Conservative State Challenge: "The Child-Protective/Fiscal-Future Marriage Act"

Are states required by federal law to promote a child's best psychological health?

  • Yes, this would dominate all other federal law.

  • No, states can defy the Prince's Trust statistics and have marriages without mothers or fathers.


Results are only viewable after voting.
Why don't you care for all adoptive and foster children?
I do. But I especially care about those that are most vulnerable getting "adopted" by predators. I'm sure the institution only had boys to send to a gay male home. Can you imagine being that adoption agent? "Yes maam...we'd like to adopt two severely handicapped boys"..."Well we have a couple of girls that have cerebral palsy"..."nnn..no no maam, we want boys". "uh...oh...ok (I have to be politically correct! I have to be politically correct!..cripes, they put that one gal in JAIL!..)...let me see what we have.."

What a bigot you are. Seriously what a bigot you are. You see a photo- and then you tell us that these guys are refusing any girls?

What a fucking bigot you are.

'those most vulnerable' are handicapped kids abandoned by the biological mothers and fathers- you know the ones you keep saying are the only ones who should be raising their kids.

And the family I showed you? The ones you are calling predators? Really- how can any decent human being call these human being predators? These guys have so much more guts than I do! And you call them 'predators'

Gay foster carers: 'I love every minute of it'


This all makes the Hastings household presided over by David Upjohn and Andrew Daniels somewhat unusual. David, 59, and Andrew, 47, are foster carers and have also been adoptive parents.

They have been together in a relationship for 24 years, and before they became full-time carers, Andrew taught at a school for children with special needs, and David worked in adult social care.

They first fostered 18 years ago. Then, the idea of two men adopting a child was uncommon, which is partly what led them to foster when, due to Andrew's experience with children with special needs, they were asked if they would look after a boy with severe disabilities. "He wasn't expected to live to his first birthday, although he eventually lived until he was seven and a half," says Andrew.

The death of a child will always be traumatic, but Andrew and David felt compelled to continue.

"He'd taught us so much and we'd developed so many skills … we thought, we can't just leave it. We've got to do something with this knowledge. That's when we decided to carry on fostering children with profound disabilities and terminal conditions."

The couple contacted Credo Care, an organisation that specialises in disability foster placements. Shortly after, Armand arrived.

"He arrived in March, 10 years ago," explains David. Born in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, six-year-old Armand had lived in hospital for most of his short life. A wheelchair user, he has severe learning disabilities, a tracheotomy and is fed through a Peg [percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy].

"He came to us when he was six and was the first one to arrive. Four months later, we had an emergency phone call, asking us if we'd take a boy from Derby. Luke arrived that afternoon. He was 12 and had Duchenne muscular dystrophy. In those days he could shuffle around, but now, he's totally … well, the disease has got hold of his body. He's 22 now. He's a great lad, he really is. He's brilliant."

A couple of months after Luke joined the household, the couple were asked to take Steven, who was five and had cerebral palsy and learning difficulties. They have looked after the three boys ever since. Two years ago, they adopted a little girl. Sadly, she wasn't well and didn't live long.

"We had 17 wonderful months," says David. "She was three when she died. It was just 10 days after the adoption was completed, and it was very sudden, so … we haven't gone down that road again," he adds, choosing his words carefully to describe what must have been a devastating experience.

The latest addition to the household arrived earlier this year. Three-year-old Emma is immobile, has limited vision and breathes via a tracheotomy, but appears to be thriving in their care.


"She's making huge progress," says Andrew. "She was in a place in Surrey, where she had lots of different people working with her. She couldn't make connections with people. Now she just has two voices that she hears all the time – the same people caring for her. And we have the luxury of spending time with her."
 
You know- a family like this one?
View attachment 50632

I dunno Syriusly. What makes you gleeful in that picture, makes my stomach turn. Those two gay men look far too thrilled with drooling twink-aged handicapped boys "in their custody". .

I really think you are sick- truly sick. You see two men with their adoptive handicapped child- and all you see is 'predator'

Not the first time you have shown you think of homosexuals as pedophiles.

These men qualify as saints- if there were any such thing as saints- and I am in awe of the sacrifice they have made to take the children abandoned by their parents into their family. You just see them as predators.

Andrew-Daniels-David-Upjo-008.jpg


This all makes the Hastings household presided over by David Upjohn and Andrew Daniels somewhat unusual. David, 59, and Andrew, 47, are foster carers and have also been adoptive parents.

They have been together in a relationship for 24 years, and before they became full-time carers, Andrew taught at a school for children with special needs, and David worked in adult social care.

They first fostered 18 years ago. Then, the idea of two men adopting a child was uncommon, which is partly what led them to foster when, due to Andrew's experience with children with special needs, they were asked if they would look after a boy with severe disabilities. "He wasn't expected to live to his first birthday, although he eventually lived until he was seven and a half," says Andrew.

The death of a child will always be traumatic, but Andrew and David felt compelled to continue.

"He'd taught us so much and we'd developed so many skills … we thought, we can't just leave it. We've got to do something with this knowledge. That's when we decided to carry on fostering children with profound disabilities and terminal conditions."

Advertisement
The couple contacted Credo Care, an organisation that specialises in disability foster placements. Shortly after, Armand arrived.

"He arrived in March, 10 years ago," explains David. Born in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, six-year-old Armand had lived in hospital for most of his short life. A wheelchair user, he has severe learning disabilities, a tracheotomy and is fed through a Peg [percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy].

"He came to us when he was six and was the first one to arrive. Four months later, we had an emergency phone call, asking us if we'd take a boy from Derby. Luke arrived that afternoon. He was 12 and had Duchenne muscular dystrophy. In those days he could shuffle around, but now, he's totally … well, the disease has got hold of his body. He's 22 now. He's a great lad, he really is. He's brilliant."

A couple of months after Luke joined the household, the couple were asked to take Steven, who was five and had cerebral palsy and learning difficulties. They have looked after the three boys ever since. Two years ago, they adopted a little girl. Sadly, she wasn't well and didn't live long.

"We had 17 wonderful months," says David. "She was three when she died. It was just 10 days after the adoption was completed, and it was very sudden, so … we haven't gone down that road again," he adds, choosing his words carefully to describe what must have been a devastating experience.

The latest addition to the household arrived earlier this year. Three-year-old Emma is immobile, has limited vision and breathes via a tracheotomy, but appears to be thriving in their care.

Advertisement
"She's making huge progress," says Andrew. "She was in a place in Surrey, where she had lots of different people working with her. She couldn't make connections with people. Now she just has two voices that she hears all the time – the same people caring for her. And we have the luxury of spending time with her."

Talking to David and Andrew, I am struck by how matter-of-factly they talk about their family setup. They clearly derive great joy and reward from their role as carers, speaking about each child with affection and deep pride. To an unexperienced outsider, the idea of caring full-time for a child with severe learning difficulties – who may not be expected to live until adulthood – probably falls into the category of every parent's worst nightmare. However, the couple are a testament to the fact that it doesn't have to be regarded that way.

"I love every minute of it. It really is wonderful to watch the children grow and develop," says David. "Maybe sometimes you're just looking for them to smile because the milestones are not the same as other families – where they start walking, they start feeding themselves, they get toilet-trained … we have none of that. We get excited when they smile and recognise us. Or maybe they turn their head at the appropriate moment. That's a huge milestone for our children."

Have they experienced prejudice, either towards their children or as a gay couple? "People are surprised," says David, carefully.

"Actual, outright homophobia? No. When you're out with four children along the seafront, people do stare at you. Quite often young children will come across and look and we encourage them to talk to the children."

"We have four children who use wheelchairs. We're quite a presence," says Andrew, laughing. "If we walk along the street, you tend to notice us!"

"The worst incident was a man walking along the pavement staring at the boys so much that he walked straight into a lamp-post," says David. "I suppose," he adds mischievously, "I could have stopped him …"

"There hasn't been in-your-face homophobia," adds Andrew, "but in the early days there were a number of children that we were likely to foster, and nothing happened. Then we found out later that a parent had said, 'No, they're not going there' – but that was a long time ago.
 
That's nice, I said I could be wrong. BTW, how many foster handicapped girls have they had, compared to boys? Just curious.

Oh, wait, I saw one girl out of around seven or so kids they mentioned.
 
That's nice, I said I could be wrong. BTW, how many foster handicapped girls have they had, compared to boys? Just curious.

Is this part where you allude to or flat out accuse them of molesting those children? Don't be coy. Just come out and say it already.
 
That's nice, I said I could be wrong. BTW, how many foster handicapped girls have they had, compared to boys? Just curious.

Is this part where you allude to or flat out accuse them of molesting those children? Don't be coy. Just come out and say it already.

One girl, five or six boys. I'm sure it's all just one big coincidence. Of course there's nothing anyone can legally do about it either way now that gays are legally dominant to children and children have no more implicit rights to the marriage contract.
 
That's nice, I said I could be wrong. BTW, how many foster handicapped girls have they had, compared to boys? Just curious.

Is this part where you allude to or flat out accuse them of molesting those children? Don't be coy. Just come out and say it already.

One girl, five or six boys. I'm sure it's all just one big coincidence.

What is all just one big coincidence?

Predicable as the rising sun. lol.
 
That's nice, I said I could be wrong. BTW, how many foster handicapped girls have they had, compared to boys? Just curious.

Oh, wait, I saw one girl out of around seven or so kids they mentioned.

What a scumbag you are. Really- what a scumbag. You accuse these men of having pedophilic intentions- because- ta dah- they are gay- and they adopt children.

Instead of applauding that there are people who are stepping up to bring into their family those who own mother and father have abandoned. Even after providing you with an article describing their efforts to parent these children- you still want to slander them

Key phrases you ignore- because you are a scumbag:
They were asked if they would look after a boy with severe disabilities. "
Four months later, we had an emergency phone call, asking us if we'd take a boy from Derby.
Two years ago, they adopted a little girl. Sadly, she wasn't well and didn't live long.
The latest addition to the household arrived earlier this year. Three-year-old Emma is immobile, has limited vision and breathes via a tracheotomy, but appears to be thriving in their care.


Not one mention of them 'requesting boys' as you said. Two girls- not one

Just another example of how you really are fine with children being harmed- rather than being around anyone gay.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: mdk
That's nice, I said I could be wrong. BTW, how many foster handicapped girls have they had, compared to boys? Just curious.

Is this part where you allude to or flat out accuse them of molesting those children? Don't be coy. Just come out and say it already.

One girl, five or six boys. I'm sure it's all just one big coincidence. Of course there's nothing anyone can legally do about it either way now that gays are legally dominant to children and children have no more implicit rights to the marriage contract.

Yeah- shame isn't it- that you can't yank these kids away from these guys and just leave them in their wheel chairs on a corner somewhere?

2 girls- 4 boys- that makes 6 more severely handicapped kids than either you or I have offered to take care of. As usual- your math is as bigoted as everything else you do.

6 severely handicapped kids abandoned by their own mother and father.

And all you can think of 'molestation'.

What a scumbag.
 
There are only the partners in a marriage contract.
Yes, signed and implied. Just as when an oil company buys land, they are the signed owners and implied parties to the use of that land are those directly affected by that use....like say a state and its estuary or drinking water supply.

So, children are in fact implicitly part of the marriage contract. How a marriage structure is set up directly affects the most vulnerable years in their lives. There is no way you can argue that they aren't part of the deliberation process in how that structure is set up. However, they were left out of that deliberation process last Spring. And, therefore, the verdict from those arguments was arrived at incorrectly. It was a mistrial.
 
No, not just like an oil company.

The childen are not little oil derricks.
 
Last edited:
No, not just like an oil company.

The childen are not little oil derricks.
No, the children are the pristine environment to be wrecked by the "parties to the land in question" bleeding their lifestyle over into the estuaries and fresh water of the People.
 
There are only the partners in a marriage contract.
Yes, signed and implied. Just as when an oil company buys land, they are the signed owners and implied parties to the use of that land are those directly affected by that use....like say a state and its estuary or drinking water supply.

So, children are in fact implicitly part of the marriage contract. How a marriage structure is set up directly affects the most vulnerable years in their lives. There is no way you can argue that they aren't part of the deliberation process in how that structure is set up. However, they were left out of that deliberation process last Spring. And, therefore, the verdict from those arguments was arrived at incorrectly. It was a mistrial.

So....you still don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about. Children are not implied in a marriage. No state requires children to marry nor the ability to have them. Making your 'just for the gays' requirements related to kids before gays can get married just more pseudo-legal gibberish.

None of the requirements you insist gays be held to exist. Making this yet another pointless thumbsucker thread. Just meaningless nonsense that you tell yourself as an act of self soothing.
 
No, not just like an oil company.

The childen are not little oil derricks.
No, the children are the pristine environment to be wrecked by the "parties to the land in question" bleeding their lifestyle over into the estuaries and fresh water of the People.

At least your not being melodramatic or anything.

Someone get Sil her fainting couch. As the gays getting married have clearly given her the vapors.
 
No, not just like an oil company.

The childen are not little oil derricks.
No, the children are the pristine environment to be wrecked by the "parties to the land in question" bleeding their lifestyle over into the estuaries and fresh water of the People.

At least your not being melodramatic or anything.
Not at all, that's your venue. I'm being illustrative for those having trouble grasping how other people can be implied parties to a contract or a holding.

I'll leave the "gay teen suicides" up to you guys.. And when you get around to it, try to talk about the multiple reasons why gay teens are killing themselves, not just your "they're being bullied!" expedient favorite, OK? And if you don't want to go there just now because you're saving that ace of spades up for an acute political situation, maybe you can talk about how kids raised in gay home have a higher propensity for suicide from a feeling of not mattering in a functional adult world if their own gender wasn't in the home...

...wait...then suddenly young people killing themselves won't get as much air time, right? That oil fouling the fresh waters of the states won't see the media limelight for even a second...

...oh, wait, there I go being "melodramatic again". That's reserved only for you folks, I forgot....who own the media and who own the rights to all the reasons young people are killing themselves...
 
Last edited:
No, not just like an oil company.

The childen are not little oil derricks.
No, the children are the pristine environment to be wrecked by the "parties to the land in question" bleeding their lifestyle over into the estuaries and fresh water of the People.

At least your not being melodramatic or anything.
Not at all, that's your venue. I'm being illustrative for those having trouble grasping how other people can be implied parties to a contract or a holding.

No, you're making up pseudo-legal gibberish. There is no 'implied contract' with children in marriage. As children aren't capable of entering into contracts. Nor does marriage require children or the ability to have them to be valid. Making your claims an expression of imagination rather than law.

There's a reason why every legal prediction you've made has been comically, laughably wrong: because you're not basing your argument on the law. You're basing it on your imagination.

Nor does denying marriage to gays help any child. As your 'solution' of denying marriage to gays in no way effects your 'problem' of children having same sex parents. Denying marriage to same sex parents doesn't magically morph same sex parents into to opposite sex parents. It merely guarantees that their children never have married parents.

Which only hurts those children. And helps no one.

Making this thread a collection of pseudo-legal nonsense used to support a proposal that does NOTHING you say it does. But instead provides the exact opposite: your proposal only causes harm to children. And helps no child.

Which you already know. And we already know. Making your latest thumbsucker thread gloriously pointless.
 

Forum List

Back
Top