Newsfight!
Comrades, We must resist the imperialist attempts to oppress those with alternative lifestyles. I for one grapple my demons whenever I face a capitalist. Should I let my rampant prejudices get the better of me? Clearly no. Capitalists aren't all bad. Some of my best friends 'self define' (except on ballot papers, but there is a time and a place) and they're always very polite. The same can be said of Gay people. Sometimes 'Gay' is a fun thing to call someone because they get really grumpy. But sometimes when you call people 'Gay' you accidentally 'reinforce stereotypes that oppress those less fortunate than yourself.' It is important to avoid doing that if you can. Sometimes really mad people think that because people are Gay it is okay to be really fascist about them; take the mad people who say this on their website ['Concerned Women for America' - it is unclear whether they are concerned women who are in favour of America, or women concerned for America]. "All the celebrity endorsements in the world will never change the fact that there is a God and in His ordered world, there is male and female, designed perfectly by Him to have an incredible union in order to populate the world and be the building block of society" - I think they think big business and celebrities want her children to be gay or something. They're barking up the wrong tree. Big business just wants to commodify their entire existence and exploit their Labour. Being a progressive and a freedom fighter I therefore urge the masses to follow me in declaring loudly that Gay people are people too. Children are a right, not a privilege; they should be distributed according to need, not ability to pay or reproduce. We on the left should stand up for the rights of the ovarily-challenged. Let the gay people adopt. They're nice enough once you get to know them.
Well, would you Adam and Steve it? It seems that gay couples will soon be allowed to adopt children, patently unsuited even as they are to parenthood. What will this government think of next? The whole business is indicative yet again of the Labour party's contradictions and lack of foresight, allowing such situations to arise to the detriment of those whom they seek to protect. I object to allowing adoption by single-sex couples for one main and, I believe, persuasive, reason. The term 'family values' has come in for a lot of stick recently, but it does pick up on an underlying theme of social protection. Quite simply, parenthood is more than anything about making children fit to become part of society through the provision of role models in a balanced childhood. The world comprises both men and women, and both sexes must be interacted with and understood in a fulfilling life. It is therefore imperative for a child to be exposed to persons of both genders throughout their formative years if they are to emerge a reasonable member of society. Now, while it is true that heterosexual couples are not necessarily perfect parents, at least there is a chance that they could be; while single-sex couples will inherently lack the ability to fully provide children with that which they require from childhood. It is up to government to make a stand, and, while not discriminating against individual lifestyle choices, set out an ideal and protect it. Government cannot (and should not) interfere with personal matters, but in these rare instances where it is playing a role in any case in finding parents, it should at least try to minimise the potential damage it may do. Of course, one has to ask just why New Labour are pursuing such a policy. No doubt there are some concerns about the waiting list for adoption and such like. More importantly, though is that it is the only way half the cabinet will ever get to be parents. Talk about self-serving legislation!
30th May 2002