Update 03:28 pm "A spokesperson said yesterday: “The use of the word ‘retarded’ is not appropriate and it is regrettable that we put that up there. “It has now been removed from our website, but we do still stand by the sentiments behind it.“It is strong language but they are not our words, they are the words of the carer. It just reflects the strength of their feeling against the homophobia in society. This is how same-sex couples feel.” "The British Association for Adoption and Fostering (BAAF), says it regrets using the word “retarded” because of the offence it could cause people with learning disabilities."-From The Christian Institute out of the UK.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Related:
Grandparents denied visitation rights because of anti-gay stance in Scotland and Chile student's are taught that Christianity is discriminatory....

From The Christian Institute out of the UK


"People who oppose same-sex adoption are “retarded homophobes”, according to advice published by a Government-funded adoption charity.

The slur, which has shocked politicians, disability groups and family campaigners, came in a new guide for would-be lesbian or gay adopters published this month by the British Association for Adoption and Fostering (BAAF).

Same-sex couples are told not to “worry about society. Children need good parents much more than retarded homophobes need an excuse to whinge, so don’t let your worries about society’s reaction hinder your desire and ability to give a child a loving, caring home.”

It has sparked calls for an inquiry into the workings of the group, which dominates the UK’s adoption services.

One poll conducted last year showed that 40 per cent of the population think children should not be adopted by gay couples. Another, conducted for The Observer newspaper, put the figure at 50 per cent.

The adoption industry has repeatedly come under fire for pursuing politically correct causes such as gay adoption while marginalising those who hold traditional beliefs about the family.

Mike Judge, of the Christian Institute, said: “Christians and others who oppose gay adoption don’t expect everyone to agree with us but organisations such as the BAAF should try to avoid this kind of language.

“For a publicly-funded group with such a high profile to think this unpleasant phrase is appropriate for publication in one of its guides is very worrying.

“Sadly this seems to be a further example of how words like equality, diversity and tolerance have come to mean their exact opposite, particularly in the public sector.”

Patricia Morgan, an academic and author of a study about gay adoption, Children as Trophies?, said the phrase was “disgusting”.

“It is disgraceful that they do not wish to discuss the pros and cons of gay adoption,” she said. “They just go in for abuse. They do not appear interested in evidence about the outcomes for children.”


Conservative MP Julian Brazier, co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary 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.”

The phrase appeared in a new BAAF book called The Pink Guide to Adoption for Lesbians and Gay Men. It comes in a section where same-sex adopters offer advice about the process.

In a press release marking the publication of the guide, BAAF’s headline was: “Adoption charity hits back against negative portrayal of same sex adoption”.

The release pointed to the fact that two thirds of general population remain opposed to gay adoption. David Holmes, Chief Executive of BAAF said there was “still a lot of prejudice against adoption by lesbians and gay men”, but said that “BAAF encourages lesbians and gay men to consider adoption as an option”. He added: “The sexual orientation of a carer should not matter in 2009.”

The press release includes an endorsement from homosexual lobby group Stonewall, which has successfully campaigned for a whole host of ‘gay rights’ laws including gay adoption and the Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs).

With the introduction of the SORs adoption agencies were told they would have to consider same-sex couples as potential adopters.

As a result many of these agencies, which are known for their success in finding homes for hard-to-place children, have had to close or become secular by cutting ties with their dioceses.

Earlier this year it emerged that a couple who objected to their young grandchildren being adopted by a gay couple were banned from seeing them until they dropped their opposition.

The grandparents had wanted to adopt the children themselves but were told by Edinburgh City Council that, at 46 and 59, they were too old.

In a separate case in April the mother of two little boys had to plead with the Somerset authorities to let her sons be adopted by her parents or married brother rather than go to a same-sex couple.

“Social workers just dumped the truth on me,” she said.

Experienced foster carers Vincent and Pauline Matherick, a Christian couple from Somerset, had an eleven-year-old boy removed from them when they refused to sign an equality and diversity agreement which endorsed homosexuality.

They have since resolved the issue with Somerset County Council.

Another foster couple, Eunice and Owen Johns, were told they could not continue to foster children unless they agreed to promote a similar agenda.

Commenting on the new BAAF guide, Mrs Johns said: “It is not fair to call someone retarded or homophobic just because they are Christian and refuse to compromise their faith. I can’t believe that the term has even been used, it is completely wrong.”

Her husband added: “I would love any child, black or white, gay or straight. I cannot understand why sexuality is an issue when we are talking about boys and girls under the age of ten.”

An editorial in the Daily Mail newspaper said the BAAF guide “says it all about adoption”.

“Doesn’t this guidebook speak volumes about an adoption and fostering service which seems increasingly to put zealotry before the interests of the child?” it asked.

“There have been countless cases in which married couples have been refused permission to adopt because they are considered too old or overweight, because they smoke - or even because they are thought too middle-class.

“Meanwhile, under a form of politically correct apartheid, white parents are forbidden to give homes to black children, who are then abandoned to council ‘care’.

“Shouldn’t the Government launch a full inquiry into the workings of this dubious organisation, on behalf of the taxpayers who fund it?
“Or at least, shouldn’t ministers instruct the BAAF to stop insulting Britons who only care about doing the best for vulnerable children?”

Share/Bookmark