Perhaps Godwin should compose a new rule about the likelihood of a Nazi reference based on someones position on the political spectrum multiplied by the extent of their rage at the modern world.

“Retarded” is a word with sensitive associations and I would have expected someone at the BAAF to know that and change it. Having said which, I think it’s also the appropriate word for the Mail’s 1950s-style homophobia. The best foster parents I’ve ever come across were a lesbian couple who had a houseful of very troubled children (abused, SEN, young teenage mothers, etc) and did wonders with them.

I generally follow the principle that in any discussion, the first to attempt ‘reductio ad Hitlerum/Nazium’ has already lost the argument. It is a particular skill of the Mail to be able to lose an argument within its own headline.

I love it when the Mail goes all politically correct. Let me get this straight, Christians have freedom of speech but no-one else is allowed to say what they like about Christians, is that how it works?

4 Tim F:

I take your point that the Mail is not really in a position to start criticising others, but this really was appalling and it’s disappointing (but not in any way surprising) to see no reaction whatsoever from the Government or indeed any left-of-centre MPs.

#5

It’s probably the first they’ve heard of it. I completely agree that using the word “retarded” in this context is wrong, but the word “homophobe” on its own would’ve been fine in my view. As even you admit, the reaction of the Mail is staggeringly hypocritical, however.

The mail says:

The word ‘retarded’ has been considered unacceptable for some years.

Thne in its archive we find: ‘Hitler targeting Jews and the mentally retarded.’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-463391/Did-Hitler-unleash-Holocaust-Jewish-prostitute-gave-syphilis.html

‘The five are all mentally retarded.’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-379134/Time-warp-family-walk-fours.html

hmm…

also:

it’s disappointing (but not in any way surprising) to see no reaction whatsoever from the Government

it’s a storm in a teacup, unimportant in the grand scheme of things…

clearly the govt should spend all its time issuing statements on trivial Daily Mail splashes like this. Of course, not being quoted in one of the very few papers which have carried this story means that the govt approves.

The Mail is just representing the majority view that doesn’t agree with State sponsored gay adoption. You don’t have to be religious to take that view. The nazi jibe accurately describes the fascist attitude of the leftist policy makers towards dissenters to their agenda. The slurring of dissenters as homophobes is just part of the familiar pattern followed by lefties, and is evident on virtually every thread on this site.

The Mail also correctly highlights the hypocrisy of the pc obsessed policy makers, with their use of “retarded homophobes”. Your attempt to comeback with “nazi” is seriously lame. Particularly, when you use it frequently to attack you oppenents. You look like mugs, again, I’m afraid.

LfaT:

I was being told off in playgrounds in the early 80s for using the word ‘retarded’, not because it wasn’t polite but because it wasn’t scientifically accurate (I had an unusual form tutor at my second UK primary school: mind you, it worked). The disability campaigners actually do have a right to complain about the language here.

But referring to those who have ‘reservations’ about homosexual couples adopting as ‘homophobes’ is (a nod to recent arguments about the definition of homophobia) entirely reasonable. Specifically, I found this:

Tory MP Julian Brazier, co-chairman of the all-party Commons group on adoption and fostering, said: “I work with BAAF all the time and I know how much they bring to adoption. I must say I am very sad that they should use this language about people who have an honest disagreement with them.”

quite offensive. The people we’re talking about don’t have an honest disagreement with the BAAF: what they have is a medieval, irrational and illegal prejudice which, as TimF points out nicely, they think they can get away with because they’re Established.

The whole point about freedom of religion is that a devout Puritan, be they of the Catholic, Protestant or Muslim flavours, is entirely free to refrain from homosexuality: free to abstain before marriage and to never have an abortion. They are absolutely not free to expect the rest of the country to agree with them. The complementary point about free speech is that the medieval-minded are entirely free to shout as much as they like about the terrible evils of TEH GAYS that live among us. What they are not in any way entitled to is anyone paying attention or caring about their opinion. Trouble is they’ve got a major national newspaper which will always do both.

Chavscum:

The Mail also correctly highlights the hypocrisy of the pc obsessed policy makers, with their use of “retarded homophobes”. Your attempt to comeback with “nazi” is seriously lame. Particularly, when you use it frequently to attack you oppenents. You look like mugs, again, I’m afraid.

Eh? It was the Mail who self-Godwinated. The commenters here merely noted that the Mail had done this. No-one that I’ve read accused either the Mail or the Christian Church of Nazism.

Why is it “slurring” to call something homophobic? What if you actually think it IS homophobic? Are you not allowed to say so? Must I pussyfoot around to appease the PC-obsessed Daily Mail? What about my freedom of speech?

The Mail is just representing the majority view that doesn’t agree with State sponsored gay adoption

chatting rubbish again I see chavscum.

Sunny, do we actually have any recent opinion polls on the gay adoption issue?

A few years ago polls they used to show a majority opposed to lowering the age of consent and in favour of keeping Section 28 but more recent polls have shown a majority are in favour of civil partnerships. Don’t recall anything about gay adoption. Would be interesting to see if there’s been a change in attitudes.

Would be interested to see a poll of attitudes amongst homosexuals, as the ones I’ve spoken to don’t believe in it either.

Tim, if you care to justify your name calling, I might take you seriously. If not, it just looks lazy.

John Q nailed what I was going to say so on religion and homophobia so I won’t repeat it.

On the use of the word ‘Nazi’, I’d like to see that word confined to it’s dictionary definition but this site did the ‘Nick Griffin is Hitler’ bit only yesterday. He’s a fascist, but not a Nazi, which was a specific historical movement.

As to objections to the word ‘retarded’ we’re in danger of running out of useful insults. If you can’t criticize someone’s intelligence or sanity it’s impossible to point out that they are being ‘stupid’ or acting ‘crazy’.

#14

ok, that’s fairly easy to do (although for the record it should be for others to explain why they oppose homosexual adoption before I explain why it’s homophobic, otherwise I’m in danger of knocking down a lot of straw men in pursuit of specifics)

– there is nothing about someone’s sexual orientation that makes them a bad parent per se
– most of the people who oppose homosexual adoption also believe in the importance of getting children out of institutions and into families
– most of the people who oppose homosexual adoption also support adoption by single people where appropriate
– if an individual homosexual couple were inappropriate parents, they would still be rejected on the grounds they were inappropriate parents, not because they were homosexual
– the objection therefore is that there’s something about a child growing up seeing a homosexual relationship as perfectly natural and normal

Of course, technically the BAAF quote doesn’t brand all opponents of gay adoption homophobes – just some of them. I’m sure even you would admit that it is likely that some opponents of gay adoption are also homophobes, even if you don’t think all of them are.

Chavscum @14:

You have got a point, here. There is a hard-line, vocal and extremely annoying group of (mostly gay men, but occasionally lesbians as well) who quite genuinely hate and detest bisexuals because they are insufficiently gay (not trying hard enough). There is also a significant, and less hysterical, section of the gay community who loathe the idea of having to have children in their house. Some have political concerns about planetary over-population, some believe that gay couples aren’t equipped to raise kids with sufficient role-models, some just don’t like kids.

There are also people who self-define as ‘child-free’ who are straight. Both orientations within this political bloc refer to those of us who quite like the idea of having kids one day as ‘breeders’, and I’ve seen some remarkably violent ranting about us.

But; those bigots don’t get to define what everyone else does any more than the Christian and Muslim bigots do. The fact that some gay people have so little respect for their own orientation that they believe homosexuality intrinsically prevents a person from being a good parent are just as deluded, and just as prejudiced, as their religious co-sponsors. And the rest of the country is under no obligation to pay them any attention.

The issue here is a foundational one within post-Enlightenment society: your right to self-determination must extend only to you. And if your only recourse is to ‘but most people hate teh gays’, I leave you with the thoughts of Giordano Bruno:

It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.

Shatterface @15:

Your objection to the over-use of ‘nazi’ also applies to ‘fascisti'; which was an equally specific movement. As Fascist was generalised outside of Italy to mean ‘nationalistic, right-wing, authoritarian asshole with just enough socialism in his planned economy to keep the peasants happy’, so Nazi was generalised to ‘nationalistic, racist, authoritarian asshole who believes in taking over the world and/or doesn’t like Jews’.

Godwin’s Law covers the issue fine; unless one can back it up with specific references to Main Kampf and other political publications, calling one’s opponent a Nazi, or comparing them to Nazis, immediately loses one the argument.

I don’t have figures for gay adoption specifically, but when asked “Would you mind having homosexuals as a neighbour?”, the GB response was 24.1% in favour (i.e. a quarter of people wouldn’t want to live near a gay person). While the two issues don’t correlate perfectly, I would posit that the figure for “Would you mind if homosexuals were allowed to adopt?” would be as high, if not higher. This is under the premise that, while there could be a group who would say Yes/No (i.e. not wanting to live near a gay person but not minding if they adopt), such people would be outweighed by the group saying No/Yes (i.e. not minding living near a gay person but not wanting them to adopt).

I took the 24.1% figure from the Human Beliefs and Values Survey 1999-2002, referenced in a 2007 report[1] from the University of Ulster. The survey polled 983 people in the UK. For reference, the figures when asked about other groups (Different race, Muslim, Jew, Immigrants) were 9.2%, 14.1%, 6.2% and 15.1% respectively. Regarding the 24.1% figure, the average in the ‘West’ was 22.9%, with only Italy and Northern Ireland exceeding 28%.

[1] Love Thy Neighbour: How Much Bigotry Is There In Western Countries? – Vani K Borooah

Kentron: somewhere between 20% and 25% would seem sensible to me, in that government therapists are a reasonably good cross-section of British society and one fifth of them, even after professional training and qualification, admit that they categorise homosexuality as a disease and try to ‘cure’ it when presented by patients.

When I was 16 and at college, I was approached by a girl doing her sociology homework. She was doing a survey on attitudes to homosexuality.

I think there were three questions, can’t remember them exactly, but they were along the lines of:

Q1 “Do you believe homosexuality is natural?”
Q2 “Should homosexual couples be allowed to marry?”
Q3 “Should homosexual couples be allowed to adopt?”

At the age of 16 I had thought only ever thought about Q1. I answered:

Q1 Yes
Q2 Yes
Q3 No

My answers to Q1 ad Q2 show I’m not homophobic, but I answered ‘no’ to Q3 as I assumed it was better for children to grow up with a mother and a father figure. (I also suspect I wanted my opinions to seem balanced, so thought I should answer ‘no’ to one of the questions.) Having considered the subject and read more about the lack of evidence for my initial reasoning I have changed my mind.

I don’t think it is right to call all those who oppose gay adoption homophobes, and certainly not retarded. I also don’t think we should use opinion polls to set the law, as the results are likely to contain ill-considered points of view.

#21 – homophobia like racism or sexism isn’t a binary state. It’s not a question being either a homophobe or not – I’d say all heterosexual people in our culture are homophobes to some extent.

By that measure most – if not all – homosexuals are also homophobic to some extent and the word loses all useful meaning.

I’d say all heterosexual people in our culture are homophobes to some extent.

But sexuality is a binary state presumably? If you claim that heterosexual people are homophobic, who exactly are you referring to?

By that measure most – if not all – homosexuals are also homophobic to some extent and the word loses all usefful meaning.

Sorry, double post.

In any case, Lee raises the point that most people exist along a spectrum of sexual orientation and aren’t necessarily at either pole. I, myself, don’t fancy all women and if I absolutely had to do a bloke because I was in prison for a crime I did not commit I hope I share a cell with Wentworth Miller from Prison Break.

At the very least I might learn something useful from his tattoos.

Obviously I don’t think sexuality is a binary state. I don’t think the word homophobic loses meaning just because some people can be more homophobic and in different ways than others.

I fully accept that there are degrees to homophobia, but the nth degree required to apply the concept to “all heterosexual people” does seem to render the term meaningless. Unless, of course, you believe “all heterosexual people” to be homophobic in a substantial and meaningful way, which is a statement requiring more justification than so far given.

Timf :

11 – “Why is it “slurring” to call something homophobic” – do you feel that ‘your freedom of speech’ entitles you to label a whole group that you disagree with as ‘retarded XYZ’ers’ ?

It’s lazy to assume that everyone who opposes gay adoption is (a) retarded (b) homophobic.

Back in November you wrote:
“I agree that we should be very careful about putting labels on people and demonising them.”

And your views on free-speech are probably out of line with most of us here; you wrote earlier “if you think as I do that the BNP should not be entitled to free speech because they’re fascists”

16: “there is nothing about someone’s sexual orientation that makes them a bad parent per se”

That is what you believe, but on what evidence? Has anyone done any research?

23 “I’d say all heterosexual people in our culture are homophobes to some extent.”

Haa haa. Sounds of plot being lost.

It’s not up to advocates of gay adoption to prove it is ‘harmless’, it’s up to the opposing side to prove it is not.

16: “there is nothing about someone’s sexual orientation that makes them a bad parent per se”

That is what you believe, but on what evidence? Has anyone done any research?

Well yeah, and no, theres no evidence which points to gay people making bad parents. The onus of proof is on you. I’m at work I’ll prove you wrong when I can be bothered. Do some googling yourself.

It’s lazy to assume that everyone who opposes gay adoption is (a) retarded (b) homophobic.

Not really, why would you oppose it? Don’t like children going near rainbow flags?

#30 – “That is what you believe, but on what evidence? Has anyone done any research?”

I’m not a psychologist, but (apparently) the American Psychological Association employs a few. I apologise in advance for the length, but here’s a section from their white paper on “Lesbian & Gay Parents”.

“Beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents likewise have no empirical foundation (Anderssen, Amlie, & Ytteroy, 2002; Brewaeys & van Hall, 1997; Parks, 1998; Patterson, 2000; Patterson & Chan, 1996; Perrin, 2002; Stacey & Biblarz, 2001; Tasker, 1999; Victor & Fish, 1995). Lesbian and heterosexual women have not been found to differ markedly either in their overall mental health or in their approaches to child rearing (Bos et al., 2004; Kweskin & Cook, 1982; Lyons, 1983; Miller, Jacobsen, & Bigner, 1981; Mucklow & Phelan, 1979; Pagelow, 1980; Parks, 1998; Patterson, 2001; Rand, Graham, & Rawlings, 1982; Siegenthaler & Bigner, 2000; Thompson, McCandless, & Strickland, 1971). Similarly, lesbians’ romantic and sexual relationships with other women have not been found to detract from their ability to care for their children (Bos et al., 2004; Chan et al., 1998b; Pagelow, 1980). Lesbian couples who are parenting together have most often been found to divide household and family labor relatively evenly and to report satisfaction with their couple relationships (Bos et al., 2004; Brewaeys et al., 1997; Chan, et al., 1998a; Ciano-Boyce & Shelley-Sireci, 2002; Hand, 1991; Johnson & O’Connor, 2002; Koepke, Hare, & Moran, 1992; Osterweil, 1991; Patterson, 1995a; Sullivan, 1996; Tasker & Golombok, 1998; Vanfraussen, Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, & Brewaeys, 2003). Research on gay fathers likewise suggests that they are likely to divide the work involved in child care relatively evenly and that they are happy with their couple relationships (Johnson & O’Connor, 2002; McPherson, 1993).

The results of some studies suggest that lesbian mothers’ and gay fathers’ parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual couples. For instance, Flaks, Fischer, Masterpasqua, and Joseph (1995) reported that lesbian couples’ parenting awareness skills were stronger than those of heterosexual couples. This was attributed to greater parenting awareness among lesbian nonbiological mothers than among heterosexual fathers. In one study, Brewaeys and her colleagues (1997) likewise reported more favorable patterns of parent-child interaction among lesbian as compared to heterosexual parents, but in another, they found greater similarities (Vanfraussen, Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, & Brewaeys, 2003). A recent study of 256 lesbian and gay parent families found that, in contrast to patterns characterizing the majority of American parents, very few lesbian and gay parents reported any use of physical punishment (such as spanking) as a disciplinary technique; instead, they were likely to report use of positive techniques such as reasoning (Johnson & O’Connor, 2002). Certainly, research has found no reasons to believe lesbian mothers or gay fathers to be unfit parents (Armesto, 2002; Barret & Robinson, 1990; Bigner & Bozett, 1990; Bigner & Jacobsen, 1989a, 1989b; Bos et al., 2003, 2004; Bozett, 1980, 1989; Patterson, 1997; Patterson & Chan, 1996; Sbordone, 1993; Tasker & Golombok, 1997; Victor & Fish, 1995; Weston, 1991). On the contrary, results of research suggest that lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive home environments for children.”

Good work Kentron. I’ll be making a note of those studys!

“just visiting” consider your self warned, irrational comments will be fact bombed away.

#30 thanks for taking my comments out of context. If you want to argue with the comments I made months ago about the BNP, you might like to try addressing them in context in that thread. But for the record (I just checked it), I said that we should be careful about putting labels on people, and in the very next sentence I said that doesn’t mean we should never do it & there were some cases where we should demonise people eg if they are fascists (again that’s consistent with my views expressed in Rowena’s thread on the BNP which I think is still on the front page).

However if I think that pretty much everybody is homophobic to some extent, it’s hardly demonising people to call them homophobes, is it?

Others have dealt with your more general points, but I would encourage you to make your objections to homosexual people adopting known, then we can argue about whether they are homophobic or not.

Kenton :34.
Which comment exactly of mine was irrational?

Kenton

Your source of evidence – is the same APA that since 1998 have suggested there was a genetic link to homosexuality, and just this week have done a U-turn.

I wonder how that will effect other of their views?

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=97940

Which says:

Specifically, in a brochure that first came out about 1998, the APA stated: “There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.”

However, in the update: a brochure now called, “Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality,” the APA’s position changed.

The new statement says:

“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles. …

And the same APA that is now facing criticism for molding it’s statements to fall in line with external pressures – the Pentagon in this case. See news item below

TmF: Kenton: , what source would you call up, other than the APA?

http://www.prweb.com/releases/ethics/national_security/prweb2392144.htm

“Newly released internal American Psychological Association documents indicate that the 2005 APA’s ethics task force on national security interrogations developed its ethics policy to conform with Pentagon guidelines governing psychologist participation in interrogations.”

36 – sorry, it wasn’t Kenton who said it I’d been irrational, it was Left Outside.

I don’t particularly care whether homosexuality is “genetically determined” or not. I don’t see what difference it makes. The phrase is too simplistic anyhow – genetics determine how we repond to given environmental stimuli. Change the stimuli and you change the response.

Can you explain your opposition to homosexual adoption?

Tim

The APA issue was not whether _you personally_ agreed with their old position, or their new 180 degree trun-round one.

It was that they claimed “There is considerable recent evidence …” for 10 years, and now say that there was and is no such evidence.
Which puts their credibility as a source of evidence for anything into question.

You ask “Can you explain your opposition to homosexual adoption?”

Something I have not said, so why do I need to explain it?

But you HAVE said : “there is nothing about someone’s sexual orientation that makes them a bad parent per se”.

And been silent on how you reached this view: what sources you reviewed, etc.
Or whether you reviewed no sources at all and just took it as an axiomatic truth. Or whatever happened.

Doing some reading of my own of the sources out there, there’s lots of conflicting evidence: eg one report says:
“The uniform finding of no significant disadvantage for children raised by gay or lesbian
parents has been convincing to some scholars (Ball and Pea 1998; Meezan and Rauch 2005; Stacey and Biblarz 2001; Wald 2006), though others remain unconvinced (Lerner and Nagai 2001; Nock 2001; Wardle 1997).”

It was that they claimed “There is considerable recent evidence …” for 10 years, and now say that there was and is no such evidence.
Which puts their credibility as a source of evidence for anything into question.

Another quote for you: J M Keynes – “When the facts change, I change my mind – what do you do, sir?”

I don’t believe that this invalidates their research. Facts change, that’s science, that’s why science is so powerful. Evidence may appear in another decade which proves that sexuality is linked strongly to genetics. They would then change their opinion based on that.

And on calling you irrational, it was your implicit opposition to Gay adoption which I was labelling irrational.

Left Outside – you express a very forgiving attitude to the APA. It doesn’t seem to be a case where startling new facts have turned all previous models over.
Rather, that they had over-stated their case from the start – perhaps guilty of reporting ad fct what they wanted to believe.
Correct me if I’m wrong, and do point out the ‘new facts’ you suggest.

Lastly, regards your attitude to me – it looks rather like you went into ‘attack anyone with an opposing view’ mode.

Because all I’ve asked here is that Tim F tell us how he reached a view that he has already expressed.

I thought I might learn something that would help me make up my own mind.

Instead, he has despite two invitations to tell us more, passed up the chance.

No one except him knows how he reached his view – but his actions so far (and yours too), remind me of the great Simon + Garfunkel song the Boxer: ‘Still, a man hears what he wants to hear. And disregards the rest’

Actually, there’s another fact that leaves me scratching my head, from the same academic report as above,:
“Studies of family structure and children’s outcomes nearly universally find at least a
modest advantage for children raised by their married biological parents. The question which has bedeviled researchers, and which remains essentially unresolved, is why”.

Tim

how should we interpret your silence?