Why do I do it? Why do I even look at the Fail? All it results in is me arguing against a poorly argued article with ridiculous bias for no reason
But I can't help myself - naturally I expect nothing less than a sensationalised article utilising flawed logic, but bad arguing pisses me off
(and talking of bad arguing, Labour using PMQs to support the Equalities bill and attack the Equal opportunities bill, calling it an attack on equality, was disgusting)
I have my own beefs with the BAAF, because believe it or not I've actually been involved with them as a reference, and I oppose their ridiculous 'same race' policy, although the case I was in was actually a white couple adopting a black child...so go figure on that one...
And I do actually think this is one time where a bit of PC wouldn't be out of place - a public body calling anything 'retarded' is a tad out of order, especially one that insists on using such strong rules on sexual and racial equality - some of us may use 'retarded' in everyday speech, and I don't object to it, but it's really an insult these days and has no place in such a publication
So that's that cleared up, now onto the Mail's reporting - one particular thing stuck out, the segment with 'it's against our Christian beliefs' inserted
I ask: SO? All you had to do is sign the form that assured you were happy with the equalities rules, you didn't even have to invite the gays round for drinks
This is of course the same paper that will wail on muslims the second they say something in British culture is against their beliefs, but if it's the other minority: Chrisitians, oh no, they must be respected
My arse they must be, a lot of things are against religious beliefs - presumably Judaism is against their beliefs too, should Jews be allowed to adopt?
We live in a secular democracy - that means our laws are based on secular, logical ideas, not one minorities' fairy-tale book, and it means they have been approved by a democratically elected government (however much I disagree with them) - the people have spoken as it were
Nobody is asking these people to 'promote' homosexuals (if they actually are, I will happily apologise) - presumably it's just one of those silly check box 'I agree to xxx policy' things, it doesn't impact on you!
What really bugs me is that the Mail will happily tell the brown skinned people in dresses that their religion is a private matter, but if it Christians - "they must be respected!!1!1!"
Oh and then there's the stock comment about Christians being 'marginalised' - right, so you get positive press in one of the largest newspapers, have a benchful of Bishops in the Lords, have a disproportianely high amount of Christians in the Commons, get your own state-funded faith schools...need I go on?
The hypocrisy of both the Mail and Christian groups is stunning, but sadly, not unexpected - I remember the last time Ruth Kelly angered me was when the surprisingly high amount of Catholic Labour MPs nearly derailed the abortion laws thanks to their beliefs - did a society, with what, a 7% Catholic population, really want their representatives to change a law based on their own personal beliefs? If you want to vote based on religion then you should stand on a religious ticket (as Ann Widdecombe did)