Dated 28th January 2009 14.30 hrs
The decision by Edinburgh Social Services to take two small children from their grandparents and have them adopted by a pair of homosexuals was today criticised by Christian Voice.
The children, a boy aged five and his sister, who is four, were being looked after by their grandparents because their mother is a recovering drug-addict. Social Services have been accusing of waging a two-year war against the couple, who only gave up when their money ran out and they could no longer defend themselves and their grandchildren in court.
When he protested about the adoption by two homosexual men, the grandfather reports he was told, 'You can either accept it and there's a chance you'll see the children twice a year, or you can take that stance and never see them again.'
He also told, he says, 'If you were having contact and couldn't support the children, and showing negative feelings, it wouldn't be in their best interest for contact to take place.'
Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, said today:
'This heart-rending story illustrates all that is wrong with social services and with homosexual rights. In any other age or society, grandparents would be the natural people to step in and raise their children's children. Their age would be irrelevant; it would be the closeness of the family tie that would be the defining factor.
'But in these days of adoption targets, leaving the children with their grandparents could cost City of
thousands of pounds. Anti-discrimination legislation will result in a culture among social workers more favourable to homosexuals as prospective adopters.
'Edinburgh Social Services are apparently claiming the couple are about to drop dead, but he is only 59, and his angina need not be terminal, whilst the grandmother is only 46, and her diabetes is sure to be highly manageable. It may also be that a working-class farmhand is viewed with suspicion by white-collar social workers, or is seen as less articulate and less financially well-off than a pair of gays.
'But money isn't everything, and there are a number of reasons why children should not be placed with homosexuals, which would mandate an immediate reversal of the law in any reasonable, open-minded nation:
'There is a risk that one or both of a pair of homosexuals may have an unhealthy interest in a child, especially a boy. Homosexuals are statistically highly over-represented in child sexual abuse cases,
'Children placed with gays will have to endure playground taunts,
'Children need a mother and a father to grow up confidently relating to both sexes,
'They will be socially-engineered in that environment to view the homosexual lifestyle, with all its effeminacy, contempt for heterosexuality, promiscuity and reliance on pornography, as normal,
'The inherent short-lived nature of homosexual relationships puts the children at risk of another upheaval in their lives in the near future.
'Social Services talk about the "best interests of the children", but it is their interests and the interests of political correctness they are more worried about. It will rarely be in the best interests of children to be ripped from a loving, competent family and it will never be in their best interests to be placed with a pair of homosexuals rather than a heterosexual couple.
'It is hard to avoid the adjective "evil" when discussing a case of this kind, or when reading about the kind of conduct these social workers have employed. Our prayers must be with the children, for protection against harm, for their mother and their grandparents, who have had a great injustice done to them and been betrayed by those who should have helped them.'