Film, Media & TV2 mins ago
Hell Hath no fury......
.....like a bunch of lefty bigots scorned!
According to The British Adoption society, if you do not agree with gay adoption you are a "retarded homophobe"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-118138 0/Slurred-adoption-Nazis-Critics-gay-parenting -branded-retarded-homophobes.html
Is this every bit as bigotted as the normal opinions that are branded as such?
According to The British Adoption society, if you do not agree with gay adoption you are a "retarded homophobe"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-118138 0/Slurred-adoption-Nazis-Critics-gay-parenting -branded-retarded-homophobes.html
Is this every bit as bigotted as the normal opinions that are branded as such?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by R1Geezer. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Unfortunately, it shows that blinkered thinking and intolerance can take place on either side of an argument. I have no problem with gay couples fostering children as long as all the usual checks are made into their suitability. I feel sorry for the couple who were no longer considered suitable for fostering merely because their Christian faith is opposed to homosexuality. I certainly don't believe their viewpoint and the way they express it indicates they are homophobic .
jno, that's what free speech is? No, it isn't. It is only considered to be free speech when it's said to people who have no come-backs. If it was said to a Muslim, it wouldn't be deemed free speech - it would be considered something else entirely - and the loony left would be the first to cry foul! Double standards at its finest!
jno, I'm simply pointing out that calling someone a 'retarded homophobe' is acceptable to you in this instance because you deem it freedom of speech. However, if the same was said to a member of the Islamic community, it wouldn't be considered freedom of speech - it would be considered Islamophobic and outrage would ensue. You're absolutely right. I have invented a situation - and one that would never happen. They wouldn't dare say it to a Muslim - so yes, these people are guilty of harbouring double standards.
The use of the word 'retarded' is offensive and unacceptable. It's just a nasty term to use.
However, 'homophobic' in this instance is perfectly apt. The definition of phobia (from Wiki) is "an irrational, intense, persistent fear of certain situations, activities, things, or people".
Do any of us have any facts to support an opposition to gay adoption?
I have a real fear of rats. I would rather run into a busy road rather than walk past a rat. I have no evidence that I would be affected negatively if I came into close contact with a rat, even picked one up...but that doesn't stop my phobia.
Same with the homophobic reaction to gay adoption. It's the heart overrulling the head.
However, 'homophobic' in this instance is perfectly apt. The definition of phobia (from Wiki) is "an irrational, intense, persistent fear of certain situations, activities, things, or people".
Do any of us have any facts to support an opposition to gay adoption?
I have a real fear of rats. I would rather run into a busy road rather than walk past a rat. I have no evidence that I would be affected negatively if I came into close contact with a rat, even picked one up...but that doesn't stop my phobia.
Same with the homophobic reaction to gay adoption. It's the heart overrulling the head.
sp, I'm not sure that opposition to gay adoption can necessarily be considered 'homophobic'. In some instances yes, but in others I think it simply arises from a personal belief that children benefit more from having parents of both sexes. To say that anyone who opposes gay adoption is homophobic is erroneous, because it simply isn't true.
For me the sexuality of the parents is not an issue, it's simply that it has to be preferable for a child to have one parental role model of each gender.
And yes, the most important thing is that it's a stable loving environment, of course loving gay parents are better than a straight couple that tortures the kid to death, but that's an unfair comparison. If you're comparing good same sex parents with good straight parents, I believe the second option is preferable. That doesn't mean I'm against gay adoption, just that it's not the preferred option.
And yes, the most important thing is that it's a stable loving environment, of course loving gay parents are better than a straight couple that tortures the kid to death, but that's an unfair comparison. If you're comparing good same sex parents with good straight parents, I believe the second option is preferable. That doesn't mean I'm against gay adoption, just that it's not the preferred option.
Ludwig, my sentiments exactly.
It seems to me that although people such as these see themselves as progressive, they are in fact, thoughtless and blinkered. Everything now appears to be categorised as either black or white, there is no room for grey, and common sense is swiftly becoming a thing of the past. The politically correct are convinced that their opinion is the right one, and anyone who disagrees with it must automatically be a 'phobic' hate-monger, intent upon demonising certain sections of society. Hence, they are all too eager to immediately apply their various 'phobic' labels to dissenters, thereby demonising them in turn, in the process. Of course, it all depends upon what you say and about whom you say it. As I said, although a Muslim, for example, may vehemently oppose gay adoption simply because, in his mind, homosexuality is an appalling sin, they wouldn't dare call him a 'retarded homophobe', because that wouldn't be politically correct. Therefore, clearly, it's perfectly acceptable for them to insult everyone who disagrees with them - except him - and he can say what he likes! Potty!
It seems to me that although people such as these see themselves as progressive, they are in fact, thoughtless and blinkered. Everything now appears to be categorised as either black or white, there is no room for grey, and common sense is swiftly becoming a thing of the past. The politically correct are convinced that their opinion is the right one, and anyone who disagrees with it must automatically be a 'phobic' hate-monger, intent upon demonising certain sections of society. Hence, they are all too eager to immediately apply their various 'phobic' labels to dissenters, thereby demonising them in turn, in the process. Of course, it all depends upon what you say and about whom you say it. As I said, although a Muslim, for example, may vehemently oppose gay adoption simply because, in his mind, homosexuality is an appalling sin, they wouldn't dare call him a 'retarded homophobe', because that wouldn't be politically correct. Therefore, clearly, it's perfectly acceptable for them to insult everyone who disagrees with them - except him - and he can say what he likes! Potty!
naomi24 - I hear what you're saying, but I don't think that labelling progressive thinkers a blinkered isn't fair. Progressive thinking got women the vote.
It was progressive thinking that got us to recognize the value and contribution that handicapped people play in society (remember the words commonly bandied about to dismiss them in the 70s?)
It's progressive thinking which put an African American in the White House...if someone had suggested that as a possibilty during the Detroit riots of '67, they'd be sectioned!
People's views remain largely static, but what tends to happen is that the younger generation reject the prejudices of their parents. In the 80s we had Clause 28, and now we have Hello and OK scrambling to cover David and Elton's civil civil partnership ceremony!
In 40 years time, once the dust has settled, my guess that opposition to gay adoption will seem as anachronistic as opposition to equal pay for women.
It was progressive thinking that got us to recognize the value and contribution that handicapped people play in society (remember the words commonly bandied about to dismiss them in the 70s?)
It's progressive thinking which put an African American in the White House...if someone had suggested that as a possibilty during the Detroit riots of '67, they'd be sectioned!
People's views remain largely static, but what tends to happen is that the younger generation reject the prejudices of their parents. In the 80s we had Clause 28, and now we have Hello and OK scrambling to cover David and Elton's civil civil partnership ceremony!
In 40 years time, once the dust has settled, my guess that opposition to gay adoption will seem as anachronistic as opposition to equal pay for women.
sp, read what I said again. I didn't say these people ARE progressive thinkers - I said THEY think they're progressive, but in my opinion, they are far from it.
How anyone can defend such a stupidly thoughtless and insulting accusation, especially when the accusers, in an effort to appear to be 'progressive', would without doubt, exempt certain sections of society, is completely beyond me. As I said, common sense is swiftly becoming a thing of the past.
How anyone can defend such a stupidly thoughtless and insulting accusation, especially when the accusers, in an effort to appear to be 'progressive', would without doubt, exempt certain sections of society, is completely beyond me. As I said, common sense is swiftly becoming a thing of the past.
naomi24
To clarify - is it the idea of gay adoption which you find troubling or the attitudes of a minority of those who support gay adoption that bothers you.
I'm afraid I don't agree that gay adoption goes against common sense, because there is absolutely no evidence that gays who adopt don't bring up happy, well adjusted children.
In fact, in light of the number of child murders this decade, one would be on a much firmer footing stating that stepfathers and live-in boyfriends should be banned from associating with mums and their kids.
To clarify - is it the idea of gay adoption which you find troubling or the attitudes of a minority of those who support gay adoption that bothers you.
I'm afraid I don't agree that gay adoption goes against common sense, because there is absolutely no evidence that gays who adopt don't bring up happy, well adjusted children.
In fact, in light of the number of child murders this decade, one would be on a much firmer footing stating that stepfathers and live-in boyfriends should be banned from associating with mums and their kids.
Latest Posts
Sport2 mins ago
Starmer's Approval Rating Plummets,
News3 mins ago
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Crosswords7 mins ago
