Political correctness gone mad / Choices... merged

Gayle · 08-01-2006, 15:37

A christian charity worker has been banned from serving on an adoption panel. His crime - he dared to say that a heterosexual couple is the best option for a child.

He said that he wouldn't object to any same sex couples adopting if it was in the best interest of the child and that every couple was different and every child had different needs.

He sounds to me like quite a sound chap but once again it seems to be a crime to support the traditional family.

Margaret Pilkington · 08-01-2006, 18:20

Gayle, I saw this story in the MoS and was struck by how sensible his rationale was. I can only conclude that the world has gone round the twist.

shakermaker · 08-01-2006, 18:23

Everyone knows the only people who will not be defended by a screming mob on downing street are white, heterosexual males - people can say anything they like about us lot!
Political correctness my arse. When has politics ever been correct anyway?

Debbie J · 08-01-2006, 18:34

It's too ridiculous for words

Doug · 08-01-2006, 19:46

This is the extreme side of the triangle; it’s what results from demanding equality that goes beyond that which is practical or the norm. However, this is not political Correctness, that's just an excuse. This is blatant stupidity, nothing more.

SPUGGIE J · 08-01-2006, 20:17

Its time to line these bams up against a wall and run them through with a humungus pole of sense.

Busman747 · 08-01-2006, 20:17

[B]We live in a country that is democratic and allows free speech providing the law is not broken. In the House of Commons, M.P's can go one step further and break the law without fear of prosecution.

Willows chosen church "suggests" that certain actions are immoral or wrong - but gives the church members choices or what it calls "free agency" to do what they feel is right without being condemned and rejected by the church - -

In London, a small area (speakers corner) is designated for people to give their views right or wrong to anyone who is willing to listen.

This is all part of democracy and is something to be proud of. HOWEVER!!

Let me highlight the story of Mr. Ed Greening who presently sits on an adoption panel for Wiltshire Council. He is an evangelical Christian and his church does not approve of the gay community. This is a slightly out-dated view by todays standards and I am sure that in the years to come, their attitude will change as have all the major world religions but in the meantime it has put Mr. Greening in a difficult position.

With the recent law change regarding "same-sex" couples, as a member of an adoption committee he has to vote yes or no to gay couples being allowed to adopt babies. To vote "no" would be discrimination and against the law. To vote "yes" would go against his personal beliefs - so he anounced that he would not block adoption for same-sex couples but would abstain from voting allowing the majority vote to carry the motion. This to me seems to be a democratic and legitimate way out of his dilemma but the council holds a different view. They have decided that he will not be re-appointed onto the committee because "it is not consistant - - for a member to hold views which effectively discriminate against a group of potential adoptive parents. Excluding people on the grounds of sexual orientation is not an option"

Mr. Greening believes that same-sex couples should not be allowed to adopt but he says that he would never let that belief obstruct the law or interfere with the best interests of the children, He adds: [/B

]"My first preference would always be for a child to be reared with a heterosexual couple but I would not oppose an adoption by a same-sex couple or a single person as a second best option, where there was no other choice available. It has always been my view that childrens interests override all other considerations and its in the childrens best interests to have a mother and father if possible."

[B]M.P. Gerald Howarth says: [/B

]"There are Christian doctors who will not perform abortions, members of the cabinet whose personal views differ from those of the party, That does not mean there is no room for their views. We are seeing the extraordinary situation where homosexuality has gone from being a criminal offence to where anybody who challenges any aspect of it is accused of homophobia. All the evidence shows that marriage and a normal family household is the best environment for bringing up children so why is this government inflicting these deeply damaging social engineering policies? For a man to be blackballed because he upholds family values is evil. This is a Christian society but it seems to me that in Britain today it is Christians and their views who are being persecuted."

Are you aware that it is legal for councils to match black children with black parents - and some councils have effectively banned the fostering and adoption of black children to white parents? Does any Accywebbers have experience of this?

Is it right or wrong that Mr. Greening should be forced to stand down from the adoption committee because of his Christian beliefs?

How hard is it to find a loving couple of any sexual orientation that wish to adopt? Around 3000 children find a home every year - - but leave 61,000 in care!!! I know Willow has a story to tell regarding being rejected as a foster parent (but her P.C. has caught a cold at the moment) Colour/sex/finance should not be a consideration in adoption with perhaps exceptions like Mr. Greenings situation which I feel he has handled in an intelligent and adult way.

Margaret Pilkington · 08-01-2006, 20:18

I don't think they would recognise a humungous pole of sense if you shoved it up their.......erm, nose.

Margaret Pilkington · 08-01-2006, 20:22

This is the story that Gayle has posted the thread about.......it is ludicrous to leave him off a committee when all he is concerned about is what is in the best interests of the child.

The interest of the child to be adopted should be paramount......and nothing else should stand in the way of finding the right adoptive parents.

Gayle · 08-01-2006, 20:23

I posted about this earlier but perhaps the mods could blend the two threads together as your first post is far better and more comprehensive than mine.

If that's ok with you?

SPUGGIE J · 08-01-2006, 20:23

You would be suprised how much force I can use. Its either that or they are given a colonic irigation with a long lance at 22000psi. That should get rid of the cow pats. Yes I would do it as well my sanity is suffering from all this stupidity.

Busman747 · 08-01-2006, 20:33

Aplogies for starting a thread on the same subject Gayle but I was so incensed after reading the story I started typing straight away instead of checking first.

What struck me most about the write-up was the fact that several factions of the P.C. Brigade opposed each other in support of the council,/ Mr Greening,/ or the children! Perhaps ALL the pc brigade will eventually implode and disappear in a puff of smoke

Margaret Pilkington · 08-01-2006, 20:34

I am sure that we are eventually going to pay a very heavy price for all this social engineering that is going on.

SPUGGIE J · 08-01-2006, 20:35

When they do lets have a street party.

WillowTheWhisp · 08-01-2006, 23:51

My PC is feeling slightly better so I'll tell you of my own personal experience when it comes to fostering/adoption.

My late first husband and I had put ourselves forward as prospective foster parents at a time when there was a campaign going on to recruit more foster parents. We had friends who had adopted children and another whose sons had been fostered, one by a very lovely couple and one by a rather strange single woman which in itself seemed odd to me at the time.

When we spoke to the fostering people they asked us if we had looked at the possibility of adoption also as there were many children in care who were in need of loving families. In fact they were looking for experienced parents for twin boys whose own parents had split up and whose mother was terminally ill.

The boys were blond haired and blue-eyed. They were beautiful. Their mother was English and to all intents and purposes it was presumed that their father had also been English but on further investigation they found out that the father's GRANDMOTHER was African. Now these boys had never even known their father let alone his grandmother and considering they were blond with blue eyes and had been living with a white mother they had no experience of any "black culture" but we were deemed of incorrect racial origin to foster/adopt them. The boys went back "into care" and we were actively discouraged from raising the hopes of any other children as we were "too white and English" for most of their requirements! We were so disgusted that we walked away.

We saw those boys later still pictured in a "parents needed" newspaper along with others where the parents required were supposed to be of various racial mixes including ne where one parent was an Arab and the other set of grandparents were a non-practising Christian and a Jew! Now what are the chances of finding that kind of mix?!

Whether or not I agree with Mr. Greening here is beside the point. He has every right to his opinion just as the others have a right to theirs. He was willing to abstain rather than vote against something he disagreed with and yet it seems that was not acceptable. I wonder how long it will be before the PC brigade is tlling us which way to vote in an election and making voting compulsory?