I was disturbed to read this story yesterday about some woman called Lynette Burrows, an author and family values campaigner by all accounts, who was on one of Radio Five’s interminable phone-in programmes on whether gay people should or shouldn’t be allowed to adopt children.
I didn’t hear it myself, but word is that she has since been leant upon by the Met for her supposed homophobic comments. What she said was that gay men shouldn’t be allowed to adopt for the reason that:
“…placing boys with two homosexuals for adoption was as obvious a risk as placing a girl with two heterosexual men who offered themselves as parents. “It is a risk,” she said. “You would not give a small girl to two men.”
Someone complained that this was a homophobic comment, hence the intervention by the Met. I suppose that’s correct if you work on the origin of ‘homo’ as in the Latin for ‘man’ because her view is that both homosexual and heterosexual men are all inherent paedophiles. It is a slur on the majority of men, straight or gay, who harbour absolutely no predatory sexual intent on children.
This is patently absurd, but is turning to the law upon free speech the answer? I don’t think so. Only by dragging such absurdity out of the shadows of narrow minds can they be challenged. Better that the fools open their mouths and confirm their status than play the silent suspect.