Has Canada Really Changed since Marriage was Redefined?

Same-sex marriage advocates continually tell us that we should look to other countries that have legalised same-sex/transgender marriage and follow suit, but when we point out the negative consequences these countries are facing, we’re told ‘stop looking at other countries!’

We have to be allowed to call this out! If we are going to emulate the law of another country, we have to do our due diligence and that means looking at the impact that change in law has had.

So, let’s take a look at Canada, where same-sex marriage has been legal since 2005.

Andrea Mrozek is the Program Director at Cardus Family in Ottawa. In this short video, Andrea explains some of the consequences of redefining marriage that Canada is facing.

The “All Families Are Equal” Act recently passed in Ontario. It sounds nice and inclusive but what does it actually mean?

What it really means is that terms like ‘mother’ and ‘father’ were removed from the law. It gave the State additional powers to decide who are parents and created provisions in Ontario for children to have up to four legal parents. Four unrelated adults can choose to sign a pre-conception agreement and then become parents of a child.

To explain: a child can have up to four ‘parents’ – none of whom are required to be related to that child in any biological way. In effect, a birth certificate is no longer a statement of biological fact but rather a description of who was around at the time.

What that means for a child is that they have no legal grounds to know or be raised by their biological parents. Their family medical history is erased, along with cultural ties. They could be living next door to, or even marry a sibling and would not know.

Andrea points out that: “When you introduce same-sex marriage, you are, in effect, removing mothers and fathers and that’s precisely what happened in Ontario.”

And a father in Canada has protested against his school’s new, graphic sex education since the introduction of same-sex marriage. In court, a lawyer for Ontario’s Education Department said: “The legalization of same sex marriage ushered in a new era of gay rights in Canada…..It is no longer enough to merely tolerate homosexuality in Ontario schools.    Tolerance means that one is holding their nose.  In this era of legalized same sex marriage, children in Ontario schools must be required to celebrate homosexuality.”

This father has a warning for Australian parents: “Do you really want to have to go to court to find out what your children are learning?”

It’s OK to say no.

Share Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow us Facebooktwitterrssyoutube

16 Responses

  1. One might ask how and why the Canadian stories told above became a consequence of SSM. (These stories are replicated to greater and lesser degrees everywhere SSM has been legalised. )
    The answer is clear to any willing to face reality; SSM isn’t now and never was about marriage. It is fulfilling what it was designed to do….smash marriage, attack the institution of the nuclear family, commodify our children and as a few MPs are already advocating in the UK, make Christians (institutions) comply to the LGBT agenda or destroy them.

  2. Tony,

    Same-sex marriage isn’t the only sexual relationship which hasn’t been defined, registered nor regulated by any Australian law as the “cuffers” don’t have their sexual relationship defined, registered nor regulated by any Australian law. The practice of cuffing has no form of discrimination whatsoever between sexuality and genders as people choose to make a commitment for a sexual relationship usually over the winter period and then become free. The people who identifying with “cuffing” may one day demand a human right for a legal “cuffing marriage.” This will mean Australians will be asked, “Should the law be changed so “cuffers” can marry? The Australian Marriage Act could easily be changed to include “cuffing marriage” by offering short term marriage contracts as the no fault divorce is no longer based on a lifelong contract, adultery is irrelevant and civil registered marriage is no longer based on sexual intercourse. In a secular world where people can’t choose the length of time they will love someone nor can they choose whom they will love then a deregulated civil registered marriage will change for “cuffers.” The dictionary has marriage as “wife of someone” this can easily be “wife of a cuffer” or “wife of something” like a robotic sex doll or a “wife of an animal” in order for a person’s purchase of their cat or dog registration with their local council is recognised as a legal marriage union as people can’t control their love for their pet.

    Australians have been asked, “Should the law be changed so same-sex couple can marry?” The Australian civil registered marriage practice was established to regulate the harm of adultery in society which causes the breakdown of marriages/families by divorce and separation. The no fault divorce made adultery irrelevant and no longer a life long contract. Now the Australian government want to make the marital act legal sodomy for all deregulated civil registered marriages. Then in the future, Australians should expect the “cuffers” will demand “marriage equality” and want the Marriage Act changed to recognise their sexual relationship in law. Australians should wake-up to the reality that a deregulated civil marriage practice will make the word “marriage” the equivalent of “cuffing” as it has nothing to do with children and all committed loving sexual relationships shouldn’t be discriminated from the word “marriage.” Australians shouldn’t be surprised at all by the loss of culture including husband-wife-children, mother, father, son, daughter etc. No one is called any nasty names for being identified as a “cuffer.”

  3. Janine hi,
    I have just learnt something new. Thank you! I have never heard of ‘cuffing’ nor have I ever come across any identifying practitioners. ( Maybe because I live in parts of Aus where when the cuffers are beginning to cuff I am fighting tourists escaping the southern winter to crowd our beaches and local water ways.)

    • Tony,

      I didn’t know anything about the progressive identity of “cuffers” until it was discussed on a Melbourne radio station with people who identified with this practice. I am sure Bill Shorten will support a legal “cuffing marriage” because everyone has a human right to marry the person they love no matter how long it lasts and “cuffers” will make sure that marriage has nothing to do with children, sexuality, genders, history, religion, culture, science and social science.

  4. Don

    I will vote yes when you can show me a child that has been conceived by natural conception by a women and a women or a man and a man. Marriage is a means of identifying or regestring who has conceived the children of the union. As far as I know. Every single person on this planet has and always will be by a mañ and a woman. So. What will we now call this union when men and men or woman and a woman can use the word marage

  5. Buying and selling babies has always been taboo. But now, through modern technology like IVF, buying and selling ova and sperm and surrogates is ok.
    There is very little difference. People are mere commodities in this system that we are governed by.
    Homosexual marriage is just another step on the downward spiral (regression) of human reproduction and responsibilty.

    And they want us to believe it is progress!

    If this goes on, I can see a time when no one will be born naturally. All births will be by state sanction only, parents will be assigned, or they will be raised in state institutions.

    • Mikel,

      The state governments requires people who use IVF to have a police check and it won’t be long before the state makes it mandatory for any person to have a police check prior to natural conception or else the baby will be forced to be aborted by the state or government authorities will give parental rights of a baby to non-biological parents who they determine are better carers than the biological parents. BRAVE NEW WORLD!

      • Yep.
        They are already telling us that newborn babies should not be assigned sex or gender,

        but apparently, assigning parents is a good thing!

        • Michael

          Janine and Mikel,
          The only time a police check won’t be required for natural conception is when a gay man goes to somewhere like Russia, enters a civil marriage with a woman for a year, so he can father her child naturally, then buy it from her, and return to Australia and make his gay lover the other legal parent.

          • Michael,

            Unfortunately, changing words are happening in the nursing regulations as the revised update to be accepted next year refers to the patient as a person (health consumer). My children and husband are a person (health consumer) and I care for them at home plus I have a sexual relationship with my husband. The idea that “marriage is between any two people” is misleading and dishonest as registered nurses and patients are people but it is unprofessional conduct for a registered nurse to have an adult consenting sexual relationship with a patient or person (health consumer) let alone call it marriage.

            Sex workers will demand to claim the title of registered nurse for themselves as registered nurses and sex workers both view naked bodies and they will claim they provide sexual care to a person (health consumer) as sex is a part of a person’s healthcare. Australians are told that “love is love” and people have no control over who they fall in love with so this will be a big problem for the nursing profession if registered nurses no longer have any control over their feelings, desires, passions and lusts.

          • Michael

            Thanks for your comments. “Love is love” will become an even bigger problem in healthcare, if love can also mean helping “health consumers” to “die with dignity”. Once we eliminate discrimination between promoting life and providing death, there’s really no difference between the viewing of a live naked body by a doctor/nurse, or by a “sex worker”, and the viewing of naked corpse by police or funeral directors. ‘Cuffers’ can then be ‘snuffers’.

  6. It sounds like very sensible legislation to me. It ensures for the safety of children in the unfortunated event that both parents are deceased. What specifically do you find wrong with this bill? Nothing in it would change the marriage of a straight person. Marriage has nothing at all to do with children. Stop trying to mislead people.

    • Zeke,

      You have no right to label any person as a “straight person” as they have a human right to their own self determination. The idea that a person is “straight” is only an opinion which isn’t based on any scientific evidence. Your opinion that marriage has nothing to do with children is misleading and dishonest because the UN declaration on the “rights of a child” and “human rights” claim men and women have a right to marriage in order to found a family and children have a right to live with their biological father and mother where possible.

      Your opinion that “marriage is between any 2 people” doesn’t have to be believed by any person in Australia as this is only a personal opinion and isn’t based on any belief system nor natural human behavioural practice. The civil registered marriage practice was established to control the harm of adultery then later regulated for a no fault divorce and now the Australian government wants to deregulate the civil registered marriage practice by defining, registering and regulating a legal sodomy practice as the marital act for all civil registered marriages. Therefore, I can easily separate my “one flesh” marriage from this practice by identifying as an “independent marriage.”

      The Australian government doesn’t own my “one flesh” marriage and I’m not forced to identify with a deregulated civil marriage practice. I don’t want any government marriage benefits including a no fault divorce which doesn’t deal with the harm of adultery. However, government authorities will have to treat people who identify as “heterosexual” as exactly the same as people who identify as LGBTIAQ if the Marriage Act is changed because they can’t discriminate against people who wear a wedding dress and suit from people who wear only suits or wedding dresses. All people who have a wedding celebration in order to purchase a legal state marriage certificate must be treated legally the same as they’re all practicing legal sodomy as the marital act which doesn’t procreate any children. The psychology/psychiatry words “heterosexual,” “homosexual” “bisexual, transgender, intersex, asexual, and queer aren’t based on biological sex with the binary genders of male and female who have complimentary sex which consummates a genuine marriage between husband and wife as they can naturally procreate, nurture and raise new-life (natural human reproduction). Therefore, the idea that “marriage is between any 2 people” is totally separated from the natural human behavioural practice of “one flesh” marriage which is re-enforced by a belief system.

      • Michael

        …And so much the better for “marriage equality”, if the “two people” in wedding dresses are blokes.

  7. Tell me how the issue with birth certificates and the loss of genetic/biological is any different to what t has been happening fir decaded to childen who have been adopted? These children are issued with new birth certificates showing the adoptive parents as having given birth.

    • Michael

      Natural families who adopt children don’t deliberately deprive children of their own natural parents. Adoptive families began so that orphans could be raised in a natural family setting resembling their own family, with a female mother and a male father. Adoptive parents and step parents don’t have a problem with being identified as such. As the article points out, the Canadian LGBTIQA+ “birth certificates” allow up to four legal parents. These LGBTIQA+ legal parents are demanding to be called parents full stop, not merely adoptive parents or legal guardians.

      The recent royal commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse uncovered many stories of children being abused by unrelated adults in school situations. “Same-sex marriage” normalises the placing of children with unrelated adults in home and family situations.

      In the past, babies born to unmarried mothers were taken away at birth, and given for adoption. Former Tasmanian Premier Lara Giddings made a heartfelt and tearful apology to Tasmanian mothers and their children who were caught in this situation. In two or three decades’ time, there’ll be a similar apology, or even a royal commission, to the victims of LGBTIQA+ social experimentation.

Leave a comment