Homosexual Marriage - two things cant be true at the same time
TRUTH IS REPLACED BY RIGHTS AND HURT FEELINGS
The kids are okay. Shut up. That’s the message from the same-sex marriage movement.
To argue for the right of children to be able to know the love and nurture, wherever possible, of their mother and father is simply bigotry, hatred and ignorance. That is what we are being told now before the law is changed.
I wonder what will happen if we lose the plebiscite.
Will advocating for mother and fathering of children, wherever possible, become hate speech? I’m worried about this.
The same-sex marriage movement is also worried that our concern for children’s rights might lose them votes. Yesterday the Medical Journal of Australia published an article which reported on a survey of research which claims that family structure is irrelevant to the raising of a child.
That it is possible for two men or two women to love a child and produce positive outcomes for that child is not in dispute. But the idea that the “no difference” case is closed is disputed.
The research quoted is all based on self-selecting convenient samples taken from the LGBTIQ community. Of course two mums raising a kid are going to say everything’s fine. And they may well be right.
Self-selecting sampling is one way of doing research but because of the inherent bias built in it is by no means conclusive. No large-scale randomised study has been able to conclude what the same-sex marriage movement wishes.
Until then, it is misleading to tell the Australian public that mothers or fathers are not needed. But all of this ignores the threshold ethical issue. Why do two adults have the right to deliberately deny a child the knowledge and love of that child’s mother or father?
Kids of course miss out now because of tragedy or desertion. But the same-sex marriage debate is not about this. It asserts that it is okay for children to be denied a mother or a father simply because two people of the same gender want to get married and raise children.
Love and stability are the only criteria for child raising, we are constantly told.
Well, they are important of course. But isn’t ancestry also important to a child’s identity and sense of self? What about the complementary love that the different genders bring a child? The yearning to know who one’s father is? Who one’s mother is?
Why does the same-sex marriage movement assume these questions are unimportant to a child? The Australian Human Rights Commission in its 2015 report Resilient Individuals identifies Australia’s ban on commercial surrogacy as a barrier to LGBTIQ equality.
The AHRC knows that marriage equality is not possible for two men unless they are able to rent a woman’s womb and buy her baby. This is deeply unethical and opposed by most people, including and especially feminists. Will this lead to human traffiking in the future?
Yesterday on Sky News, Tony Abbott’s sister, Christine Forster, declared she was against lifting the ban on commercial surrogacy. That is a good thing but it denies to gay married men the compound right to found and form a family, which marriage bestows. They will simply go overseas - human traffiking will begin.
There is so much cognitive dissonance in the same-sex marriage debate. People want to hold conflicting things as true and right at the same time. In this crazy debate sometimes simple truths have to be re-stated.
On last night’s ABC1 Q&A program, Archbishop of Sydney Glenn Davies reminded the audience that “A man can’t have a baby. Does that make him unequal to a woman who can?”
With just two weeks to go until voting closes, the Coalition for Marriage (of which ACL is a part) is working hard to chase down every last survey form.
It’s been a long journey.
To argue for the right of children to be able to know the love and nurture, wherever possible, of their mother and father is simply bigotry, hatred and ignorance. That is what we are being told now before the law is changed.
I wonder what will happen if we lose the plebiscite.
Will advocating for mother and fathering of children, wherever possible, become hate speech? I’m worried about this.
The same-sex marriage movement is also worried that our concern for children’s rights might lose them votes. Yesterday the Medical Journal of Australia published an article which reported on a survey of research which claims that family structure is irrelevant to the raising of a child.
That it is possible for two men or two women to love a child and produce positive outcomes for that child is not in dispute. But the idea that the “no difference” case is closed is disputed.
The research quoted is all based on self-selecting convenient samples taken from the LGBTIQ community. Of course two mums raising a kid are going to say everything’s fine. And they may well be right.
Self-selecting sampling is one way of doing research but because of the inherent bias built in it is by no means conclusive. No large-scale randomised study has been able to conclude what the same-sex marriage movement wishes.
Until then, it is misleading to tell the Australian public that mothers or fathers are not needed. But all of this ignores the threshold ethical issue. Why do two adults have the right to deliberately deny a child the knowledge and love of that child’s mother or father?
Kids of course miss out now because of tragedy or desertion. But the same-sex marriage debate is not about this. It asserts that it is okay for children to be denied a mother or a father simply because two people of the same gender want to get married and raise children.
Love and stability are the only criteria for child raising, we are constantly told.
Well, they are important of course. But isn’t ancestry also important to a child’s identity and sense of self? What about the complementary love that the different genders bring a child? The yearning to know who one’s father is? Who one’s mother is?
Why does the same-sex marriage movement assume these questions are unimportant to a child? The Australian Human Rights Commission in its 2015 report Resilient Individuals identifies Australia’s ban on commercial surrogacy as a barrier to LGBTIQ equality.
The AHRC knows that marriage equality is not possible for two men unless they are able to rent a woman’s womb and buy her baby. This is deeply unethical and opposed by most people, including and especially feminists. Will this lead to human traffiking in the future?
Yesterday on Sky News, Tony Abbott’s sister, Christine Forster, declared she was against lifting the ban on commercial surrogacy. That is a good thing but it denies to gay married men the compound right to found and form a family, which marriage bestows. They will simply go overseas - human traffiking will begin.
There is so much cognitive dissonance in the same-sex marriage debate. People want to hold conflicting things as true and right at the same time. In this crazy debate sometimes simple truths have to be re-stated.
On last night’s ABC1 Q&A program, Archbishop of Sydney Glenn Davies reminded the audience that “A man can’t have a baby. Does that make him unequal to a woman who can?”
With just two weeks to go until voting closes, the Coalition for Marriage (of which ACL is a part) is working hard to chase down every last survey form.
It’s been a long journey.
