I am sick and tired of people using the cloak of 'religion' to protect their hate-filled bigotry.
First, the trivial Muslim PC refused to shake hands
The woman's refusal was based on her view that her faith prevented her touching a man other than her husband or a close relative- because she had to draw the logical conclusion that the mere act of shaking hands would cause Sir Ian Blair to leap on her and shag her senseless in front of hundreds in a public place...
What an impertinence.
The society in which she lives regards a handshake as a conventional way of expressing non-intimate good will. Refusal to shake a hand is a deliberate insult designed to indicate a lack of respect or a refusal (well-grounded or not) to accept a gesture of friendship. If somebody refused to shake my hand I would be mortified, and I really would not accept that their prejudices trump my feelings. Because, when I go to meetings - at work, as a private citizen or formerly as a councillor - it has never been my intention to cop off with the person I'm meeting.
Far more importantly, Catholic threat on gay rights law, where another set of sex-obsessed bigots reveal how they have caused unnecessary suffering to the most vulnerable children
The Catholic Church's agencies are said to handle 4%, or about 200, of all adoptions a year. However they handle about a third of those children judged difficult to place.
I think, in an ideal world, the best environment for a child to grow up is with both biological parents, who are capable of caring for them, and without any physical or mental disabilities, or anything that resembles poverty. Guess what, this isn't a perfect world.
A substantial body of evidence exists to show that the worst environment for a child is 'in care', (despite the best efforts of foster carers, many of whom do remarkable jobs). If a child cannot live with their biological families, the best alternative is for a knowledgeable and experienced professional social worker to select adoptive parents who have been through the most rigorous approval processes.
Gone are the days where there was a glut of perfect white babies ready for adoption at six weeks. Thank God.
Most children for adoption are older, often of school age, usually having suffered the trauma of dysfunction, or abuse or neglect. Or have profound multiple disabilities. These children do not require some nice middle-class middle-England straight married Catholic couple full of good intentions.
They need adoptive parent(s), straight gay whatever race whatever age who have the personal skills, dedication, patience, understanding - and love to be parents in a way that the vast majority of natural parents are never required to be. I think it's profoundly unfair to these children to be denied loving parent(s) just because some weirdos disapprove of their relationship.
The Catholic Church has revealed it has been taking adoption decisions that are not necessarily in the best interest of the child, and they wish to continue doing so. They should hang their heads in shame, that when purporting to be dedicated to the welfare of the most vulnerable, their squeamishness at sex is still more important. (isn't it bizarre that a Catholic marriage is deemed to be a lifelong all encompassing relationship, in which sex is just one part, but a gay relationship is considered to be just sex sex sex sex? Perverted bigots. Sex-obsessed.)
