Media people, and Leftists in general, are always willing to quote some obscure piece of research (carried out by a group with a Leftist agenda) to support a radical argument or policy. The research and its conclusions soon work their way into the Media mainstream. It’s probable bias is never questioned.
Since we sometimes have to fight fire with fire, I make no apology for mentioning some research that was carried out by a conservative group with an agenda. The group is the Family Research Institute, an American based group that monitors the political activities of homosexual activist organizations. You have been warned therefore that the research I am going to quote comes from a ‘tainted’ source. This is an example of how those of us on the political Right prefer to play our cards face up.
The research, concerning the State of Illinois for the period between 1997 and 2002, relates to the placement of children in State care and shows that of the foster/adoption parents who engaged in “substantial” sexual abuse, 34% were homosexual. Other research by the same group suggests that this percentage is seriously understated. The FRI says it has problems getting information from social services departments and I have no doubt that that is true. Social Services Departments in both the USA and the UK are notoriously Leftwing and politically correct and their employees from top to bottom (no pun intended!) would regard the FRI as at least a Nazi organization. On top of that, Social Services Departments that were set up to protect vulnerable children and constantly fail to do so because of their ideological climate, have become expert at covering up unpleasant facts and evading responsibility for their failures. Any social worker who questioned the placement of children with homosexual foster parents would have long ago been weeded out from the ranks.
It is not clear from the reports I have read whether Illinois accepts same-sex couples as foster parents and adopters or whether the 34% figure is despite a ban, but if not, the statistics are even more depressing.
The foster placement of children who are legally in public care happens to be something I know quite a lot about and my experience stretches over more than 20 years. I can tell you that children who are removed from their parents by courts are the most vulnerable and damaged children in society. Although there have been a few exceptions (Middlesboro’ in the UK being the most notorious example) where children have been snatched from caring parents, the vast majority of cases involve parents who are not fit to care for a dog. Thanks to rampant Feminism in the 1970’s and the Leftist cult of victimology ever since, social workers invariably care more about the neglectful parents than they do about the children who are suffering at their hands. The typical child ‘in care’ has been damaged almost beyond repair by the time he/she is removed from home. Parents who have cherished and nourished their own child and never been witnesses to the homes where cruelty and neglect are hourly and daily the norm, cannot imagine the damage done. From the moment of birth, and perhaps even before, children have imprinted on them that they are either lovable or not. Those whose experience is that they are not loved mostly become calculating, intent on survival, incapable of giving or receiving affection, are driven by impulses that overwhelm them, are opportunist, mistake material giving and sexual activity for affection and rarely become genuinely emotionally mature. Obviously, the earlier a child is removed from cruelty and neglect, the better his/her chances of being made whole.
From this bleak starting point it becomes obvious that fostering (and the adoption of older children who have been ‘in care’) requires foster parents with enormous reserves of affection and understanding. Many good people who volunteer have no real idea what they are taking on, no matter how much training and preparation they receive and they eventually fall by the wayside. Some well-intentioned people find that a foster child can destroy a marriage, drive their birth children into crisis or bring to the surface suppressed vices in the family. My experience was that no matter how good the vetting procedure of foster parents and no matter how close the supervision of placements, things often went wrong, sometimes shockingly so.
On top of this, there are those predators out there who are skilled at hiding their intentions and are patient in the extreme. They instinctively understand that children who end up ‘in care’ are wonderfully vulnerable because their acquiescence and silence can be bought or achieved by threat. Such people have long infiltrated Church youth groups, the Boy Scouts, boys’ choirs, youth soccer and football teams and especially those Children’s Homes that took children ‘in care’. Often their perverted activities do not come to light until years after, when their victims are old enough to denounce them. A high proportion of these predators are sodomists. The UK institutional boys’ homes of the 1960’s, 70’s and 80’s were quietly infiltrated by homosexual staff. They created sheltering networks and only now are the prosecutions taking place of elderly men who constantly abused vulnerable boys.
Homosexual activists (and not all homosexuals are activists or predators by any means) are determined to achieve legislation everywhere that normalizes their sexual appetites. I have written recently on this website that sexual activities, no matter how abnormal, if they are conducted between consenting adults in private should not be criminalized and are no business of the State. But the activists are demanding legislation that criminalizes those who reject sodomy as normal sexual behavior. Since it is mostly impossible to achieve public support for this reversal of opinion, the legislation is slipped through and public debate is avoided. Legislators, Courts and Public Service bureaucracies everywhere are sneaking through legislation to satisfy the demands and appetites of sodomists and at the same time implementing legislation that criminalizes and gags opposition.
The latest example is in the UK where in April legislation will come into effect that will force adoption and fostering agencies to approve same-sex couples. It has been attached to the new human rights legislation that emanates from the EU. I doubt very much that even the UK’s sleepwalking electorate would vote for this, but they will not get the chance anyway. Cardinal O’Connor of the Roman Catholic Church asked Prime Minister Blair to exempt the Catholic fostering and adoption agencies from the legislation, but without success, as the Labour Cabinet would brook no exceptions. The Catholic Church should know a thing or two about sodomists who abuse young boys since the track record of its priests leaves a lot to be desired, but people like O’Connor will be run over by the homosexual juggernaut.
Since the Lib-Dems are in the pocket of the homosexual network (again no pun intended) and Cameron’s Tories are now sold on inclusiveness, the UK is about to go the same way as Canada, where it is illegal to impugn sodomy practitioners.
Homosexuals are said to account for 3% or less of the population (and many live quietly and are not political activists) and yet their agenda seems unstoppable. I suppose the catastrophe of single parenting by mothers, combined with Leftist school and TV propaganda, may have increased the percentage of boys with sexual identity problems, but even if the percentage was 6% it would not explain the power and success of this movement. There are, of course, a number of homosexuals in high places and in the top echelons of the political parties, but they are not a majority by any means. One has to assume that some of those in Blair’s Cabinet who supported the legislation are parents. How many would place their sons with homosexual couples and abandon them to the ‘oversight’ of social workers? None probably, but then they know that their children will never be in public care and so they can pander to a powerful and wealthy lobby that exists inside and outside of the Media. Political ideologues and opportunists are always willing to sacrifice the vulnerable in pursuit of careers, their fine words about the downtrodden being just that-fine words.
Today I read a report of how a group of wealthy ‘gay’ millionaires in the USA targeted 70 candidates in the 2006 elections who were not sympathetic to the ‘gay ‘ agenda. Large sums of money were channeled to their opponents, but undercover, so that the conservatives were never aware of the group’s campaign. Their campaign was hugely successful. This group of ‘gay’ millionaires was set up by Tim Gill, the founder of the software company Quark. He sold his stake in 2000 to focus on ‘gay-rights’ advocacy. George Soros is another who channels money to similar groups, yet we are told that public companies give to such events as the ‘gay’ Olympics and the Gay Pride Marches because they are helping a needy group of victims.
The key to the power of the homosexual movement and its success is, of course, the Media Class, for by keeping information from the masses and feeding them propaganda, the Media Class advances the homosexual agenda by stealth.
The Catholic Church in the UK will not have any effect on the new legislation and will eventually roll over. The Islamists will not however, and it will be interesting to see how the new regulation plays out with them. The British National Party is the only political party in the UK that opposes same-sex adoption and fostering. I can think of no better reason for voting for them in the May elections. One final word! I would not advocate placing girls in the foster care of a household with one or two single heterosexual men. Not only would it be reckless on the girl’s behalf but would expose the men to powerful temptations. Homosexual men need the same protection from temptation with boys.