The usual ploy to smother free speach

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-118138 0/Slurred-adoption-Nazis-Critics-gay-parenting -branded-retarded-homophobes.html

What right have the British Association for Adoption and Fostering, to use such terms as 'retarded homophobes' against people who have concerns about the adoption of children by gay couples?

Especially when one reads this recent case.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-117835 4/Gay-rights-campaigner-led-double-life-leader -paedophile-ring-carried-catalogue-child-abuse .html

[jno]

so someone talks about retarded homophobes and others are protesting? Yes, I think it's outrageous that they should object to her right to free speech.

[jno]

PS you shouldn't confuse paedophiles (who can be of either sex and either orientation) with gays; so your second link isn't on the same topic as your first.

[anotheoldgit]

jno

so your second link isn't on the same topic as your first.

On the contrary the second link is exactly on the same topic as the first, that being 'Gay Adoption'

Referring to the leading member of the paedophile ring.

Quote:

Under his leadership, the group backed proposals to allow gay adoption.

[Gromit]

It is difficult to judge this without seeing the context in which it was written. However, a press release for the guide says

...this book charts the adoption process and contains personal accounts of gay and lesbian adopters.

So , it is likely to be a quote not by the author or the views of the BAAF, but the personal view of an adopter. Again, without seeing the guide, we cannot be sure, but books such as this usually have a disclaimer saying the views expressed are not those of the author or organisation.

The DM would not deliberately omit there was a disclaimer would they?

[Quinlad]

The same old misconception about free speech.

- Person A is free to say what they like.
- Person B is free to call that retarded, homophobic, racist or bigoted.
- Person A is free to explain why it isn't.

Trouble is, person A often lacks sufficient nous or mettle to do this. Or they realise that their viewpoint won't stand up to proper scrutiny. So they start bleating about free speech. I find that quite sad.

[youngmafbog]

So come on then you pinko bunch who is going to be first to call muslims a bunch of retarded homophobes. They make no secret of hating homosexuals. Or is it only white christians who can be homophobic/racist/bigoted

[R1Geezer]

It's not a free speech issue for me. It's more to with the tendency for certain views to be favoured and when someone does not agree they tend to be subjected to a rabid attack. But when the boot is on the other foot the "Bigot" fails to realise that they are in fact same as those they hate so much. QED if you do not agree with gay adoption you are a "retarded bigot", a rather sweepinig statement without examining the reasons for not agreeing with it.

[The Sherman]

instead of shouting down people that do hold the opposite view of yours Geezer why not actually bring an opinion as to why gays shouldnt be allowed to adopt?

[anotheoldgit]

The Sherman

why not actually bring an opinion as to why gays shouldnt be allowed to adopt?

My second link maybe?

[naomi24]

Whilst I have no wish to become embroiled in this argument, I would like to point out (yet again) to the apparently terminally ignorant here that 'gay' does not equate to paedophile any more than 'straight' equates to paedophile.

That said, I don't think there's any justification in calling those who are against gay adoption 'retarded homophobes'. In my experience many who disagree with it simply believe it's preferable for children to be raised by a father and a mother, rather than two people of the same sex - and they are perfectly entitled to hold that opinion.

[Kromovaracun]

So come on then you pinko bunch who is going to be first to call muslims a bunch of retarded homophobes

You, evidently. And you've not been prevented from it either.

QED.

[sp1814]

anotheoldgit

You are on seriously dodgy ground if you're going to use that story as a reason why gay men shouldn't be allowed to adopt.

You know what I'm saying don't you?.

You can see the horribly big flaw in the argument, surely?