Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Euros take away foster child because parents won’t endorse homosexuality

This would be impossible to believe, were it not in Eurotrashland.  From Hot Air:

The boy’s been placed now with a kindly atheist family that’s promising to teach him well “the ways of teh ghey.” No no, kidding. He’s languishing in a youth hostel — after having lived with the couple for two years.

It seems they didn’t love thy neighbor quite enough to suit British law.

The devastated couple, who have three grown up children of their own, became foster parents in 2001 and have since cared for 28 children at their home in Chard, Somerset.

Earlier this year, Somerset County Council’s social services department asked them to sign a contract to implement Labour’s new Sexual Orientation Regulations, part of the Equality Act 2006, which make discrimination on the grounds of sexuality illegal.

Officials told the couple that under the regulations they would be required to discuss same-sex relationships with children as young as 11 and tell them that gay partnerships were just as acceptable as heterosexual marriages.

They could also be required to take teenagers to gay association meetings…

Mr Matherick, a 65-year-old retired travel agent and a primary school governor, said: “I simply could not agree to do it because it is against my central beliefs.

“We have never discriminated against anybody but I cannot preach the benefits of homosexuality when I believe it is against the word of God.”…

Religious campaigners say the couple are the latest victims of an equality drive which puts gay rights above religious beliefs.

Muslim groups are complaining too, so maybe Christians can ride the coattails of “Islamophobia” to eventual victory here. Exit question: With Britain needing an extra 8,000 foster parents to meet demand, is it time for Britain to do something daring and consider religious families? 

We are reminded of the last time the Euros caved in to queer political correctness: pedophile foster parents sexually abused children in their care because of a P.C. fear of offending gays.  Absurdity abounds in Eurotrashland.

Shortage of foster parents?  Cool, the Euros have an answer: make the number even smaller.  Bloody brilliant, Limeys.

October 24, 2007 - Posted by crushliberalism | Euros, bigotry, gay, political correctness | | 16 Comments

16 Comments »

  1. So religious upbringing or traditional upbringing is harmful to a child but predatory gay men make ideal parents?
    Political Correctness is a blight to society and every sane human being should oppose it pronto!

    One site called PC watch had it right Leftist Tolerance is simply Leftist bigotry!

    So I guess Moral Relativism is to be valued over the well being children how disgusting!

    Comment by Chilerkle | October 24, 2007

  2. I can assure you it isn’t all us Limeys who collude in this kind of nonsense. Unfortunately, the loony-liberal-”progressives”, though in a minority of Englishmen overall, dominate our politics, our academic institutions and our broadcast media. I understand that a similar – though less dire – situation persists in the US.

    Luckily, both our countries have a free press, and by highlighting obtuse cases such as these we can both galvanise mainstream opinion and shame our “enlightened” oppressors.

    Comment by Elliott Joseph | October 24, 2007

  3. I can assure you it isn’t all us Limeys who collude in this kind of nonsense.

    I have no doubts that you are correct, Elliot. Political correctness strikes in American and British societies (among others), to be sure.

    Luckily, both our countries have a free press, and by highlighting obtuse cases such as these we can both galvanise mainstream opinion…

    Absolutely correct, sir.

    … and shame our “enlightened” oppressors.

    That statement implies that said oppressors are capable of experiencing shame. ;)

    Comment by crushliberalism | October 24, 2007

  4. Nobody asked them to “preach the benefits of homosexuality”, you homophobic loon! If one of their 28 adopted children would turn out to be gay, then they would be required to provide unbiased information about homosexuality and NOT to pester them with usual Christian hatred.

    The reason they are loosing their right to foster is because they value their beliefs more then their children well-being.

    P.S. And gay men are predatory only in your twisted imagination.

    Comment by alex_t | October 24, 2007

  5. Alex, apparently literacy isn’t your forté. Fellatio may be, but broaden your horizons and get Hooked on Phonics, sweetheart.

    Here, read this part again:

    Officials told the couple that under the regulations they would be required to discuss same-sex relationships with children as young as 11 and tell them that gay partnerships were just as acceptable as heterosexual marriages.

    That runs contrary to your claim that “if one of their 28 adopted children would turn out to be gay, then they would be required to provide unbiased information about homosexuality.” It sounds like they’re required to discuss it with them anyway, regardless of whether Little Johnny bounces jewels off of his chin or not.

    NOT to pester them with usual Christian hatred.

    If parents are true Christians, then (a) they can’t be hateful and still call themselves “Christian”; and (b) they can raise their kids in a Christian household as they see fit.

    The reason they are loosing (sic) their right to foster is because they value their beliefs more then their children (sic) well-being.

    Valuing one’s Christianity necessarily means you value one’s kids’ well-being. I know, political correctness trumps values in some abnormal spheres, so that probably behooves you, snookums.

    Plus, be a little more creative than “homophobic loon”, m’kay? It makes you look like an emotional little bitch.

    And gay men are predatory only in your twisted imagination.

    You didn’t even bother to click this link right here, did you? If you had, then (a) you’d see that I never claimed that gay men were inherently predatory; and (b) you’d see that these two gay men in particular were left to their twisted devices and sodomized foster kids in their care because the social workers were scared (despite the warning signs) of the label that idiots like you threw at me (i.e. “homophobic”). Unlike them, I don’t give a wet fart on a dry January Monday what names cretins like you call me.

    Besides, are you defending those two gay pedophiles who sodomized their foster kids? If no, then don’t get so defensive, sweetness…I wasn’t talking about you. If yes, then it is you (and not I) who have the twisted imagination.

    Comment by crushliberalism | October 24, 2007

  6. Well, you got me here, English is not my first language – I am blushing with shame! And yes, I’m probably better in oral sex than in English – but please hold your nasty imagination, as you don’t stand a chance with me.

    Anyway, the following quote from The Telegraph may enlighten you on the subject:

    if children in their care expressed an interest in homosexuality, they would be expected to take them to gay support group meetings

    No “propaganda”, no teaching on “how to be gay” – just the facts. Next time try to skip the tabloids – they usually blow the things out of proportion.

    Valuing one’s Christianity necessarily means you value one’s kids’ well-being.

    And yet they put their homophobia above their kids well-being, and gave up on them. How nice!

    two gay men in particular were left to their twisted devices and sodomized foster kids in their care because the social workers were scared

    And? How is that related to the current event? Yes, there were two perverts that should rot in hell for their deeds, but how is it relevant?

    Comment by alex_t | October 24, 2007

  7. And yes, I’m probably better in oral sex than in English – but please hold your nasty imagination, as you don’t stand a chance with me.

    Well damn. I guess I’ll just have to stick with chicks instead of being immersed in that “unique” ass-and-feces smell. I’m sure I’ll manage, Sunshine.

    they usually blow the things out of proportion.

    No pun intended, right?

    And yet they put their homophobia above their kids well-being

    The Bible is clear on homosexuality being incompatible with God’s will. The kids’ well-being will be better served if they are Christians, not if they read “King and King” or watch “Romancing the Bone”. Sure, nothing in the Bible gives Christians the green light to attack gay people, but the Bible is painfully obvious on homosexuality itself, and it’s clear on not giving in to man’s directives to deviate from Scripture. It’s simple: suck a dick, lose the Kingdom…period. Not my rules, twinkie. That your will conflicts with God’s will isn’t my problem or my concern. I figure the Big Man will take it up with you in His time. That’s way above my pay grade.

    And? How is that related to the current event?

    Well, let’s see: you sashay in here like an irrational wench, stating a provably false assertion like “gay men aren’t predatory”, despite the fact that I proved that the Euros’ pandering to gays resulted in predators doing what you said they don’t.

    In other words, the Euros didn’t want to offend your pansy ass sensibilities, and kids suffered for it. That’s relevant to the current post because it shows that these dumbasses haven’t learned that political correctness is vile and dangerous…they’re still (and don’t get excited here, Toots, since this is just an expression) “kissing your asses”.

    Comment by crushliberalism | October 24, 2007

  8. instead of that pleasant ass-and-feces smell

    Huh? I thought we were talking about oral sex…
    And how did you learn about the smell, I wonder?

    No pun intended, right?

    Anything you can say about the actual quote?

    The Bible is clear on homosexuality being incompatible with God’s will.

    Well, this assumes that:
    - god actually exists
    - god exists in form that Christians believe in
    - the bible is not an old outdated code of behaviour for peasants
    - the bible is actually written by someone holy
    H-m-m…

    provably false assertion like “gay men aren’t predatory”, despite the fact that I proved that the Euros’ pandering to gays resulted in predators doing what you said they don’t

    It proves absolutely nothing – well, except that you like ridiculous generalizations. However horrible it is, this is just a single occurrence.

    Comment by alex_t | October 24, 2007

  9. Huh? I thought we were talking about oral sex…

    Uh…no, Village People, we were not.

    And how did you learn about the smell, I wonder?

    Well, I have had a bowel movement or two in my life, as have 100% of other humans. I’m not so arrogant as to claim that my sh#t doesn’t stink. You can probably figure out the rest, cupcake.

    Well, this assumes that:
    - god actually exists
    - god exists in form that Christians believe in
    - the bible is not an old outdated code of behaviour for peasants
    - the bible is actually written by someone holy
    H-m-m…

    The foster parents in question believe that God does exist, as described in the Bible. As such, they live their lives and raise their kids accordingly. You don’t believe in God? Cool. Then you needn’t be worried, right, limpwrist?

    It proves absolutely nothing

    Facts have been known to get lost on leftist cornholes (again, don’t get excited, sweetcheeks) like yourself.

    You’ve been an interesting museum piece, sister, but I’m moving on to the next exhibit.

    Comment by crushliberalism | October 24, 2007

  10. Oh. My. Goshd. Jon, I don’t know what’s gotten into you, but I like it. :-p

    Comment by Ed | October 25, 2007

  11. Game. Set. Match. Good one Jon!!!!

    Comment by tnjack | October 25, 2007

  12. I hate idiots who cry homophobe at the drop of a hat.
    They’re even more annoying than minorities who cry racism over the most petty disputes!

    Gay rights activists scream tolerance but what they really want is universal endorsement of their agenda and they’ll burn any heretics um excuse me dissenters!

    Comment by Chilerkle | October 25, 2007

  13. I hate idiots who cry homophobe at the drop of a hat.
    They’re even more annoying than minorities who cry racism over the most petty disputes!

    They’re both pretty much the same, Chilerkle. When they’re b#tchslapped by common sense, reasoning, and facts, they resort to the lazy and unfounded “racist/sexist/homophobe/slur de jour”, hoping to put the other person on the defensive. That doesn’t work on me.

    Comment by crushliberalism | October 26, 2007

  14. Since when is disagreeing with homosexuality grounds for taking the children away? and by the way fuck you alex ;]

    Comment by Scissorskick | October 29, 2007

  15. I enjoy the fact that you had to stop publishing my comments to claim your “win”. Looser!

    Comment by alex_t | October 31, 2007

  16. I enjoy the fact that you had to stop publishing my comments to claim your “win”.

    I never claimed a “win”, bitch. I clearly stated in #9 that I was moving on. It doesn’t take me too long to realize that I was in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. All you had to go on was “blah blah blah you’re a homophobe blah blah blah.” Apparently, that’s all you have to work with, so I’m through with it. Have a nice life.

    Looser!

    The word is “loser”, Merriam-Webster. “Looser” is a word that describes the state of your sphincter.

    And again, in case this gets lost on you, let me spell it out for you one more time: I’m done with this line of discussion with you. You’re incapable of anything beyond hurling reflexive emotional invective (not surprising), and I get more stimulating discussions out of the wall than I do from you. You bore me. Run along. I’m sure there are some nice Euro bathhouses to keep you busy.

    Comment by crushliberalism | October 31, 2007


Leave a comment

« Previous | Next »