When a woman who works for a child agency expressed misgivings on a BBC Radio Five programme about homosexuals being able to adopt children she had a phone call the next day from the police investigating her 'homophobic' remarks.
Any comments from me would be superfluous really.....
3 comments:
If anyone 50 years ago would have suggested that children should be given for adoption to homosexual couples, he would find himself under close scrutiny by the police.
Amazing what liberals have accomplished. Any child should be given the legal right to both a mother and a father in the case of adoption. But as always, our society does not give a bloody damn about the well-being of children and the preservation and promotion of their innocense; all too often they find themselves sacrificed on the altar of the PC-Moloch.
I agree that it would have shocked people fifty years ago... It's also amazing how far the Left have moved things.
Thing is, I suspect that the idea of two (wo)men adopting a child has become a near-reality partly because of sociology (as much as the PC brigade).
The idea, for example, that there are "roles" people fill. For example, if in a "normal" family the father dies, then an uncle or other close relative/friend may take on the "role" of the father for the family. The result is that even though the father is long gone, we now have a sociological "father" - so all is well...
I suspect this is the 'logic' behind allowing homosexual couples to adopt children. It doesn't matter that it's biologically impossible for two men to have a child, or that there is no real mother in the relationship, because one of the men will be the "sociological" mother.
Furthermore, even if both men are sociological "fathers", it is deemed to be deeply offensive to suggest that "single parent" families are "worse" than "normal" families. Result: as long as someone is a parent we don't get care who you are...
The result is, as you say, that political correctness is preventing a truly open debate taking place on the issue. The same can be said of policies on immigration, benefits, social security, pensions, the economy, foreign affairs... you name it: anything to do with government/politics.
In short: the Leftie PC brigade really are having it all their way...
---
Oh and also, surely homosexual couples, in being homosexual, *MUST* accept that they can't have children. I think it sick that people feel it is ok to redistribute children in the same way as income is redistributed -- from the "haves" to the "have-nots".
It may sound like I'm either homophobic or think that homosexual people are 'evil' or something. Rather, I think if you make that choice then you live with it. And if being homosexual is not a choice, then tough.
If I'm born disabled it doesn't give me the right to demand two random people should give up a leg each so I can walk or something.
Similarly, in being heterosexual, I accept that in having sex my partner may become pregnant. If she does have a child then I accept that I cannot just drop-kick him/her into the long grass. I accept the responsibilites of having heterosexual relations.
To end my little rant: why is it so wrong nowadays for people to have to ACCEPT the consequences of their actions??????
Very true, nature requires both a male and a female to produce offspring, and homosexuals should accept the fact that just as they cannot have any children the natural way, they should not seek to adopt any. Children are not material assets that one can buy whenever one feels a need to have a child.
It should be put into legislation that orphans have the right to both a mother and a father in case of adoption. Imagine what would happen if the loving parents of a child would die in a car accident and their child should be given away in adoption to a homosexual couple. It's enough to bring me back from the dead!
In today's society criticism on homosexuality seems to have become a taboo, and that is utterly ridiculous. It's OK to say that smoking is bad because it causes many debilitating diseases, but even though homosexuals are notorious for the diseases caused by their promiscuous behaviour, even though they put their genitals in places designed for human waste disposal, anyone daring so much as stand up in public to criticise the practise of homosexuality is subjected to prosecution.
Up until the seventies homosexuality was considered a disease, a psychological disorder that needed to be cured. Imagine someone making such a statement now on TV! Thanks to pressure groups and the inability of psychiatry to cure homosexuals it was lifted from the 'disease' category and put in the 'alternative lifestyle' category.
Ever since, the gay liberation movement has sought to silence the critics through intimidation -the Dutch anti-discrimination article is a nice example-, and destroying and discrediting people and institutions that were a stumbling block in the gay crusade. Even a large part of the Christian church has been lured into embracing homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle, even though the bible is crystal clear about the issue. Each week the preachers read the commandment 'love thy neighbour' in church, and yet at the same time they encourage the destruction of an individual's soul by telling him/her that it is alright to give in to the corrupt part in their psyche. That's a hate crime and a blatant display of hypocrisy.
If anyone wishes to pursue a homosexual death-style, fine, each individual has his/her own responsibility, and everyone has to face the consequences of their choices made in life. But truth is what it is, and ultimately homosexual activists will end up as the own worst victims of their own lies. You can change the laws in your favour, you can silence the voice of criticism, you can erase parts of the bible, but you cannot prevent the inevitability of truth catching up with you, sooner or later.
Post a Comment