Muslim family unfit to keep child protest against Lesbian Couple Adopters
PlausibleDenial
Posts: 978 Forum Member
✭✭
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2550317/White-lesbian-couple-allowed-adopt-three-year-old-Muslim-girl-against-wishes-family.html
Not sure if anyone has seen the above story yet about a 'white lesbian couple adopting muslim girl against wishes of unfit to parent muslim family'
Well the muslim family protested at harrow council which caused them to have a 'rethink'.
In my opinion this is Disgraceful behaviour pandering to religion like this. People choose religion, they dont choose their sexuality.
It is funny how the council are discriminating against sexuality here in favour of religion whereas the Christian Guesthouse owners in penzance were hauled over the coals for discriminating against a gay couple due to their sexuality.
At the very least all religions should be treated equally, in that none should be allowed to discriminate due to sexuality.
It shouldnt be allowed for muslims just because they have a scarier fringe wing than christians!
Not sure if anyone has seen the above story yet about a 'white lesbian couple adopting muslim girl against wishes of unfit to parent muslim family'
Well the muslim family protested at harrow council which caused them to have a 'rethink'.
In my opinion this is Disgraceful behaviour pandering to religion like this. People choose religion, they dont choose their sexuality.
It is funny how the council are discriminating against sexuality here in favour of religion whereas the Christian Guesthouse owners in penzance were hauled over the coals for discriminating against a gay couple due to their sexuality.
At the very least all religions should be treated equally, in that none should be allowed to discriminate due to sexuality.
It shouldnt be allowed for muslims just because they have a scarier fringe wing than christians!
0
Comments
How are the council 'descriminating against sexuality' here? We're not talking about the provision of a service here, as was the case with the B&B, we're talking about the adoption of a child, where the policy is to match that child with the ethnic group & culture of the child wherever possible.
The re-think is to give the family chance to come up with suitable alternatives. I can't imagine that's going to be particularly easy, at which point it's back to plan A.
If so then as soon as they give a child up for adoption then it's not nothing to do with them where the child is placed
If it's not biologically related to them then it's got nothing to do with them anyway.
It seems wrong to me to go against the wishes of the parents and the rest of the family - the story doesn't suggest they were complaining about who the adopters were. They are upset that other members of the family weren't given the opportunity to adopt the child. It appears the OP has interpreted the story incorrectly, IMHO. This isn't about religion against homosexuality.
So what are the rules about other members of the extended family adopting the child?
I think the article makes subtle references to it being about religion when, as you say, there doesn't appear to be at all.
It's an example of the media's ability to drive polarising views out of a story that has no basis for it.
I am not sure that's true. My nephew is in the adoption procedure at the moment. The little boy is with them now but they had a brief meeting with the mother. She does not know their names nor where they live. However it has been very drawn out as all family members of the child were consulted and the option of anyone of them taking the child was explored first before they looked for adoptive parents. Oddly the adoption people went to huge lengths to match the child with the parents including religion. The child's mum is a Catholic and wanted the boy to be placed with a Catholic family.
That may be harder with differences of race,religion, ethnicity and life styles
As that sort of agenda seems to be the Daily Mail's raison d'etre, I can't claim to be too surprised by its continued ability to disappoint.
They may be unsuitable as parents because they are ignorant about how race and ethnicity will impact her and therefore be incapable of guiding her through those subtle issues. They may be the kind of person who says "race shouldn't be brought into this" which kind of proves they are burying their head in the sand about the issue and are therefore unsuitable to raise a non-white child. It is similar to how someone who said what has sexuality got to do with it wouldn't be the best choice of parent for a teenager with issues about their sexuality. Because asking the question indicates an unwillingness to talk over and face the issue
As has been said often on here, their method has to be admired due to its success and its ability to motivate some parts of our society. The problem is that their success is matched only by the levels of inaccurate interpretations that are made from their articles by some.
Or, they may be able to face up to and guide her through this, without it becoming an issue, nothing to do with burying their head in the sand. I am pretty sure this will have been dicussed before they were even considered.
Square pegs don't fit into round holes in real life either ! ;-)
How can anyone guide someone else through an issue that they themselves are uncomfortable facing?
As with my example with someone who is uncomfortable with gay people"flaunting" their sexuality by being openly gay wanting to pretend that being non-white is not an issue is an indicator that someone wants to ignore the issue. It's not about making it an issue. It is an issue. Just as being female or male is a factor in life.
Does that go for mixed marriage/relationships too?
I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. Why would they be uncomfortable facing it? Do you not think that they would have considered this?
Sorry what example. Is it just me or does none of that make any sense?
Exactly. It's as absurd as saying a three year old child is a neoliberal
The example was in their first post. It did make sense to me.
One of the problems is that children from non white backgrounds are more difficult to place and its not always possible to find a suitable match very quickly .
Yes, but surely if the child could be placed within the family that would be better for the child and as is said no reason had been given for why that could not happen and there seems to have been a lack of communication about it altogether until they kicked up a stink.
I think it would be ideal for the kid if someone in the extended family was able to adopt them. It makes perfect sense.
I think you mean their second post and it was not an example it was a scenario. Not a relevant one as a three year old could not have issues with religion.