Hollywood did not invent the genre of horror. If you want to read a really grotesque horror story turn to the biblical Book of Judges and read the story of a judge named Jephthah, who is a bastard born of a whore. We do not know if Jephthah has a wife, but he has a daughter. Jephthah may have adopted her after kidnapping her from a village he raided.

The story climaxes with Jephthah vowing to sacrifice whoever comes forth from the doors of his house to meet him, should God grant him victory over Israel’s enemies. Israel wins. Jephthah returns home and watches with horror as his daughter emerges from his house to welcome him.

Jephthah is the antithesis of a parent: he sacrifices an innocent child to placate his perverse beliefs. Parents sacrifice their ambitions and desires for their sake of their children. Jephthah sacrifices his child to satisfy his vainglorious ambitions and selfish desires. You could say the Jephthah syndrome defines the modern approach to child-rearing.

Dr Spock’s revolution has proved to be short-lived. His ideas about childcare – persuading parents to be more flexible, responsive and affectionate with their children – no longer hold sway. Today children’s needs come a definite second to parents’ rights either to have them or to offload them. Mention Dr Bowlby’s groundbreaking research on the baby’s prior need for maternal attachment and expect to be told that a baby is capable of multiple attachments and substitute figures will do.

The evidence of the impact of maternal deprivation on babies has not changed – indeed findings mount on anxiety and heightened cortisol levels – but ideology about women’s rights has. The logic of feminism, that children’s needs can be subordinated to adult rights, is obvious. Once it is OK for daycare or fathers to substitute for mothers, so it becomes OK for anyone, regardless of whether or not they, as individuals,  are indeed the best substitute (often granny) that can be found, in terms of meeting the child’s needs.

Children raised by same-sex couples are now comparing their experience of gay adoption to Jephthah’s story in the recent study Jephthah’s Children: The Innocent Casualties of Same-Sex Parenting. Their revelations would have been deserving of attention even had not the tragedy of toddler Elsie, who was taken away from her family by social services, given to a gay couple for adoption and murdered by one of her adoptive dad, Matthew Scully-Hicks, hit the headlines.

Jephthah’s daughter was an adult when she fulfilled her father’s bizarre vow. Elsie was 18 months old when she died from Scully-Hicks’s abuse resulting in broken ribs, a broken leg, bleeding on the brain and a fractured skull. Jephthah ‘tore his clothes’ with penitence when he saw the consequences of his behaviour. Remorseless Scully-Hicks referred to Elsie as ‘Satan dressed up in a Babygro.’

The Book of Judges condemns Jephthah’s behaviour and his society in the refrain, ‘In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes.’ Social services and judges in our society commend gay adoption as a matter of gay rights and not as a response to children’s needs.

Social services, so reluctant to remove Elsie from Scully-Hicks, did not hesitate in the case of a Christian heterosexual couple, Vincent and Pauline Matherick, who had fostered 28 children. Officials took from them an 11-year-old boy the couple were fostering because they’d refused to teach him about homosexuality. But in Elsie’s case, social workers were terrified of questioning the dominant orthodoxy that same-sex couples make equally good or better parents.

This myth is based on ‘fake research’. Nevertheless, it is a fiction that is leading to a boom in gay adoption, which has increased ever since it was allowed in Labour’s 2002 Adoption Act. Numbers have risen further since same-sex marriage was introduced in England and Wales in 2014. Same-sex couples now make up a record one in seven of the total approved to adopt children. Meanwhile, adoption by heterosexual couples has dropped 12 per cent this year.

In 2014, Simon Crouch, himself a gay parent, conducted a landmark study at the University of Melbourne influencing policy on gay adoption. The Washington Post sensationalised the study, declaring that ‘children of same-sex couples are happier and healthier than peers’. Crouch claimed that his study on 315 mostly lesbian couples was the largest of its kind, despite serious methodological flaws including using a self-selected ‘convenience sample’ where the respondents knew the purpose of the survey, and thus the political and social importance of the results, before they were asked to participate.

By contrast, researchers Robert Oscar Lopez and Brittany Klein, editors of Jephthah’s Children, draw on the first-hand experiences of scores of children (now adults) who were adopted by gay couples.

Lopez, who was gay and is now married to a woman, narrates his upbringing by two lesbians. ‘We hear that gay couples have loving homes and they love their children,’ he writes. ‘I don’t buy that because I think love means you sacrifice for the other person rather than expect the other person to sacrifice for you. If you are gay and love a child, you either sacrifice your gayness and raise the child in a home with both mother and father, or you sacrifice your dream of parenthood so the child can be adopted by a home with a mother and father.’

Children adopted by gay couples are raised in a culture that is ‘highly specific and fraught with problems,’ he writes, where ‘adults have higher rates of depression, anxiety, eating disorders, sexually transmitted diseases including HIV/AIDS, domestic violence, sexual assault, and suicidal ideation’. He calls gay adoption ‘systematic child abuse’.



Klein, who was also brought up by a lesbian couple, tackles the thorny issue of gays and surrogacy. ‘How did parenthood become a right?’ she asks. ‘This is not about what goes on between two adults. This is a whole country becoming complicit in making women breeder livestock to meet the whims of a group of men and then denying children created as saleable goods the basic right to a mother and father . . . A child deserves a mother and a father. This is a basic human right. Parenthood is not a right . . . No homophobia in the world even competes with this socially accepted dehumanisation of children.’

Advocates for gay parenting are creating a system where children belong to adults who want them, not adults who conceived them, the researchers argue.

Klein is begging society to listen to today’s Jephthah’s daughters and sons. ‘There are many of us out in the world. Our parents used us as little display objects. We existed only to make our parents look good – living, breathing political statements. We existed to feed the insatiable egos that were our parents. Does that sound like a happy childhood?’

As a researcher she puts her finger on a raw methodological nerve. ‘Don’t ask the six-year-old if she or he is happy. The toddlers have been trained to speak like a pet bird. They live in fear of what a parent will do if they dare to make the parent look bad. Don’t go by the dog and pony show at the Pride Parade. Ask us, those of us who broke away from the culture that we grew up in. We will tell you.’

Academic research must start to reconsider the children just as John Bowlby did when he brought attention to the long-term effect on children of separation anxiety – from his study of children brutally separated them from their natural parents during the war.

Klein writes: ‘History will be a harsh taskmaster. Children grow up. Trendy social causes are often revealed as bad ideas. I can say honestly that I don’t know a single one of us – those raised in gay and lesbian households – who is going to tell you they have had anything even remotely related to a happy childhood. How could we? We were just pawns. We existed only as a mirror, and there were not enough mirrors in the world to satisfy them.’

Homosexual parenting is not a matter of right. Nor is being a parent a right. It is a gift and a duty. But as in the days of the Book of Judges, there are no moral absolutes in our society today. Everyone does and can do what is right in his or her own eyes. Elsie is dead. Jephthah lives on. And that is wrong.

128 COMMENTS

  1. “Social services and judges in our society commend gay adoption as a
    matter of gay rights and not as a response to children’s needs.”
    Excellent piece and the quote, the most telling sentence.
    How many of these social services and judges are themselves gay thus influencing their objectivity?

  2. I have read tens of these stories.

    The hardest by far are accounts by women brought up in a gay male household.

    The girls are so angry at being denied a mum. They also describe never being affirmed as a woman by the (often many) gay men that came to live with and usually sleep with their fathers.

    Hard to read and with a couple of accounts tear jerking hard to read

    • I find this subject quite emotional. The thought of a child being deliberately brought up without any mother figure is both upsetting and disturbing.

    • There are huge number of children in care because their parents have played the game and then abandoned them. You are aware that these children are not being kidnapped from loving supportive parents, but are desperate need?

      • You are aware that these children are not being kidnapped

        There are in fact very many stories of children exactly being kidnapped by social workers on the basis that their parents refuse to teach homosexual and/or gender ideology.

      • Precisely because these children have had such a bad start they require the best possible care and that is the best role models of mother and father. These children are very demanding and need a lot of support and care. The problem with the child adopted who was murdered was that she had a drug addicted mother and the fact that she was called “satan in a babygrow” by this man shows how demanding – he dId not have the ability to respond.
        A friend of my daughter and her husband have taken on 4 children from the same family. The oldest is mentally scarred and needs a lot of love and discipline, the second one is doing better, the third one is disabled through lack of nutrition and has eyesight problems, the baby is fine as she had the least time with the parents. This is a full time job for a woman who wanted her own children but was not able to have them. They lavish that love on these children and give them a Mum and Dad.

        • I’m sure they’re fine people Tricia but the number of heterosexual couples putting themselves forward to adopt is declining. The choice for these children is not gay coupe or hetero couple, but adoption or stay in care. And care is not good.

          • Because you have been in care, you are the one who is the expert here about it. Bravo for your responses!

          • Heterosexual couples are being put off by PC social workers. I know a couple who had 7 children of their own and fostered other children for years. In the early 2000’s they got completely fed up with the social workers and the fact that they were a Christian family began to be held against them. This is all a pretext for the destruction of the natural family.

      • I was raised (if you could call it that) by my mother (if you could call her that) and her ‘partners’ (I give up) until I went into foster care, first at the age of 6 and then permanently at 10. I know first hand that some biological ‘parents’ should not be permitted to have kids.
        That said, though there are heterosexual parents who couldn’t give a damn about their children or the sacrifices they should be making for them, there’s something inherently selfish about homosexuality and ‘parenting.’ They, by choosing their sexuality and the choices that go with it, have sacrificed their need/want for children – the same goes for marriage. Many, in the gay community, seem to want to have their cake and eat it. If they want to be in a gay relationship, fine, but they have given up their right to have kids since, biologically, they cannot reproduce.

          • I’d disagree. We are animals, all animals are born with a desire to procreate, to perpetuate the species. This fundamental need drives animals to fight to the death and to override their concerns for personal survival. If LGBT was normal, something people were born to, we would see such behaviour prevalent in the rest of nature.

          • It is way more complicated than just choice. We all of us are a complex combination of Nature (genetics), Nurture (environmental influences and learning), and Choice.

            Did you know of the respected peer-reviewed research that verified (among many thousands of adolescents) that among teens who identify as gay, over three quarters of them will identify as heterosexual in a relatively few years? Some of this is choice but some of it is fairly normal psychosocial and sexual development (especially given our western culture’s influences).

          • Complete and utter nonsense. I feel sorry for anyone who has the misfortune to encounter you in a professional capacity. Assuming that you have one.

          • Repeated and unassailable scientific research is to you complete and utter nonsense? By the way, you have no idea of my professional competence based on three paragraphs of posted opinion– and everyone knows it. Your ad hominem insult says a lot more about you than about me.

          • Well said !!

            We (all of us) are a complex combination of Nature (genetics), Nurture (environmental influences and learning), and Choice

            A bit of a wobbly has been thrown into this whole area BTW (as I’m sure you already know) via recent studies tending to show that Nurture actually commences in the womb, the learning of one’s mother tongue starting there, for example, as the unborn child listens to the mother’s (and hopefully father’s) voice(s), which leads to detectable differences in brain structure in newborns.

            I completely agree with you, of course, that the causes of homosexuality are complex and likely multiple, not the gay lobby’s ideological diktat of “born that way”.

          • Yep. Nurture (environmental influences, learning) begin in the womb. Using the computer analogy, Nurture is like the software and Nature is like the hardware. When it comes to human beings, it is much easier to change the software than the hardware. This is why the lack of scientific evidence for a gay gene (and minimal DNA differences which might influence sexual preference) is so important. It explains why so many people who identify as homosexual in their teens and twenties end up changing to heterosexual (even without professional help). The same-sex attraction was caused by a glitch in the software (environmental factors)– like a computer virus… which can be eliminated.

          • I’m a bit prudent on this one — I’d guess that you’re right about most cases, but that it’s still a possibility that a minority of cases of homosexuality could be of a genetic rather than an environmental origin.

            lack of scientific evidence

            Quite.

          • Anything is possible. But yes, show me the evidence. The point being that the LGBT promoters have been pushing their favorite lie (“gay people are born that way and cannot help it, so we should accept their behavior”) for so long that many people believe it— without scientific evidence, without common sense about what is natural and what is not, and without traditional moral backing from the JudeoChristian scriptures. Also they must disregard human history and anthropology which reveals virtually every culture since the beginnings of humanity have considered homosexuality unnatural and often had laws against it…. until this most recent libertine century in the west.

  3. Robert Lopez has been a wonderful, advocate for children and was involved with Manif pour tous in France when thousands of French people were out on the streets protesting about same sex marriage. The French “got it” – male and female = child, the parents, the sons and daughters, the grandparents. We were stupid in this country and now we are losing all these words – mother, father, husband, wife. And worst of all we are allowing children to be motherless/fatherless and lose their heritage and identity. These children will grow up and have their say and the shame we will feel is utterly deserved
    A good story to write on a weekend that the sports world of football and rugby is showing its right on LGBTQ credentials. I wonder how many players did not want to wear rainbow laces – the only diversity allowed is strictly enforced!

    • Rainbow laces? What rubbish!

      I saw some rugby yesterday, including England and Samoa on the telly. I didn’t see any of this rubbish. Even the BBC didn’t mention it. Are you sure?

    • The company I work for is actively trying to prove its “right on” credentials by promoting the LGBT agenda. Back in the summer we were all issued with rainbow flags and other gay paraphernalia to display on our desks. Many went along with it. Some, like myself just binned the lot. We were also encouraged to join the official company’s delegation to that display of depravity ; the local gay pride march. Did I go? Not on your life. What the hell are companies doing getting involved in this kind of political activism. It has nothing to do with work and they know that for many it is deeply contentious.

      • We have have recently complained to our building society because of promotion of gay pride. They did not know what to say and we then had a follow up phone call. We stated that this is an ideological political movement and that it is not like supporting Cancer Research or another charity. We have threatened to remove our savings. The majority need to get vocal and hit them where it hurts – their profits!

        • Ah, but will the Thought Police be after you now? As I remarked in a previous post, I’ve thought about this but don’t want end up on some secret blacklist.

          • It is a mark of integrity and courage to be on such a blacklist. I am seeking to collect such marks. Blatant persecution will gain me even more in the Ultimate Evaluation of persons.

        • I want to applaud you for your courage, Tricia. God bless you and may there be many more people like you. Evil prevails when good people don’t speak up for the truth.

        • We have already reached the point where most people are too afraid to complain……..

          Thst is of course their intention. ( I was going to write left instead of their but I don’t think it is just the political left)

      • Could the company actually be breaking some law by trying to compel people to do things which are against their conscience and are not part of their job? What would happen if a company encouraged its staff to take part in a demonstration against gay marriage? I can imagine the reaction of the BBC and Guardian.

    • “A good story to write on a weekend that the sports world of football and rugby is showing its right-on LGBTQ credentials”.
      This Saturday, I had occasion to visit the centre of Birmingham. Walking past the Museum/Art Gallery I saw posters for “Coming Out”, which on further investigation is described as a “major exhibition” and apparently “will feature over 80 modern and contemporary artworks by internationally renowned artists who explore themes of gender, sexuality and identity in art. A ground-breaking and vital exhibition which marks the 50th anniversary of the partial decriminalisation of male homosexual acts in England and Wales (1967 Sexual Offences Act)”.

      Or put another way, homosexual culture promoted by the taxpayer, whether they like it or not.

  4. It is true that one example does not prove anything but I have only one experience to recount. I know, through my children, a Gay couple (two men for clarification) who have two boys. You could not hope to find two better parents and they dedicate themselves to giving the boys a happy, secure and disciplined upbringing. Although kind and gentle they are firm about behaviour and manners. I see a great many parents with their children and most fail any kind of standard at all. I see raging aggression and casual indifference to bad behaviour. The two men could give lessons on parenting.

    • The book referred to is written by Robert Oscar Lopez who seems to be an interesting chap. Although he identifies as ‘bisexual’ he has a long history of being extremely anti-gay. So it is possible, just possible, that a little editorial bias may have crept into ‘Jeptha’s Children’.

      • Everyone is biased in someway which is why we must read and be cautious. I don’t disagree but was just pointing out one example which is working

      • He is not anti gay. He was brought up by his lesbian mother and her partner, who he loved. He understands the LGBT community as he has lived in it. What he does not agree with is children being brought up by LGBT households and surrogacy and sperm donation which take away identity from children. He calls this stealing children. He believes that all children need a mother and a father.

          • His writings are about the effects on the child, not about the lifestyle choices of adults – therefore he is not anti gay. He is ex-gay.

      • If you define ‘parents’ as a man and a woman. I was referring to their ability. By your definition of parent there are many, many failures and it is wise to remember that. If you read what I said I didn’t support adoption by Gay couples I simply pointed out that the negative article does have at least one exception.

        • Perhaps this will help clear your confusion …

          OED, 2nd Edition, 2009 : parent, n. — 1. a.1.a A person who has begotten or borne a child; a father or mother.

          • Well actually I am not confused nor am I arguing for Gay adoption. Two men can be parents by that OED definition and can be good ones or at least in theory. The practice is quite another matter.

          • Two men can be parents by that OED definition

            What utter nonsense. Or is one of those a woman who self-identifies as “a man” ???

        • Of course I define “parents” as being a man and a woman. That’s obvious, but not what I meant – and I see that Jabba Pappa has satisfactorily covered the pedantry angle, below.

          I mean that “parenting” by homosexual couples necessarily corrupts the nature of parenthood and is ipso facto bad.

          • I am not trying to pick a fight here. I merely (and I have said this already) pointed out that I know of one exception to the negative portrait painted. Your definition seems to mean considerably more than the OED has it. Men who are heterosexual, married and fathers are also parents. If they are also widowers there is no woman and yet they are still parents. So to pick holes in what I said about the two men being good parents seems pointless. However, as you are locked into your pedantry I will say it differently. ‘You could not hope to find two men with better parenting skills.’ I think for our mutual sanity the exchange had best end there.

          • As I said, I’m not a pedant. Not today anyway.

            There is rather a lot of difference between widowed or unmarried or adoptive parents and what we used to call, rightly, “pretended family relations”.

            It’s a scandal. It’s a disgrace. There will be a price to pay.

          • Clearly an emotive subject and I repeat again I was not arguing for it. The debate has now wandered well away from the very simple point I made.

          • ‘If they are also widowers there is no woman and yet they are still parents.’
            Their is still a woman: their late wife, the children’s mother. You cannot scrub a life so easily. Or perhaps you can.

          • Sigh, I was not dismissing life or the deceased mother. No such thing as a very cursory reading ought to tell you. I made the very simple point that one Gay couple I knew had good parenting skills. On the other hand heterosexual married couples I know do not have those same skills. That was my only point.

          • I know of one exception to the negative portrait painted

            Except that l’exception ne définit pas la règle.

          • No, sorry, it’s a longstanding basic principle of Law that you do not change it merely to suit the needs of this or that minority exceptional situation.

            A principle trashed, of course, along with the rest of all Classical Ethics and Morals back in the 60s & 70s …

          • You’re arguing against something I haven’t said and don’t believe. I DO NOT believe Gay adoption is right. I don’t even accept Gay marriage. My point was solely about parenting skills. The article in effect condemned all Gay men and women that had adopted as if they were all doing a bad job. Now it may well be true that long term outcomes will be bleak. I don’t know and no one knows which is one very good reason not to do it. However, I do know two Gay men that have adopted two boys. My sole point was that contrary to the impression left by the article those men had good parenting skills. Suggestions that men can’t be good parents are ludicrous and offensive to the many men who have to be both father and mother to children. That doe snot make Gay adoption right and you may cite moral or religious principles against it. You may well point out that it causes long term problems for the children. My only point was that it does not automatically mean that those men or women have poor parenting ability.
            Now that I think is enough on this subject

    • One of the girls I referred to earlier talks about the point you make.

      She said that she was to all intent and purpose, well brought up in the eyes of the world. Materilly well off, given boundaries, holidays friends to stay etc. Inside herself however, she said it was a different story. Her father and his boyfriends treated her well but did not affirm her as a young woman.

      Her father gave her everything but deliberately denied her a mum.

      She said grew to hate him for it and she describes the long road to forgiveness but she is unequivocal, never acceptance.

      • That is extremely sad and raises a very good point indeed. I used the only example I know of two Gay men that had boys. Maybe that is a different story I don’t know. That is one of the problems about this headlong rush, we simply do not know the long term outcomes. Of course, it is also true that heterosexual couples adopting children also often have problems. Not all is sweetness and light. However, I was not supporting Gay adoption. I just made a simple point that I did know one couple who were doing well.

  5. How strange.

    If you do a search on Google News for “Mark J Newton”, it only gives a few results.
    Click on the “View All” button for more stories, and you get this….
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/06cba48de3cd3cf9640ae6cdfdeaf61f214cf3743c27ded835957f698394cb0e.png

    Seems like Google is actively blocking news stories that don’t fit it’s narrative.

    You can read the basic story of Mark J. Newton and Peter Truong here… https://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/queensland-couple-linked-abuse-other-young-boys/1931261/

    • Here’s one of the news stories Google are trying to block.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2355194/U-S-Australian-citizen-sentenced-40-years-buying-boy-sole-purpose-exploitation.html#ixzz4zXTeQX3A

      At least Vladimir Putin is woke on the matter.

      PUTIN LIMITS ADOPTION BY GAY COUPLES, BANS ALL AMERICAN ADOPTIONS

      President Vladimir Putin has signed a bill that sharply limits the adoption of Russian children by people from countries that allow same-sex marriage.

      The new law prohibits adoption by same-sex foreign couples whose homeland recognizes their union as marriage, as well as by single people or unmarried couples from those countries.

      A Kremlin statement said the measure is intended to guarantee children a ‘harmonious’ upbringing and protect them from ‘complexes, emotional suffering and stress.’

    • That Google censors its search results is not new news, although it is getting worse. Most of the noise lately has been on YouTube (owned by Google/Alphabet) which is removing the possibility of monetization (and ease of use) for many conservative sites, as i Facebook, Twitter, and most of the rest. It’s partly driven by EU regulations BTW.

    • I just tried googling “Mark J. Newton” and Google claimed there were about 50,000 hits. That does not sound like censorship.

  6. Same-sex couples now make up a record one in seven of the total approved to adopt children

    These couples are very VERY far from being one couple in seven.

    This particularly eye-opening statistic demonstrates unequivocally that social workers are deliberately putting children into homosexual households beyond any reasonable proportions.

  7. Unnatural disgusting and wrong for the child. Liberals are a cancer on society. It’s a disgrace certain western countries have gone down this moral hell hole.

  8. Normally I agree with almost everything on here and enjoy reading because of the quoted research or turns of phrase I can use to better express my opinions.

    But with this topic, I happen to think it’s awful but still preferable to leaving kids in homes run by the council where the outcomes are known to be dreadful (for a wide number of reasons, largely in spite of the efforts of the people in charge). It’s the better of two bad options until we can convince thousands more heterosexual families to adopt kids. Though I’m honest enough to hold myself up as a non-participating hypocrite (like most of us) on the adoption topic.

    My cartoon and comedy news summary for the week
    https://youtu.be/L9WE72TM_dI

    • Hi
      That is a bit of a false dichotomy. There a tens of thousands of kind and loving couples who want to both foster and adopt in this country who are put off by onerous and intrusive demands and timescales put forward by the Government and Councils.
      I know a couple, who are both Police officers and already had one natural child of their own, who gave up. There seems to be lower and higher thresholds dependent on your views, your backgound and your political correctness score.

      P.S Enjoy the cartoons and news summary very much, keep it up!.

    • Reading this book might change the way you think. In the olden days we used to have orphanages… no matter how bad they were, they were at least not creating human beings with a completely imbalanced view of human society, family and human identity. This whole issue of gay and lesbian identity sliding down to transgender stuff is designed to destroy our identity as human beings created in the image and likeness of God… and recognising that alone can bring out the best in us… denying that is more likely to bring out the worst in us.
      Can you imagine how imbalanced life is when one is taught to hate the other sex because he or she has been brought up by men or women who hate the other sex? And what about the predators entering ‘two dad’ house in the guise of friends and abusing boys that are adopted by the two dads.. or imagine the hatred and awkwardness with which girls grow up in a ‘two dad’ house… just put yourself in situations like this and see how you feel… suffocating… suicide would be a good idea then.

  9. Babies being bought and sold as commodities. Children being handed over to abusers by social services to fulfil a purely political agenda. Children being procured as cute pets and fashion accessories to meet someone’s need to make a statement about their virtue. Many of them suffering immeasurably, or even dying at the hands of their owners, I see no difference between this and the trading of slaves from Africa. We have gone back 200 to 300 years into a an amoral cesspool of self-gratification. Just as slaves were not considered humans with rights, so are children in our society. We live in an age of institutionalised and state-promoted child abuse.

  10. Thank you, Dr. Lopez and Brittany Klein for your book…. of course, you have paid through your life experiences to pen this very disturbing book which is a real eye opener. I wept and wept all through its reading… how could we be so daft to allow selfish men and women to treat children like commodities that could be bought and sold and adopted for pleasure and pretend that we are a civilised society? How come our society has forgotten basic justice and how come we are allowing this leftist and cultural marxist agenda to go ahead?
    A friend had given me an autograph while I was in college which read, ”They are great simply because we are on our knees, Let us rise.” I do not know who is the original writer of this quote but with due respect, let me say this, those who are destroying seem great because we are on our knees, let us rise and do much more than we are already doing.
    Well done, citizenGo! Well done, Voice for Justice UK! Well done, IOF! Well done, Conservative Woman! Well done, Dr. Gomez, continue to do the good work of destabilising the Leftist, Marxist strongholds..that support the LGBTIQ agenda. Bring these ideologies down and destroy them utterly so that good and healthy society might prevail.

  11. Some years ago, a young friend of mine ended up as a single father to a three year old girl when his wife died of cancer. The local social services did everything the could to try to persuade him to give up the child for adoption on the grounds that a man can’t bring up a female child. Instead of offering help and support, they appeared to do their level best to prove he was doing something wrong so they could take the girl into care.
    Fortunately he had good neighbours and both sets of grandparents to help him and the girl is now about eight and doing really well.
    Now other social services are content to give a girl to two men to raise (and kill), even though grandparents were available. Total madness!!!!

    • I wonder to what extent the tendency to advertise many public service jobs in the Guardian and other left of centre publications is responsible for the high proportion of PC-blinkered idiots in such jobs? Perhaps jobs in the public sector should be advertised on a national website, even if the jobs themselves are categorised by region. That way a wider section of applicants might be attracted and we might end up with more social workers with common-sense.

      • I get the impression that most local government jobs are filled by word of mouth. Even if a wider range of people apply, the interview will ensure that they still get people of their own kind.

      • I think you have put your finger on a vital point . The so-called progressive liberal left has more or less taken over the education system and social services . Consider how many tragedies there have been over the years where vunerable children have been abused and even murdered , and still the message is……….we will learn the lessons but we know best !

    • That’s a shocking story but, in this day and age, it doesn’t surprise me. A society which talks about protecting the young while promoting abortion – like I said, sad and shocking, but not surprising.

      • It would have been easy to find someone wanting to adopt a white girl of good parentage which would enable boxes to be ticked by social workers. There were even unsubstantiated rumours at the time that money often changed hands. This and our own “run-in” with social workers some thirty years ago means that I don’t trust any of them.

    • Good! your friend did not succumb to the pressure of the social workers…. are these breed a class apart who know only to tick the boxes and are paid for that? I have known a grandmother who continues to be heart-broken for her granddaughter who was forced into adoption to a gay couple at the age of three by social workers and she was not even allowed to see her granddaughter. Do these social workers have a human heart in them or they are made only of the leftist ideology? How miserable and sad it is to be nothing but a destructive ideology and not a human being? Sometimes I have this mental picture of such a person driven by such madness as a torso with a metal box for its head.

      • They may have hearts but as with the death of Victoria Climbie, any social worker who dares challenge this doctrine will find themselves disciplined, dismissed, and probably unemployable elsewhere.

        Even the judge giving findings of fact in the Scully-Hicks case felt obliged to hastily say this was not about a gay adoption – but it was,both because he and the social workers were and are too scared to see what was obvious to the neighbours. As with Climbie.

      • I think that they are now scared of something going wrong than rather than looking in occasionally and giving sensible advice, they take the “no blame” route. It didn’t do the children in care much good in Rotherham!

    • I am genuinely shocked that this was within the last decade. Unless there was some other reason for social services involvement, they had no business suggesting a single parent was incapable of bringing up a child.

      • He’s what I would call a hippy, with long hair and never looks smart. But he works as a forester and looks after trees and the land. Perhaps looks influenced their thinking, probably it would mine except he’s the son of an old school friend.

  12. Yes, Gomes rightly says that “the Jephthah syndrome defines the modern approach to child-rearing.”

    While there have always been some totally selfish people who would prioritize their children far down the list of what is important to them (money, career, adult relationships, recreational activities, alcohol, drugs, etc. coming ahead of kids), this selfish and anti-child tendency is actually promoted as normal today.

    In the west, this normalization started with the profligate use of “the pill”– contraceptives to prevent pregnancies and thus have far fewer children. This anti-children tendency has continued down into the nightmare abyss of abortion– with the legalizing of abortion for any reason (including mere convenience). Under the euphemized term “birth control,” the entire purpose for the masses has been the reduction of labor, responsibility, and expense of having children.

    So of course this selfish tendency has also generalized to child-rearing practices, including allowing TV and other media to “babysit” the kids, having children spend more waking time in Daycare than at home, and simply neglecting their children’s needs for adult attention and love.

    Raising children in the right way is not easy; it takes much time and effort on the part of
    parents, who must sacrifice much of their desire for things, money, and recreational activities (at least until the children are old enough to participate).

    So what is the solution? Same as it always has been… more concern for the welfare of children. How do we accomplish that in our “me-first” culture where the parents have yet to grow up themselves? Besides education and media promotion of children’s welfare, we need a change in the hearts and souls of those who might become parents… we need less selfishness and more love. So at this point I am changing hats from psychologist to minister.

    So how do we change hearts to be more loving and less selfish? We actually cannot do it ourselves, it must come from the power of God through our prayers and faith. As the Apostle John wrote, we “love because God first loved us.” This agape love is sacrificial; it puts selfish desires at their proper place in our lives. So the answer is gospel faith and 100% commitment to Jesus Christ. Until our culture is re-evangelized, we can do little more than tread water in this Sea of Selfishness known as “the world, the flesh, and the devil.”

    We know how Jesus felt about children: “Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” (Matthew 19:14). And He was adamantly against any form of child abuse: “And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me. If anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be
    drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come!”
    (Matthew 18:5-7). Listen up, parents! Pay attention, all adults in the west!

  13. This article is so good. The biological parents of children are far more likely to make sacrifices and love their children than trophy parents. Also in hetersexual relationships the stats are that children are far safer with their biological parents than with mum or dad’s new partner. But I am not negating the the wonderful mum and dads who unable to have their own children offer their homes and lives to adoptive children in genuine need. Their hearts are pure, unlike the selfish child abusing gay community.

  14. When a person decides to become homosexual (sorry, I don’t buy the argument that people are born gay – it’s something they choose and that’s that), they sacrifice the things that they have spent the last decade campaigning for. If they want to have kids, they should sacrifice their sexuality and marry someone of the opposite sex. If they want to marry, they should do the same but they don’t and they won’t. Homosexuality stems from selfish lustful desires – it has nothing to do with love and sacrifice.
    As far as child rearing, I was brought up in countless foster homes and children’s homes. I came with all sorts of baggage and I know that sexual confusion thrown into the mix would not have helped one little bit. When I went into foster care, I had a choice, in terms of where I went and who with. I have no idea whether that happens now but, with the rise of same sex couples looking to adopt and foster, I imagine choice is limited.
    I’m just glad that I went through the system at the back end of the 1980’s and not now. I can’t imagine how sexual confusion would have added to my then severely troubled mind.

    • Thank you for sharing your own experience with us. We are adding to a childhood that is already fraught with trouble and sometimes ‘trauma’.

  15. I have known some gays in my life. The ones I have known have been caring people.

    But what happened to the ‘best interests of the child’ as defined in the Children Act?

    The concept is used to discriminate against would-be adopters who smoke. Who are fat. Who hold the ‘wrong’ political opinions.

    The Social Services argument is that to be a smoker may or may not be harmful to a child. But that there is a small risk that it could be harmful – so smokers/fatties/UKIP supporters are likely to find their path to adoption blocked.

    To be consistent, shouldn’t the same argument apply to gay would-be adopters? And doesn’t the fact that it doesn’t reveal that ‘same sex adoption’ is really just a political act?

  16. Children and their natural, God given rights, to a normal family upbringing are being sacrificed in order to progress the LGBT cause. The establishment, terrified of being branded homophobic, is complicit in turning a blind eye to the inevitable problems caused by ignoring children’s basic desires to be raised by a mother and father.
    I wish gays no harm, people are entitled to dispose of their bodies as they wish and as long as their lusts and perversions are satisfied between consenting (human) adults, I’d concede, they may indulge in whatever unnatural practices they may desire. However, I do not need to hear about those things which I find personally distasteful, I do not ( and will not) accept these lifestyle choices as normal and ( most importantly) children should never be exposed to sexual concepts beyond their years or confused by being placed with same sex (so called) parents.
    I’ve no doubt that some gay couples may well attempt to provide a stable and loving home for the children given into their care but that does not mean it is right or good for the child. Gay people gave up their rights to bear children when they made the choice to abandon normal relationships, they must therefore resign themselves to remain childless. Furthermore it seems to me often the gay desire to adopt is more motivated by a need to have it all their own way. A political statement in which the child becomes little more than a trophy, the must have accessory like those poor little dogs you see being carted around in handbags.

    • I wholeheartedly agree. Other posters on here may see me as a homophobe, from other comments I’ve posted, but I wish no harm to our rainbow patent friends. I just wish they’d stop treating the population as food stars from I’m a non Celebrity, fighting tooth and nail through all sorts of ‘trials’ to gather their trophies to show to the world. I don’t care what they do in their own home but I don’t need to be elevated to join their party. I’ve watched as they have fought the Christian community regarding what they’d call ‘homophobic behaviour’ but do they give a monkey’s butt about the offence caused to the Christian community?
      They need to get over the fact that not everyone will get on board and it shouldn’t be shoved down our throats.

Comments are closed.