|
The Daily Mail does not like the idea of gay adoption. The Daily Mail does not like gay people full stop. Therefore it was not surprising to find another article today expressing yet more 'fury' over a gay couple adopting a child. What makes this article interesting is that those making the complaints just happen to be Catholics, you know, members of the church legendary for its reputation of abusing and raping children supposedly in its care and the church that recently excommunicated a 9 year old girl for having an abortion after being raped by her stepfather and impregnated with twins. It also excommunicated the mother and all those involved in helping with the abortion - like the doctors who suggested that childbirth was a life-threatening event for a 9 year old girl - even more so with twins.
However, abortion is of course fundamentally evil in the eyes of religious nuts, and the systematic child abuse across the globe can easily be swept under the carpet as it has been for years. Gay adoption on the other hand, that is massive news. Today's headline is: 'Catholic mother's fury after mental breakdown sees son fostered by gay couple'. Look at the way this headline is phrased. It seems to me that what it is saying is: 'not only has the poor woman had a mental breakdown, but NOW HER CHILD IS BEING GIVEN TO GAYS, HOW COULD THINGS GET ANY WORSE?'.
As usual the mother of the child does not wish the child to be adopted by a gay couple as 'she feels they could "encourage him" into a lifestyle that she does not agree with'. I've dealt with this argument before, so I'll just state it again for the hell of it:
People are born gay. It isn't - as [Richard] Littlejohn likes to believe - something we can be forced into or converted to by interacting with gay people, or by attending diversity or awareness sessions. Therefore, can it be concluded that as sexual preference is not a result of nurture, it must be the result of nature? This conclusion would mean that homosexuality is perfectly natural because biologically determined.
But I'll go further this time and point out something that isn't natural, something that a child is not born with: religion. This child is not a Catholic child, it is a child born to Catholic parents. It is a sad irony that this child has already had to deal with indoctrination but the mother fails to see this because she is the one attempting the indoctrination. Presumably the 'lifestyle choice' she wants to inflict on her child is OK in her eyes, but the mythical 'lifestyle choice' that gay couples are supposed to indoctrinate children with - although entirely nonsensical - is not OK.
As a society the majority of us play a part in indoctrinating children with social norms. If we buy a child clothes of a certain style or colour because of their gender then we are taking part in a process of indoctrination. If we make a boy play with action figures, whilst we make a girl play with dolls, then we are taking part in a process of indoctrinating social roles based on social norms. What should become clear is that if a child is gay no matter how much effort we put into changing their inherent sexuality we will not succeed. Likewise, if a child is born straight they will not be subverted into believing that they are gay, and the very accusation that a gay couple would even try to make a child gay is extremely offensive and ignorant.
The parish Priest is said to be 'deeply concerned and had this to say:
‘This isn’t about a gay couple in a private home, this is about a gay couple running a hotel where they also live, where they cannot restrict who the child is going to meet. That’s my anxiety’.
What exactly is the anxiety? Would it be OK if it was a hotel run by a heterosexual couple? Is the priest implying that the hotel is some kind of sordid den because it happens to be run by a gay couple? I imagine the priest should at least be thankful that the child is not being put into a Catholic care home, lest the child become another victim of the Catholic Church's tendency to rape and abuse children.
The mother's lawyer (funded by a 'Catholic legal charity') tried the whole 'poor put upon religious people have no rights in this country':
‘I have to ask, would a local authority put a ten-year-old atheist child into a devoutly Catholic home? I think not. Or would it place a ten-year-old hijab-wearing devout Muslim girl with two gay men? Again, I think not.'
Naturally the lawyer doesn't want to be named, and for trawling out these piss poor arguments I'm not surprised. Local councils put children into a home that best suits the long-term needs of the child, not the parents. Ordinarily this is because the parents cannot currently care for the child - as in this case - and the welfare of the child is independent of the wishes of the parent.
The gay couple would have had to jump through untold hoops in order to be in a position to adopt this child. The priest's concern about the suitability of the hotel as a place to raise a child in safety would have been addressed. It is rather depressing that the priest even raised this question, as if the council didn't look into these things. Adopting a child is a long and difficult process that the gay couple would have worked hard to complete. They are being given to the couple because as the council told the mother: 'the men who will foster her son are experienced, fully qualified and he will be well cared for'.
Whether the couple looking to adopt are gay or not is irrelevant. The welfare of the child comes first, not the ignorant beliefs of a parent, nor the ill-informed prejudice of the tabloid media. I, for one, am very thankful for that.
Also covered by the Daily Quail: Bum Bashers Steal Bible Basher's Child. |
