Wonder if you listened to this interview on the BBC this morning? It’s one more of those which in essence is gay advocacy dressed up as anti-discrimination. It concerns the news that the Roman Catholic Church has lost it’s campaign to restrict adoption services to heterosexual people. Naturally the BBC sees this as a judicious move, ensuring that gay couples are not denied that right to adopt kids. (Not sure where they stand on the transgendered community having the same right but I am sure we will get there in due course) My question is why did they choose to only interview the apparatchik from the government quango Charity Commission without allowing those genuine folks in the Catholic Church to posit their opinion? I know the BBC thinks that nothing could be more normal, more desirable, that children should be brought up by two fathers and no mother, but not everyone accepts that notion so why are THEY denied a voice on this debate?
BETTER GAY THAN PARENTED..
Bookmark the permalink.
When abuse does occur under in these perverted adoptions, it is brushed under the carpet by the SS who care more about being on message than a ten year olds torn anus.
As a catholic I find the very concept of a gay adoption abhorrent.
Okay, abuse would be pedophilia, not necessarily gay people. You can have gay or straight pedophiles. Let us not assume that gays who want to adopt are doing so for sinister reasons.
As a Christian, I find the catholic church establishment abhorrent, but this would only be my humble opinion.
On this legislation, yes I am not happy. I think this is a restrictive order, rather than an open one. It is using the children as a tool for political means, and I detest that.
Oh, and the BBC is of course biased.
You might have hetrosexual and homosexual paedophiles, but them there’s this:
http://tinyurl.com/2vf6xyf
OMG! So you just linked me to an example of homosexual pedophiles, and you think that negates what I just said?
Give me a break. One example does not say anything against my point that you have pedos on both sides.
OK, I’ll explain it to you veeeery slowly:
What we have in Wakefield is exactly what AtB said – known paedophiles being allowed to operate with impunity becuase social workers worried about ‘sending the wrong message’ and the like.This isn’t about nonces, it’s about the culture that would rather stick it to the Right than protect children.
It’s what was bound to happen, what always happens when one side of the debate is designated ‘enlightened’ and therefore the opponents must all be crazed bigots…. anything that doesn’t fit the narrative gets tossed out and pay no attention to the molested kids behind the curtain.
All of which perfectly sums up the BBC approach to this subject perfectly. The only way the BBC will ever worry about kids being molested is if it’s being done by a guy in a cassock.
Oh, you can be patronising? Nice!
Look, I had some huge reply ready, but I do not want to get into a long argument. Honestly, I am not spoiling for a fight.
I understood AtB’s point, but objected to his/her opinion on the idea of gay adoptions. To merely suggest that all gay adoptions lead to such a possibility is ridiculous. The implication was there. Obviously AtB is entitled to their opinion, as am I.
However, yes. The BBC does purposely select stories to fit with its agenda. I agree with this, or else I would not be on this site.
The fact that some gays can abuse their position like some heterosexuals is not surprising, but does it suggest that gays should not be allowed to adopt? No. If we were to go by that argument, then we would allow no one to adopt.
Should we stand by whilst news agencies such as the BBC ignore such cases like that in the Daily Fail to suit their own agenda? No.
Have pity on me kind sir with your whiplash tongue, or rather fingers!
I find your message patronising, as if I don’t know that kiddie fiddlers can be straight too! What a revelation.
That Yorkshire case reflected badly on the social work department and the manner in which cases of suspected abuse or possible abuse are dealt with if same sex couples involved.
The Scottish one, involving the chief of the LGBT campaigning organisation for the right of homosexuals to adopt etc, was much worse and much more damaging:
http://www.politics.ie/justice/66823-lgbt-scotland-chief-exec-gay-adoption-campaigner-convicted-sex-abuse-baby.html
You are right. It is a shame that situations like this are not highlighted more. There is major problems with the vetting procedures and within departments of social care. The problem is people pushing their agendas at the expense of child safety.
But surely this is it, what do the statistics show about the likelihood of homosexuals being paedophiles? Curiously, very curiously, there doesn’t seem to be much research out there, I wonder why? The Vatican recently released figures showing a very disproportionate amount of priest paedophilia is homosexual. The simple truth of the matter is is that homosexual adoption has gone ahead because the vast majority of its proponents couldn’t give a flying fig what it means for the children, their only interest is promoting the normalisation of perversion.
This site has surprised me a-lot. I was so happy to find a site highlighting the faults of the BBC, but this….
Some interesting info here:-
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Sodomy/frightening_gay_statistics.htm
The BBC carried a decent enough report on this:-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/8331388.stm
Although they did describe Rennie as ‘respected Head of Scotland’s LGBT network’. The report includes a clip of him in 1999, believe it or not – hold on to your seats here – calling for the repeal of Section 28.
Daniel: As a Christian, I find the catholic church establishment abhorrent, but this would only be my humble opinion.
===============================
Really? How odd, that as a Christian, you find a Christian Church abhorrent. (That’s the Catholic Church, by the way.) What kind of Christian would that be, then?
A protestant.
I am not a Roman Catholic, Anglican, but I do not agree with this ruling in any way. Mind you, the “Charities Commission” is a disgrace anyway and should be shut down.
Just listened to the interview and I found Justin Webb faultless, but as you said, where is the Christian voice on TODAY protesting how the law discriminates against Christians. What the Church is asking for is if there has to be this legislation, that it allows for a ‘balance of interests’ which I would suggest is a position no sincere democrat could object to. However, the mentality behind this legislation has nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with the type of totalitarian intolerance that dare not speak its name.
Mr Hind from the Charities Commission said “Discrimination will not be allowed”, but he has just taken a wilful decision to discriminate against Christians.
As is often noted, the CC is not exactly ‘on the case’ when it looks at the probity of Muslim Charities that support terrorism, or the wantonly politicised nature of ‘charities’ like Oxfam and ‘Save the Children’.
Not strictly anything to do with the BBC but, amid the celebrations concerning the first 100 days of the coalition, that Dame Suzi Leather still heads the Charities Commission is as good an indication of the ambitions – or lack of same – of the coalition than anything else. I realise that she’s probably on a lengthy highly rewarding (for her, if few others) service contract but, as an indication of intention, the coalition minister responsible should push her aside, put her in a cupboard at the Commission (to wait out the end of her contract) and appoint one of her apolitical deputies (or, failing that, anyone with an IQ of more than 80) as an interim head. BTW the charities legislation of the previous administration should be the first to be thrown on the bonfire in Novemebr.
A rather puzzling post. Do you know her? Why should she resign? It’s not clear at all.
Leather is New Labour through and through and that is a good enough reason to sack her. The coalition should get rid of all Labour placemen and women in senior positions including the police and the judiciary.
Which presumably her deputies also are.
I would like to see Cameron getting rid of Trevor Phillips at the “Equalities” Commission or whatever it’s called now.
He has more than enough on him to do it – conflicts of interest and earnings, poor management and leadership leading to uproar and almost mass walkouts by the other commissioners and senior directors. The man is a walking disaster and a self-interested narrow pressure group promoter, nothing else.
Suzi Leather? reminds me of a, ahem, ‘lady’ formerly of my acquaintance in younger days. Now SHE would love to have been locked in a cupboard !!
Whilst I uphold the right of anyone to have sex with any other consenting adult in privacy, I abhor the ‘normalisation’ of homosexuality in the public sphere. To promote the Gay agenda against the wishes of most religions and I suspect most ordinary people is plain wrong and a symptom of ‘the progressives’ imposing their wishes upon the rest of us.
Why would the BBC invite anyone opposed to same-sex parenting onto the airwaves? No platform for bigots is their motto. As a mtter of interest are there any Islamic adoption agencies and how do they treat same sex Muslim couples?
Wonder whether Catholic priests will be allowed to adopt?
Only if they’re openly gay, of course.
Whilst I am not a supporter of the Catholic Church I can see no point in the church continuing to oppose the current law. Eventually the world will change and of all organisations the Churches can afford to take a long view. 50 years here or there is just not that important.
The controversy does highlight how obsessed the liberal elites are with the need for instant gratification- we want our perfect world now.. So it has to have it’s way over every other consideration. It must come from believing only in themselves and nothing else. Not in the future, or the continuation of their families or country. I do not understand how they cope with their own mortality. Perhaps they don’t and this is what is driving their ever more strident lunacies.
It has infected every aspect of our lives from economics to ethics.
It is their real weakness and although destructive of lives and nations it will be their undoing. Give it time and the swinging pendulum.