Monday, September 14, 2009

Sir Elton can't adopt

Well, what do you know? Somewhere in this world, a country has laws that put children first, who don't cower to political correctness.

The Ukraine is denying Elton John the adoption
of a little boy with HIV. They don't recognize untraditional marriage and they have a law that says that adopting parent cannot be more than 45 yrs older than the child.

Will Sir Elton decide his adopting this baby he's grown to love isn't as important as helping this little boy and the rest of the children there who deserve good lives? Might he pay for excellent care for the children? He sure can afford it! Might he set up a foundation which helps people adopt in the Ukraine?

Or will he make it a homophobic thing, take his toys and go home in a huff? You know that? I'm betting he does something good with this. I hope so.
(By the way do you know, Obama is on TV now AGAIN? Does he ever WORK?) geeeeeeeeeeeeZ


FrogBurger said...

I think he'll do something good. He's a good man.
But a kid would be much better off with Elton John than the Octomom :)

shoprat said...

He will no doubt throw the homophobic fit, but children generally do much better with a male and female parent than not so it is a better idea to give them to hetero couples.

Still I would rather see that child with him than on an auction block in the Arab world.

Ducky's here said...

Yeah, an infant with HIV. I bet there's a long line of people waiting to give him a home.

So Elton John is denied the chance to give the child a home, education and a little love and we applaud denying that.

The hatred of homosexuals is that strong.

FrogBurger said...

This kid will be saved by the wonderful US medical research that recently discovered the antibodies of AIDS.

Thank god we spend money on medicine in this country!

Z said...

FrogBurger, I agree! Elton John is a WAY better candidate than octomom.

Shoprat, Good point about the Arab world, but I doubt that would happen.

Ducky, I don't know anybody with a hatred for homosexuals.
If Elton John turns this into a gay bashing thing, there will be. Very sad.

As I said in my post, a child needs the advantages he could give him; let's see if he gives them without his own wishes being met. I don't believe anybody'd deny his taking the child with a nanny ... No doubt about it, the HIV complication is a consideration...I totally see that; but I guess it's just sad to see countries caving from political pressure and I thought that Ukraine had not was an amazing thing.

But, of course..we'll see.

Z said...

FrogBurger, Germany and America are the two biggest medical breakthrough countries in the world.
AFter OBama care, it'll be only Germany..and maybe China, because our guys will have to find work somewhere.
Some people are just fine with that..after all "America's been too big for her britches for years...Geo Washington had a slave, so he's bad, we accidentally kill innocent people on a battlefield so our soldiers are bad, we killed Indians ... let's face it.... America doesn't deserve her brilliance, her exceptionalism"; That is EXACTLY the feeling I get from the Obama thugs.

Z said...

See the face of John? Kissing the baby and making VERY sure his face is to the camera at the same time?
I suppose he's used to that but I just noticed and think it says a lot.

FrogBurger said...

Z, I was visiting my Canadian-German friend in DC yesterday and he explained to me the German health care system. Now I'm not surprised they're advanced. It's not run by government like it is run in France or the UK. Not perfect but there's a lot more options, it seems. I've found it very interesting.

Anonymous said...

So, just how did the little child contract AIDS? My bet is that we have some of Sir Elton's 'good friends' to blames for that.

Anonymous said...

The hatred of homosexuals is that strong.

And for GOOD reasons.

Anonymous said...

Sorry Sir Elton, but rescuing a single innocent victim of the gay plague is hardly sufficient reparations.

Anonymous said...

Especially after you spend $150M spreading disinformation around the world enabling the plague to continue unabated.

Anonymous said...

Here's something you'll never hear Sir Elton or any of his organizations recommend...


Anonymous said...

Stopping the disease is "literally" THAT easy.

Anonymous said...

< / rant off>

Sorry, Z.

Ducky's here said...

My guess is the kid caught in in utero because mom was a prostitute banging heroin addicts.

Ducky's here said...

let's see if he gives them without his own wishes being met.


He wishes to raise the child. Lots of gay couples have raised children, especially children with HIV, and they've done fine.

What he SHOULD NOT DO is give in to the far right's desire to see the child raised in an orphanage rather than be raised by a homosexual.

It's like Catholic charities in Boston. As soon as gay marriage was sanctioned in Massachusetts they stopped all adoptions by gays even though they had been placing children with gays for two decades previously and it was well established that many of the hardest to place were being well cared for by gay couples.

Just incredible hypocrisy.

Anonymous said...

...and just how'd the disease get to the Ukraine, mr. ducky?

I'll give you a hint. If it were up Sir Elton's bee-hind, you'd know. And that probably wasn't a "needle" that infected the baby's mother.

Sir Elton's foundation already sponsors needle exchanges and illegal drug use. When's he going to sponsor anti-sodomy laws, the essential yet completely missing element in the war on AIDS?

Anonymous said...

No group has ever in history done more to harm children and destroy the opportunity for them to be raised in two-parent families than homosexuals. Especially the "gay marriage" advocating variety...

Anonymous said...

Hypocrisy, thy name is homosexual.

Anonymous said...

Sir Elton's message to the world is, MORE Sodomy and more behaviours conducive to spreading the AIDS virus. And if THAT is his message, AIDS will surely win.

Anonymous said...

The fallacy of educating IV drug users to "not recycle needles" and homosexuals to "wear condoms" and NOT adressing the underlying behaviors is what has gotten us in the mess we're in.

End the stupidity. Just say no to anal sex. Put it back on the law books. Tell the kids that it is ALWAYS bad. And arrest pornographers and their actors/ actresses who break the laws. And arrest flagrant sodomites like Barney Frank.

Anonymous said...

It's time to stuff the gays back into the closet. They won't go willingly.

FrogBurger said...

FJ is on a roll.

As a Libertarian, I think no one should regulate behavior in the bedroom.

Now if someone knows he/she has AIDS and has unprotected sex and endangers someone, it should be considered a crime, homosexual or heterosexual.

I'm a cynic and I see AIDS, like other disease, as a natural population control mechanism.

Big gov and collectivist ideas have killed more people than AIDS in history.

Lefty thinking is THE disease ;-)

RightKlik said...

Hard to believe EJ isn't planning to make a point with this story. Surely he had some familiarity with the law before he decided to orchestrate this nonsense.

"John announced his desire after meeting the boy, named Lev, while touring an orphanage Saturday as part of an anti-AIDS charity project."

If this really was an impulsive decision, it highlights another problem...that of celebrities shopping for kids like handbags.

Anonymous said...


Normally I'd agree with you about regulating the bedroom. But since the liberals and gays won't even take common sense steps to help spread a public service message... the FACT that unprotected anal sex is 1,000x RISKIER than unprotected vaginal sex.... they continue to put billions of human beings at risk. It's time to spread the message. Anal sex is O-U-T, period. It serves NO purpose and needs to be eradicated from the category of behaviors that are cool and fun to do.

Opus #6 said...

I personally don't care what they do in the bedroom. I think it is appropriate to have standards for adoption and to adhere to them. Children should be adopted preferentially to male/female nuclear families in the appropriate age group to be parents (not grandparents).

To say otherwise is to push a social agenda at the expense of the children.

Ducky's here said...

Froggie, what's that got to do with Elton John wanting to adopt and raise an unwanted child?

Keep trying.

FrogBurger said...

Nothing. It's called a side note. And it's allowed by freedom of speech.


Anonymous said...

Can I ask you a question ducky. Answer truthfully - would Sir Elton ever consent to adopting a child that didn't have the gay plague and that he couldn't use to collect money in the name of gay plague donors?

Elton John doesn't give a crap about the kid... it's all about pushing the homosexual agenda.

Now he can trumpet ANOTHER case of homophobic discrimination all over the globe. F' him!

Anonymous said...

A spur of the moment adoption by an old queen is hardly the proper environment for ANY child, let alone one suffering from AIDS.

"David and I have always talked about adoption," Elton John replied. "David always wanted to adopt a child and I always said 'no' because I am 62 and I think because of the traveling I do and the life I have, maybe it wouldn't be fair for the child."

"But having seen Lev today, I would love to adopt him. I don't know how we do that but he has stolen my heart. And he has stolen David's heart and it would be wonderful if we can have a home. I've changed my mind today," he said.

John said the death of his long-term keyboardist, Guy Babylon, had also helped change his mind.

"Last week I lost one of my best friends ... It broke my heart because he was such a genius and so young and has two wonderful children. What better opportunity to replace someone I lost than to replace him with someone I can give a future to."

This is as bad an adoption idea as that suffered by the poor kids Madonna and Angelina Jolie latched onto... they're no better than Paris Hilton's poodles.

Anonymous said...

The ideal home for any child, is one with a mother and father. I would be opposed to this adoption if Elton John was a single heterosexual male or woman.

A single person is not ideal either. However, there are exceptional circumstances.

I do think if there were more available adoptees than available heterosexual couples, other parental applicants have to be considered.

Growing up in an orphanage is at the bottom of the pecking order IMO. For this baby, having hiv, it's possible that could be his fate.

I would always want the ideal for every child. If that's not possible, then other considerations are logical and preferable.

In this case we don't know if heterosexual couples are in the picture. If they are, they should be considered first.

I may have a unique perspective on this because I have a relative, and her husband, who adopted their baby from Russia a few years ago.

If the Ukrainian orphanage is anything like the appalling orphanages in Russia, adoption of a child there is a rescue.

When my realtive brought home that ten month old baby, she cried in between every bite of food wanting more. When her plate was empty she reached and grabbed for food off others' plates.

It was months before she realized there would be enough food. She had rickets, and a skin condition, both indicative of lack of vitamins and certain nutrients.

Today she's a beautiful healthy little American girl and we all love her very much. Yes, she was rescued, much to our family's joy.

So, given the caveats I listed above, I'd say, if it's a choice between Elton John, and the orphanage, I choose Elton John.


Joe said...

I don't think it was a good idea for EJ to adopt that, or any other child...for the very reasons he put forth in the beginning, plus a few more of my own.

Too often we get the old emotions going and mistake them for love and/or commitment.

Let's pray that the right persons do come along to adopt that child.

shoprat said...

Another thing about "Sir" Elton. What did he do to earn Knighthood? It used to be given to those who served the crown well, as well as great scientists etc. Now you just have to have the wealth to afford it.

Z said...

I'd love to see a man/woman couple help this child and any child.

I have to admit I am not 100% against John taking the child, with a female nanny, and doing what he can for the little adorable boy....

I guess I have to say I'm just so astonished that a country actually has traditional, child-favoring values and stuck to them! They didn't cave and that's what I appreciated.

Life is hard...we can't all have everything...Elton's told "NO" for, what, the first time in his adult life probably? BUT, is it love for the child which will have him help him and others, hopefully? Or was it agenda "got to adopt...we're a homosexual couple and we deserve to have a little baby"? We'll see, I guess.

Here's the hard part; Elton leaves and these children continue to suffer as Priscilla describes; I know Romanians who tell terrible stories about orphanages back in their country, too. OUTRAGEOUS behavior; you've all heard about that kind of thing.

Sir Elton...step our of your ego zone (kiss the child full-on, the camera didn't need your face), and DO SOMETHING...DO SOMETHING FOR ALL THESE CHILDREN.

Like I said earlier, start a foundation putting couples with babies, making it easier to adopt something for ALL the children in Ukraine...

Z said...

Shoprat, if he can buy that (altho they give them to groups like The Beatles and The Stones, too, and they say it's because they bring money and interest into England), he can surely do a LOT for those children, right?

Let him call the foundation "KNight in Shining Armor!?"

Leticia said...

I believe Elton had the best intentions, it is expensive carrying for a child with HIV or any person, the meds are very expensive.

Regardless of the money, I still believe the child needs to be in a positive environment where there is a mother and father.

Anonymous said...

"Sir Elton's message to the world is, MORE Sodomy and more behaviours conducive to spreading the AIDS virus. And if THAT is his message, AIDS will surely win"

And don't dare lecture them that it's their deviant, lecherous and disgusting lifestyle that kills them and has been doing so unabated since the the 80's or earlier. But now we're not only supposed to accept it...even embrace it as "normal" ( they're trying their damnedest to get to our kids by enabling schools  / teach this "alternative" ..."lifestyle"..

Then..we're expected to pay for their recklessness after they've been warned that gay sex is dangerous.

Now what FJ hasn't defined is...what's so "gay" about being gay? Polite people just don't want to discuss it lest they be branded..."homophobic".

But it's more than the Marlboro Man..smoking the Winston's mans "brand". It's about one man who pounds away at another's prostate...through his back door...his exit. Is that the way nature intended men to have sex? Gay????? Pretty disgusting, unnatural and painful...isn't it Ducky?

WomanHonorThyself said...

oh gosh girl..I hadnt heard any of this..Good God!

Mark said...

And I thought they denied him because he was a homo.

If they had, it would have been the right decision.

Allowing gay people to adopt children is child abuse.