Older Posts

Mum, Dad, Kids

Marriage is fundamentally about the needs of children. Redefining marriage to include gay and lesbian couples would eliminate entirely in law, and weaken still further in culture, the basic idea of a mother and a father for every child.

David Blankenhorn, The Future of Marriage 2007

The heart of opposition to homosexual marriage is that it means homosexual parenting, and homosexual parenting means that a child must miss out on either a mother or a father.

Marriage is a compound right under Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “the right to marry and to found a family”. Therefore homosexual marriage involves both the legal recognition of an exclusive relationship and the right to form a family by artificial reproduction – but any child created within that “marriage” would have no possibility of being raised by both her mother and her father.

There are already tragic situations where a child cannot have both a mum and a dad, such as the death or desertion of a parent, but that is not something we would ever wish upon a child, and it is not something a government should ever inflict upon a child. There are already situations where broken families reform as a homosexual household, and nothing can or should be done about that. What we must not allow is the situation where government facilitates the deliberate creation of motherless or fatherless families.

That offence against the child, inherent in any institution of “homosexual marriage”, is the primary reason why the proposed reform is wrong and must be opposed, and likewise why any law is wrong that compels a child to live without a mother or without a father – such as single or same-sex surrogacy and same-sex stranger adoption.

Even the pseudo gay-marriage of a civil partnership can allow for this abuse of a child’s birthright. That is the case with Elton John and his civil partner, David Furnish, who in 2010 created baby Zach using an anonymous egg donor in India, a vial of their blended sperm and a rent-a-womb. The old rock star needed “someone to love into my old age”. Too bad if baby Zach needed a mother’s love, because the men ensured that Zach could never know her. Spurious “equal rights” for rich homosexuals to obtain a child, at the cost of authentic “equal rights” for all babies to enter the world with their own mother and their own father.

The life between mother and baby is the most profound human bond, but that primal relationship is abolished by the “marriage” of two men. Homosexual marriage heralds an authentic “gay stolen generation”, destined to the same disorientation and pain as children conceived by anonymous sperm-donor fathers or removed at birth from single mothers.

Demands for gay marriage, as Australian ethicist Professor Margaret Somerville observed, “force us to choose between giving priority to children’s rights or to homosexual adults’ claims.” The claims of homosexual adults always take priority with the progressive media, who frame the debate narcissistically in terms of the desires and “equal rights” of adults. Who, then, will defend the child’s point of view?

A child has the right to her own mum and dad, to be nurtured by their complementary love. She has the right to look up and see the only two faces on earth that reflect her own: the woman and the man who together gave her life. A little girl should not have to look up and see two “married men” as her parents. Neither man can be a mother to her; they cannot guide her as a mother would when she is growing from girl to woman, nor model for her the complex relationship of husband and wife. Likewise, any boy needs his father’s companionship and example to help him become a man; no matter how competent and caring a lesbian partner may be, she cannot be a dad to a little boy.

In essence, “homosexual marriage” asserts that a mother, or a father, simply does not matter to a child. Its acceptance in law would violate a child’s fundamental right to grow up “in the care and under the responsibility of his parents” – a basic right affirmed in the Declaration on the Rights of the Child – and would subject children, without consent, to a government-sponsored experiment on their emotional development.

On the question of emotional development, sociologist David Popenoe states the obvious: “Few propositions have more empirical support in the social sciences than this one: Compared to all other family forms, families headed by married, biological parents are best for children.”  However, the bedrock truth that a child needs the love of both a mum and a dad does not require any “empirical support”; anyone who cannot relate to this truth is to be pitied, not argued with.

Predictably, some raise the scenario of an abusive mother and father and argue that it is better for a child to have two loving same-sex carers than a dysfunctional pair of biological parents – yet neither option gives a child what she needs. We must reject both, restraining parents who would inflict abuse while also restraining governments who would inflict laws that normalise the motherless or fatherless child.

Older Articles
Click HERE for more articles from ~ 1995...
Some Videos
STEM CELLS & EMBRYOS: ABC LATELINE AUGUST 2002 SURROGACY: KERRI-ANNE SHOW JANUARY 2011 SBS INSIGHT ON GAY MARRIAGE 2013 (see post Aug 15 2013) EUTHANASIA & THE 'DUTY TO DIE', 2014 THE HARMS OF HOMOSEXUAL 'MARRIAGE', 2014 ABORTION - 'the silent innocence of the unborn', 2014 SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: SYDNEY UNI 2012 (start 2min20) SURROGACY BILL QLD JANUARY 2010
Tweets!