-sex adoptive household. See how easy it is when you take a single extreme and extrapolate an absolute conclusion from it?
But even to raise such concerns is to run the gauntlet of shrieks of ‘homophobia’. Such vilification is designed for one purpose – to stigmatise and thus silence altogether all opposition as ‘bigotry’.
The underlying agenda behind gay adoption, as it is behind the whole gay rights movement, is nothing to do with protecting the rights of gay people. Were it really so, there would be no objection. No-one should be discriminated against simply on the grounds of his or her sexuality.
That does not mean, however, that gay lifestyles must be regarded as of equal value to heterosexual households when it comes to the raising of children. To say that anyone who makes such a distinction is prejudiced is to turn reality on its head.
But that is indeed the whole point of the gay rights movement – to destroy the very notion of heterosexual norms of sexual behaviour and the definition of the family so that gay lifestyles can present themselves as ‘normal’.
The gay rights movement’s entire point is to destroy the heterosexual family? That doesn’t even make sense. The definition of the family is being determined now, as ever, by heterosexuals. They are getting divorced in huge numbers, women are working more than ever and for longer, men are being brought into the early child rearing process more than ever before. These are determining the definition of family, by sheer weight of numbers. I’m also struck by Phillips’ appalling double standard – noone should be discriminated against apparently because of their sexual orientation, yet she says being gay isn’t of equal value to being straight. Talk about two faced!
This in turn is part of the broader onslaught upon the Judeo-Christian principles upon which British society and western civilisation are based, which has been mounted now for decades by ideologues of the left and which has progressively eviscerated family life on the altar of individual ‘lifestyle choice’.
The result is a world turned on its head in which what is harmful is said to be good and what is good is said to be harmful; tolerance has turned into gross intolerance; and upholding human rights has turned into an onslaught upon human rights.
The hapless Scottish grandparents are but the latest victims of a brutal totalitarian dogma, which anyone with an ounce of real liberal principle should denounce for the attack on justice, humanity and common-sense that it undoubtedly is.
Human rights for her are conditional and limited. White, Christian and straight people have primacy, whereas being gay is a ‘lifestyle choice’ which subverts society. Let me make it perfectly clear – being gay isn’t a choice. The gay ‘lifestyle’ involves getting up, getting showered, having breakfast and going to work, just like everyone else. We socialise the same as everyone else, and if you look at the degeneration of town centres in the last twenty years, far less violently.
She’s allowed to believe whatever lunatic theories she likes, that’s what makes our society so great. But make no mistake this is an opinion piece based on the grossest stupidity I’ve seen in years. What her and Platell’s agenda is is anyone’s guess – the HateMail’s at the very least has always been clear. I find it terrifying however that thousands of people will read this bigotry presented as fact and believe some of it. That after all is what tabloids are for. Much of these two pieces I would argue cross a similar line to that which Iris Robinson crossed last year in her on-air homophobic rants – it’ll be interesting to see if complaints are made about these two women to the authorities.