I think the daily mail brought this up today??? They had it on their site around 11.00am...
Classic Mail story!
If the children have living parents or very close blood relatives, I think that the parents/relatives should have some say in the sort of couple that adopts the children. Not that I condone discrimination, but changing their religion or cultural environment or potentially influencing their sexuality is a huge life-altering factor(as if being adopted by strangers when you already have a family wasn't enough), which can only widen the gap between the children and their natural family.
This sounds like a medical decision.
One would-be parent has presumably type 2 diabetes, the other has heart disease. Combine the health problems (which we don't even know the full extent of... for god's sake, one parent could be insulin-unresponsive and ****** with complications, and the other could have a BP of 220/140 and recently recovered from cardiac arrest, we just don't know! okay, I might have been worst-casing the potential situation A BIT, but still...) with the fact that when the child's 18 one of the parents will be 77 and you've got a very real - rising to possibly certain depending on the full medical situation - chance that one or both of the child's parents will be dead or unable to effectively care for them by the time he grows up. We honestly don't know enough to comment as it's probably a medical decision, and the sexuality of the couple adopting is completely irrelevant here.
Im gonna throw it into the mix that if the grandparents raised a daughter who was incapable of raising her own offspring, whats to say the underlying reason that the children were being put up for adoption was in case they turned out to be scum like their incapable mother?
And the couple are clearly racist, as has just been shown by their outrage - so would the kids be better off with a bigotted couple of old bad parents or would they be better to go to a couple who clearly want a kid, have been through the adoption process, and have shown to be suitable to be parents?
Just something to think about - I saw this article originally posted in a link to the daily mail. Could well be circumstances we're not told about but the above is certainly a possible scenario
I don't think that gay people should be allowed to adopt because it's not natural at the end of the day, as it's traditional to have a mum and a dad. That baby should have gone with its grandparents.
The grandparents should have custody imo
I have nothing against gay adoption, and other than the little girl's mistrust of men, I don't think the sexuality should be brought into it, but the grandparents should have kept the children. My dad was 43 when I was born, and has suffered from quite a few serious medical problems, my stepmother is older again. They have made perfectly good parents, better than many I have seen. Age should not have come into it unless they were actually pretty much guaranteed to die in the next ten years.
There are obviously two issues here, one of which is the question of whether the grandparents were too old. I think most of us agree that the answer is a resounding no - however, I'd be willing to accept the decision if the grandparents had undergone some kind of medical check. There are plenty of "older" people who are healthier than younger ones, and plenty that outlive them. So on this front the decision is complete madness, if only the age and nothing else was taken into account.
On the other hand, the other issue about gay or straight is a lot more controversial and I don't think the answer is as obvious as people are making out. It is not just "homophobic plain and simple" to not allow gay adoption. If I was concerned about how my grandchildren may be treated because of gay parents, that doesn't make me homophobic. That makes me phobic of other homophobics, if that makes sense. I would feel uncomfortable that there is a chance that their upbringing wouldn't be socially normal.
Whilst I agree that gay adoption is in principle perfectly acceptable, in practice I think it will take some time before children of gay parents will experience the same kind of life as those of heterosexual parents. Note here the point isn't necessarily that of sexuality (who cares if anyone is gay or straight). The point is emphasised by teh fact that we have two parents of the same gender, which can make a difference to the child in terms of how he is treated.
Ultimately, the crux of it is that it is SUCH a sensitive issue, and I find it completely abhorrent that the grandparents didn't even have a say in something so controversial, let alone be able to adopt the children themselves.
I doubt the media really take issue with them being "too old". This is another one of those "OMFG GAYS" things. There has to be something underlying-- too old to take on kids they don't know well enough/ likely to be involved with the parents drug use/ whatever. EDIT: It actually states in the article! "The grandfather, a farm worker, has angina and his wife is on medication for diabetes." The kids, around 5ish, are far too young to have the responsibility of very soon looking after the grandparents, when they obviously need care and love themselves.
Gay adoption is certainly acceptable, and the sooner people stop going "well, it's quite possible that they'll be picked on", the sooner it will become enough of a norm, and the sooner it will be accepted.
Just proves that that word is banded around too much nowadays.