Rant: Daily Mail Gay Adoption Row

I've been trying to find the appropriate links for this story, but christ, the Daily Mail's website is virtually impossible to navigate. God knows how old people cope. How about a 'find related stories' option? Today's version was written by Jonathan Brocklebank- need I say more?
But this first article is the one that is the most gobsmackingly offensive.
The basic background is this; two children of a heroin addicted mother are to be adopted by a gay couple as social services have deemed the grandparents too old/ill to look after them. We don't know much more, Littlejohn claims this is because 'it’s been kept secret to protect the identities of the social workers involved and conceal the extent of their wickedness.' Er, no dipshit, it's to protect innocent children! Who knows what the background is? Maybe the heroin addicted mother is staying with the grand-parents? If the children have been taken into care it's obviously a serious reason. We hear enough about social workers NOT taking children into care, now they are criticised FOR taking them into care. Which way do you want it? Also, the grandparents parenting skills might need to be examined, right? I don't want to cast aspersions, but as that's exactly what they are doing, I think I will.
The crux of this story is pure, blatant homophobia. Check this out from the first article:
'Peter Kearney said: 'This is a devastating decision which will have a serious impact on the welfare of the children involved.
'There is an overwhelming body of evidence showing that same-sex relationships are inherently unstable and reduce the life expectancy of those involved.
'With this in mind, the social work department has deliberately ignored evidence which undermines their decision and opted for politically correct posturing rather than providing stability and protection.
'It is impossible to see how this decision is in the best interests of the children.'
Read that again. 'There is an overwhelming body of evidence showing same sex relationships are inherently unstable and reduce the life expectancy of those involved'!!! That is quite an audacious statement, no? WHERE is the evidence for that?!?!! I'd like to see it. Oh, but I can't because it's offensive BULLSHIT. Presuming a percentage of gay couples HAVE to adopt as they cannot have children biologically (although there are obvious other routes) it seems to me they must go through more stringent check to ENSURE they are suitable parents (just as straight couples do to adopt).
'The grandfather in this case says: ‘The mother is the cornerstone of any family and the most important person for a young child.’ The whole 'kids need mothers' outcry seems more than a little ironic; after all, they HAD one, didn't they, and she fell short! In fact, if I'm as reactionary and dumbass as the Mail, I'd think this story tells us if anything that mothers aren't fit to raise their own children.
This whole children need a mother figure and a father figure crap is just nonsensical to a vast number of people bought up by a loving single mother, or warring parents. It's just NOT TRUE. Sure in an ideal world, their mum could look after them. But she can't. The rest is just homophobia.
To read Littlejohn defending a heroin addict is just hilarious considering his usual stance on things. But hey, even junkies are preferable to sodomites, RIGHT?
And how about this thinly-veiled threat; 'As for anonymity, does anyone really think that two gay men, living together in an Edinburgh suburb, who suddenly start playing Happy Families with a five-year-old boy and a four-year-old girl, are going to go unnoticed?' In other words, lets hire an angry mob. Does he not understand the anonymity was for the children's sake? Do the grandparents not even understand that?
And for an extra bit of poison, see that horse-faced cunt Platell's musings on it.
I feel sorry for the couple involved who can't speak out and defend themselves, as they are basically written off as not fit to be parents on the basis of who they fell in love with. They obviously want to be parents and it must be just awful to have your relationship described as unequal to straight people's, when there are a zillion straight couples out there with godawful realtionships, making all sorts of horrific parenting choices. Because that's the part the Mail writers don't get: all people are different. You can lump them together and quote imaginary statistics, but it doesn't make you right. Every relationship has it's own dynamics, and that couple have a right to adopt, just like lesbians, infertile women, or anybody else. It's not their fault the social workers said no to the grandparents. And it's not their fault the mother couldn't cope. And it's not their fault their suitability as parents is being questioned due to their sexuality. It's just wrong and unjust, and an insult to all gay people, and all sane people, just because the Daily Mail are bigotted fuckwits.
I hope those men bring those children up to be much-loved, open-minded, happy little people. Because after all this, they deserve it.