This is the kind of nightmare that the enlightened equal opportunity luvvies have had coming for a very long time.
Square pegs don't fit into round holes in real life either ! ;-)
I'm sure there was a cogent point in this post trying to get out...
Yes, but surely if the child could be placed within the family that would be better for the child and as is said no reason had been given for why that could not happen and there seems to have been a lack of communication about it altogether until they kicked up a stink.
Well yes, if the family could offer a good, loving home, that would be great. If that was an option though, why did it get to the point it has? I wonder if it's because a same sex, white couple are now being considered? Maybe? - maybe not?
How can anyone guide someone else through an issue that they themselves are uncomfortable facing?
As with my example with someone who is uncomfortable with gay people"flaunting" their sexuality by being openly gay wanting to pretend that being non-white is not an issue is an indicator that someone wants to ignore the issue. It's not about making it an issue. It is an issue. Just as being female or male is a factor in life.
I think you mean their second post and it was not an example it was a scenario. Not a relevant one as a three year old could not have issues with religion.
You're of a specific race when you are born. That doesn't change over time. It is immutable.
My constructive input is we don't know any facts about this case, so who are we to say what is best for this child.
Also Muslim =/= non-white
If you disagree with the idea of someone in the extended family adopting the child, could you explain why? This story isn't about religion IMHO. It's about the welfare of the child.
Once the extended family have been ruled out, then whether the child should be placed with parents of the same ethnicity and religion is debatable but with statistics like this :
"The Government has encouraged more adoptions to be approved regardless of ethnicity, religion of sexuality after figures showed some groups of children were taking much longer to be placed.
Adoptions have risen to a 21-year high as a result, with 4,000 children adopted in 2012/13 - though backlog of 6,000 remains."
If you disagree with the idea of someone in the extended family adopting the child, could you explain why? This story isn't about religion IMHO. It's about the welfare of the child.
I don't disagree with it. I just haven't met the extended family in this case, have you?
Maybe you should tell social services that they forgot to follow any procedures and just decided to give the child to some random 'white lesbians' because, reasons.
I don't disagree with it. I just haven't met the extended family in this case, have you?
I don't think that question is relevant. What does my meeting them have to do with the common sense idea that the grandparents or uncles or aunts or cousins of the same family are likely to be a better option? I'm quite an optimistic person and see the best in people. I have no reason to see bad in people I don't know. Thus logic dictates that with the information we have at present it seems the extended family could be a good candidate to adopt the child. The news piece mentions the family not having received explanations on why the extended family applications were denied. It seems they now have another chance to give their case as who is their ideal candidate.
EDIT: As I wrote a response you edited your post. As far as I'm concerned religion or the sexuality of the adopters isn't an issue. If the decision gets made then it's fine as clearly the authorities do consider the couple fit to adopt. I think you might be misinterpreting my views.
My constructive input is we don't know any facts about this case, so who are we to say what is best for this child.
We're exchanging opinions on a message board. No suggestions we come up with are legally binding. Snarkiness is generally unconstructive, just so you know.
That's certainly the case, but generally, white Muslims are extremely low in number in the UK. Also, given that the article details the birth family as being of Somali origin, it's a reasonable assumption that they are non-white.
I don't think that question is relevant. What does my meeting them have to do with the common sense idea that the grandparents or uncles or aunts or cousins of the same family are likely to be a better option? I'm quite an optimistic person and see the best in people. I have no reason to see bad in people I don't know. Thus logic dictates that with the information we have at present it seems the extended family could be a good candidate to adopt the child. The news piece mentions the family not having received explanations on why the extended family applications were denied. It seems they now have another chance to give their case as who is their ideal candidate.
Then let them follow the correct procedures. What does it have to do with you?
Then let them follow the correct procedures. What does it have to do with you?
Nothing. I am not in the family or in the authority. I'm an anonymous person on the internet sharing a view on a story I am interested in. Nothing I say is legally binding and nor was it intended to be.
Could you explain why you seem to have an issue with me? Am I not allowed to have my views? Or to share them on here?
Are you deliberately trying to be offensive? This is a discussion , discuss.
What have I said that offended you? My opinion is simply that we don't have any real evidence other than a one sided story told though the daily mail. That is my view, I am simply voicing it as everyone else is.
What have I said that offended you? My opinion is simply that we don't have any real evidence other than a one sided story told though the daily mail. That is my view, I am simply voicing it as everyone else is.
Then discuss the story and don't attack posters who don't share your opinion.
One of the problems that needs to be addressed is encouraging black and ethnic minorities to foster and adopt.
i agree.
i had an aunt and uncle in rural oxfordshire who adopted eleven children of various ethnicities in less enlightened times, i know that some spent their teens desperately searching for a culture they could fit into that reflected their ethnic background.
being able to relate to your roots in some way is, i would imagine, very important to most adoptees.
Sorry what example. Is it just me or does none of that make any sense?
If someone says they are OK with people being gay as long as they don't flaunt it and by that they mean mention it then they are uncomfortable with gayness. If someone says they are comfortable with racial differentiation but it shouldn't be made an issue of then it is the same. They are clearly uncomfortable with it. I hope that is clearer.
Comments
You seem to know what's right for everyone and all about this case. Maybe you should work in social services.
I'm sure there was a cogent point in this post trying to get out...
Well yes, if the family could offer a good, loving home, that would be great. If that was an option though, why did it get to the point it has? I wonder if it's because a same sex, white couple are now being considered? Maybe? - maybe not?
I'm with Richard.
Your post makes no sense whatsoever.
I will assume your lack of constructive input is you are still wet behind the ears. What constructive point would you make. .
My constructive input is we don't know any facts about this case, so who are we to say what is best for this child.
Also Muslim =/= non-white
You're of a specific race when you are born. That doesn't change over time. It is immutable.
I don't know what your issue is, I thought we were sharing opinions here. It's what I've been doing.
If you disagree with the idea of someone in the extended family adopting the child, could you explain why? This story isn't about religion IMHO. It's about the welfare of the child.
"The Government has encouraged more adoptions to be approved regardless of ethnicity, religion of sexuality after figures showed some groups of children were taking much longer to be placed.
Adoptions have risen to a 21-year high as a result, with 4,000 children adopted in 2012/13 - though backlog of 6,000 remains."
It should become a low priority.
I don't disagree with it. I just haven't met the extended family in this case, have you?
Maybe you should tell social services that they forgot to follow any procedures and just decided to give the child to some random 'white lesbians' because, reasons.
On race I agree. Apparently the opportunity for adopters of the same race to come forward has been made. Hopefully they will emerge.
I don't think that question is relevant. What does my meeting them have to do with the common sense idea that the grandparents or uncles or aunts or cousins of the same family are likely to be a better option? I'm quite an optimistic person and see the best in people. I have no reason to see bad in people I don't know. Thus logic dictates that with the information we have at present it seems the extended family could be a good candidate to adopt the child. The news piece mentions the family not having received explanations on why the extended family applications were denied. It seems they now have another chance to give their case as who is their ideal candidate.
EDIT: As I wrote a response you edited your post. As far as I'm concerned religion or the sexuality of the adopters isn't an issue. If the decision gets made then it's fine as clearly the authorities do consider the couple fit to adopt. I think you might be misinterpreting my views.
We're exchanging opinions on a message board. No suggestions we come up with are legally binding. Snarkiness is generally unconstructive, just so you know.
That's certainly the case, but generally, white Muslims are extremely low in number in the UK. Also, given that the article details the birth family as being of Somali origin, it's a reasonable assumption that they are non-white.
Then let them follow the correct procedures. What does it have to do with you?
Nothing. I am not in the family or in the authority. I'm an anonymous person on the internet sharing a view on a story I am interested in. Nothing I say is legally binding and nor was it intended to be.
Could you explain why you seem to have an issue with me? Am I not allowed to have my views? Or to share them on here?
Are you deliberately trying to be offensive? This is a discussion , discuss.
What have I said that offended you? My opinion is simply that we don't have any real evidence other than a one sided story told though the daily mail. That is my view, I am simply voicing it as everyone else is.
Then discuss the story and don't attack posters who don't share your opinion.
As much as it has to do with any of us posting on here. Why are you attacking just the one poster?
Which is different from what you are doing because...
Trying to make me a racist,you are outta luck.I don't care who sleeps with who and what colour they are.
But many muslims don't agree with homosexuality,they have both done extremely well out of modern equality laws and attitudes.
In some cases it is most certainly square pegs and round holes
i agree.
i had an aunt and uncle in rural oxfordshire who adopted eleven children of various ethnicities in less enlightened times, i know that some spent their teens desperately searching for a culture they could fit into that reflected their ethnic background.
being able to relate to your roots in some way is, i would imagine, very important to most adoptees.
If someone says they are OK with people being gay as long as they don't flaunt it and by that they mean mention it then they are uncomfortable with gayness. If someone says they are comfortable with racial differentiation but it shouldn't be made an issue of then it is the same. They are clearly uncomfortable with it. I hope that is clearer.