Church leaders, disability campaigners and politicians have reacted with fury to comments by the British Association for Adoption and Fostering (BAAF), which described those who object to children being adopted by gay people as “retarded homophobes”.

The BAAF, which is funded by local councils, used the phrase in a guide published to help homosexual couples to adopt. It was then repeated in a the BAAF newspaper By My Parent, reports the Daily Mail.

The guidance by BAAF said, “Most importantly, don’t worry about society.”

“Children need good parents much more than retarded homophobes need an excuse to whinge, so don’t let your worries about society’s reaction hinder your desire and ability to give a child a loving caring home.”

The Pink Guide to Adoption for Lesbians and Gay Men, as it is called, was written by former Guardian journalist and charity writer Nicola Hill and was launched at a BAAF conference aimed at “overcoming resistance – celebrating the role of lesbian and gay carers”.

The comments in the guide have provoked a strong reaction, with Mike Judge of the Christian Institute quoted by the newspaper as saying, “Christians are tired of being marginalised.”

“We don’t expect everyone to agree with us but organizations such as the BAAF should try to avoid this kind of language.”

Julian Brazier, a Conservative MP and the co-chairman of the all-party Commons group on adoption and fostering said, “I work with BAAF all the time and I know how much they bring to adoption.

“I must say I am very sad that they should use this language about people who have an honest disagreement with them.”

Patricia Morgan, who released a study on gay adoption commented, “It is disgraceful that they do not wish to discuss the pros and cons of gay adoption. They just go for abuse. They do not appear to be interested in evidence about the outcomes for children. And it is a disgusting phrase to use.”

The use of the word “retarded”, use of which has practically forbidden in the civil service due to its negative connotations, was also criticised by disability campaigners.

A spokesman for the British Institute for Learning Disabilities said, “We have not used the term for at least ten years. It is not acceptable to us.”