Older Posts

Posts Tagged ‘meaning of marriage’

Gay jackboots on the march…

Gay flag marchAnother example of the many and varied ways for the homosexual ‘normal’ to be enforced: not long back, the Mozilla boss was sacked for daring to donate to the defence of marriage in California (read this brilliant critique by everyone’s favourite Marxist, Brendan O’Neill:

It’s six weeks since Javascript inventor Brendan Eich was hounded out of his job at Mozilla by a virtual mob of intolerant tweeters and campaigners. His crime? Failing to genuflect at the altar of gay marriage, which is now the closest thing our otherwise godless, belief-lite, morally vacuous societies have to a sacred value.

VIDEO – In time for Mother’s Day, while children still have the right to a Mother.

This video is based on a talk and panel Q&A on the Sunshine Coast a few weeks back:

The blurb runs as follows:

“Same-sex marriage is a coldly calculated decision of Government to create motherless families, to create fatherless children… That is very, very bad policy”.

As a family doctor and President of the Australian Marriage Forum (www.AustralianMarriage.org) David van Gend makes an unflinching yet respectful case against the move to same-sex ‘marriage’. He urges that the rights of a child should take priority over the demands of homosexual adults, and addresses all the usual issues of concern during a brief talk and panel Q&A in Queensland, 2014.

Check out the Iona Institute… and not just for the Irish accents.

Updating Blog roll links – and the Iona Institute gets a guernsey. In part for this excellent video speaking sanity on the marriage debate, in part for the music of the Irish voices.

In part, out of fond memories of travels to Iona in 1985 with the Scottish cousins Mary & Jane Moffat; reading Dr Johnson’s account of his ‘Journey to the western isles of Scotland‘ as a travel guide. And a bleak day at the youth hostel at Uig on the Isle of Skye hearing snatches from Faure’s Requiem on Mary’s walkman. As Dr Johnson put it:

Article: Let the people speak on same-sex ‘marriage’

canberra_marriage_equalityArticle of mine on giving every Australian the ultimate ‘conscience vote’ on same-sex marriage… “I have faith in the Australian people that, faced with a choice between the demands of two men to be called a marriage and the needs of a child to have, where possible, both a mum and a dad, they will vote on behalf of the child.” Of course, the gay lobby hates the idea of letting the people decide; they prefer to impose it top-down by ‘progressive’ elites and their fellow travellers in the media.

Article: Same sex marriage & the motherless generation

The Australian June 03, 2013

Pity the child of same sex union
by David van Gend

ATHEIST philosopher Bertrand Russell said, “It is through children alone that sexual relations become of importance to society and worthy to be taken cognisance of by a legal institution.”

The legal institution of marriage is, as anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss puts it, “a social institution with a biological foundation”. Our marriage laws and customs exist to reinforce this biological foundation, helping bind a feral-by-nature male to his mate for the sake of social stability and the child they might create.

Speaking at the World Congress of Families in a fortnight…


I will be part of a forum at the Congress on Thursday 16th May, speaking on the need to preserve the objective, natural meaning of marriage. My sub-topic: “The harms to children of legalising same-sex marriage”. Please come along! Then I will be part of a panel on related subjects Friday 17th May. Details in today’s WCF media release:


For immediate release 3rd May 2013 Where do babies come from? Redefining marriage ignores basic truths.

Federal Court: marriage laws NOT “discriminatory” (Hello, Media??)

The mainstream media largely ignored the Federal Court ruling by Justice Jayne Jagot last month that our federal law blocking same-sex marriage is not discriminatory. But the ever-vigilant Andrew Bolt did report it on 4th March:

Andrew wrote:

A gay man is as free as a straight man to marry a woman.A lesbian is as free as any other woman to marry a man. That’s equality.

What same-sex marriage activists want is very different — a new freedom to marry someone of the same sex. What they want isn’t marriage at all, since marriage is the union of a man with a woman, excluding all others.

Half a million French wave the flag for “paternity, maternity, equality”

Spectacular rally in Paris this week, with hundreds of thousands of French families and activists and even some gay groups objecting to the demolition of the meaning of marriage, and to the abolition of a child’s birthright to both a mother and father. Bigger than the Grande Armee of Napoleon – let’s hope it shakes the Socialist President into sanity.

Interestingly, the passion is as much, or more, about the legal right for same-sex couples to adopt or use surrogacy / IVF to obtain a child.

UNSW debate with Prof Williams & Alex Greenwich: Gay Marriage

The video is up for last week’s debate at UNSW where I joined Patrick Langrell in an exchange with the Professor of Law, George Williams AO, and the head of Australian Marriage Equality, Alex Greenwich (who is standing for Clover Moore’s vacated seat in the NSW Parliament).

A civil occasion with over a hundred students and Nobody Behaving Badly. Prof Williams had weighed in after the defeat of gay marriage federally giving support to various State proposals to change the law – which is curious in an expert in constitutional law, given that there could be no more black-and-white specification in the Constitution of marriage as a commonwealth responsibility.

Double standard: the Senator and the Actor

Down in Canberra for the Nats Federal Conference this weekend, and a chance to take in another excellent occasion: the 25th annual Parliamentary Prayer Breakfast this morning – good company, old and new. More topically, today was the start of the gay marriage debate in the Senate. I caught up with everyone’s favourite Senator, the “not pretty, but pretty effective” Ron Boswell. He was working on his speech for the gay marriage debate, and gave a typically sincere and forthright rendition about midday, which I watched from the gallery.

At one point he put down his notes and spoke with a directness and passion that we have seen so often in his 30 years of service in the Senate:

Same-sex marriage says that a mother or a father does not matter to a child—and it does. Two mothers or two fathers cannot raise a child properly. Who takes a boy to football? Who tells him what is right from wrong? What does he do—go along with the two mums? How does he go camping and fishing? Yes, there might be some attempt by one of the mothers to fill in as a father figure but it will not work. It is defying nature. And what about a young girl changing from a teenager into a young woman? Is it fair to say to her, ‘You don’t have a mother; your mother can’t take you shopping’ or to not be able to help her understand how her body is changing? What are we trying to do here? Why are we trying to defy what has been the right thing for hundreds of thousands of years? What suddenly gives us the inspiration to think that we can have gay marriage and it will not affect anyone?
That is a concern that might be obvious to many people but predictably AAP rubbished his ‘dinosaur’ comments about the problems with two women ‘marrying’ (“Who takes the boy to football?… Who takes him camping and fishing?”) and the Twit-abuse is still flowing like a sewer.
How timely, then, that only yesterday an esteemed gay actor – Rupert Everett – said basically the same thing. Because the actor is gay, he can speak common sense (HERE) without comitting a hate-crime:
The star of the 1998 film Shakespeare in Love blazed a trail for gay actors when he came out as homosexual 20 years ago. However, he has been criticised by gay rights groups after giving an interview in which he decried same-sex couples who have children. The 53-year-old told the Sunday Times Magazine that his mother Sara had met his boyfriend but “still wishes I had a wife and kids.” “She thinks children need a father and a mother and I agree with her,” he said. “I can’t think of anything worse than being brought up by two gay dads.”
And his mother is not of the sentimental activist type, where only “marriage equality” will do for her son; she would rather he met a nice girl and settled down and started family…
Mrs Everett, 77, told how she knew her son was gay from when he turned 18, and described her desire for him to have children.
“In the past, I have said that I wish Rupert was straight and, I probably still feel that,” she said. “I’d like him to have a pretty wife. “I’d like him to have children. He’s so good with children. He’d make a wonderful father. “But I also think a child needs a mummy and a daddy. I’ve told him that and he takes it very well. He doesn’t get angry with me. He just smiles.”
Their comments were likely to cause rancour with gay couples with children such as Sir Elton John and his partner David Furnish, who have a one-year-old son, Zachary.
Well said, Mrs Everett: I hope the next conference of PFLAGG has you come and address them. As to the straightforward son: good for him, too. He is able to break the bubble of adult-centred narcissism that wraps so many gay activists, and instead think of the child’s basic natural needs.
So,where are the other gay men and women who are prepared to stand up for the rights of a child to know the love of both a mother and father? Where is your courage and decency to speak against a proposed law that will institutionalise the motherless or fatherless family?
UPDATE: Text of Senator Boswell’s speech HERE

VIDEO: Forum with Queer Society at Sydney Uni…

A student made a very low-definition video recording of the forum from Tuesday this week (21st Aug), and the clip below has my attempt to capture the ‘heart of the matter’ against same-sex marriage for a very mixed audience of about 150 bods, lots of them eating in the Manning Bar and paying little attention. My spiel is from about 2min 20:

ARTICLE in The Australian rounds off a good week contra gay marriage

A dad does matter to a child, whether gay couples like it or not

David van Gend

This article today in The Australian was in response to the double-barreled ‘bigot’ attack in the Weekend Australian eight days earlier. See the original articles by Peter van Onselen HERE and by James Valentine HERE.

To be fair, The Australian ran a serious, balanced editorial three days ago, see HERE, and this weekend Christopher Pearson took issue with van Onselen. Still, it was good to be able to reinforce the ‘heart of the matter’ (being the birthright of any child to have at least the chance of her own mum and dad) as well as some of the second-tier consequences of homosexual marriage… read on!

Older Articles
Click HERE for more articles from ~ 1995...
Some Videos