MEDIA RELEASE: ABC Play School celebrates the “Motherless Generation”

“There is nothing to celebrate about two little girls being deprived of their mother by two gay men”, said Dr David van Gend, a GP and President of the Australian Marriage Forum.

“The Play School episode[1] on Thursday 28th showed two little girls saying how much they love going to the pool with their “two dads”, but it doesn’t ask either child the only question that matters: “Where is your mother?”

“Is her genetic mother an anonymous egg donor in India and her birth mother an unknown Australian surrogate? Should a little girl be made to miss out on the love of her mother just because two gay men want a baby?

“No matter how competent each of the men might be, neither can be a mother to a little child; 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.

“What sort of a society allows two men to obtain a child by artificial reproduction, deliberately depriving that child of her mother?  While some states rightly prohibit same-sex surrogacy (e.g. WA) or IVF (e.g. SA) or even adoption (e.g. Qld), it needs to be uniformly banned across the country”, Dr van Gend said.

“What sort of a national broadcaster would portray that situation to kids as being normal, natural and right? Evenly in the sense of statistical normality, the Australian Bureau of Statistics tells us that only one in a hundred couples is same-sex and only one in a thousand children is raised by same-sex couples, 0.1%.[2] Your ABC massively inflates that to give gay dads a 25% share in its “My Family, Your Family” series.

“Of course little girls will tell the Play School cameraman how much they love having two dads; they have no option, if their emotional world is not to collapse. Only as adults would they be independent enough to express their grief at the loss of a mother, and even then their viewpoint is unlikely to be listened to. As one such adult, Heather Barwick, said last year, “If we say we are hurting because we were raised by same-sex parents, we are either ignored or labeled a hater.”[3]

"The ABC should not conscript emotionally vulnerable children to serve their progressive agenda on gay ‘marriage’ and gay parenting,” Dr van Gend concluded.


[1] ABC Play School 28/7/16
[2] ABS data on same-sex couples and parenting
[3] Barwick H, Dear gay community, your kids are hurting, The Federalist, March 17th 2015

Dear Gay Community: Your Kids Are Hurting

Share Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow us Facebooktwitterrssyoutube

24 Responses

  1. I find it interesting that the AMF would be so arrogant as to assume that they must be suffering. It couldn’t possibly be the case that they’re actually fine, even though they say they are.

  2. “The ABC should not conscript emotionally vulnerable children to serve their progressive agenda on gay ‘marriage’ and gay parenting,” Dr van Gend concluded.

    Remind we again what you did in the “Equality for the Child” ad?

  3. And isn’t it interesting that when the AMF was railing against what the gay couple had done – without knowing what that was – they were “gay men”. But when it came time to say that they might be competent, they were just “men”. So gay people must by default be bad?

    • Nick,

      Recently, the Age reported a father and his partner had sexually abused a 10 month old baby. The article didn’t highlight they were a gay couple. It was only by reading the story could the reader understand the partner was male and the mother wasn’t living with them. Therefore, your statement of “gay people must by default be bad” isn’t correct. However, all Australians would agree that the behaviour of sexual abuse to the 10 month old baby was bad and it doesn’t matter if the people were gay or not gay. The scientific evidence shows the practice of using body parts against their function is called abuse whether the people are gay or not gay. The Australian government doesn’t stop adults (gay or not gay) from certain types of abuse including smoking, alcohol consumption, sodomy, legal pornography, prostitution, adultery/affairs, virtual world sex etc (harm minimisation), and their is plenty of scientific evidence that these behaviours and practices cause significant harmful health and relationship problems which impact negatively on our society.

      The Australian government until recently ignored family violence. It is only recently that governments have created laws to severely punish this negative behavioural practice. A husband and his wife may be a wonderful couple with their children, but the behaviour of violence resulting in physical, psychological, emotional, social and spiritual abuse can never be tolerated in a family (gay or not gay) because it causes significant harmful health and relationship problems which impacts negatively on our society. A recent article in the Age said “love the sinner, but hate the sin.” I have to do this all the time with my 3 children as I will always love my 3 children, but when they physically hurt each other I can never ignore physical violence as acceptable behavioural practice. If I chose to ignore my children’s negative behaviours and practices, then I could expect them to repeat these negative behavioural practices within our community which would harm themselves and others. I wouldn’t want a police officer to shoot them even if they were behaving badly as they need to be treated with respect and dignity as a person, but their negative behavioural practice would need to be punished as a deterrent so they’re less likely to do it again.

      • Ash

        Well put Janine.
        As a society we are finding the previously definite lines of right and wrong are being progressively blurred; for the sake of moral relativism we forsake the absolutes. There are morals, there are ethics and there are laws. We wouldn’t be doing so well if we ignored morals and ethics, and just did was legal. All those acts of indecency you mentioned are unfavourable, but not all of them are considered wrong by secular society, who figure that as long as it doesn’t harm anyone directly then it is not morally wrong. We would do much better if we humbled ourselves to traditional values that would not try and make evil things good.

  4. There are so many bad consequences of subcontracting and commercialising the generation of children. We cannot treat children as a commodity, to be had at all cost to satisfy our whims. This could be prevented by not allowing two men and two women the right to have children which is beyond their capability to have naturally. That is why we do not want the definition of marriage to change- we would like to keep it to relationships between a man and a woman who potentially by nature could generate children by their union- expression of love.

    Why is it so hard to see that generating children involves a man and a woman- lets not pretend otherwise. The love between same sex couples is different- naturally different. It falls outside the gambit of the marriage that we all know for thousand of years. Generating and educating your OWN children is always an integral part of marriage.

    Please ask for a recognition of the gay relationship but do not call it marriage. It will be an excuse to remove the right of children to be naturally born and cared for by their own mother and father.

  5. It is utterly selfish and irresponsible to deliberately condemn babies to miss out on their mother or father, as if babies were dolls and will never grow to understand that to have a baby you need a mother and a father. How stupid or hypocrite can you be to even suggest that it is in the best interest of a child. The problem with this gay marriage or this so-called “marriage equality” absurdity (a term which is a blatant lie in any case), is that the gay lobby, or LGBT and now LGBTQI (what next?), is that the primary commitment of marriage is completely forgotten : promising to be faithful, i.e. not to go and have children outside marriage. Why? Because children cannot be divided into two as the judgment of Solomon demonstrated. The fact that many people forget what they promised is sad, but, at least, with broken or recomposed families, the children are still able to know their mother and father. What cruel and selfish individual would want to deprive a child of its mother or father – for life ! Exhibiting babies, as on Play School, in a sick attempt to make it look right is shameful. Of course babies do not know better, but what happens when they grow up and find out that they have been cheated and they are part of a lie about their birth?: That they will never be allowed to know their real parents, in order for those selfish individuals to live their fantasy, having no consideration for the child who will have to bear this nightmare all its life.
    And before you accuse me of being anti gay, quite frankly whatever these people do together is of no concern to anyone. Of course, it is perfectly alright for them to want to live together if that’s what they want. Nobody should prevent them to have the same rights as any couple. But two men or two women are not equal to a mother and a father as far as the child is concerned. The right of the child to know its mother and father is far more important that the right of two individual to buy one or obtain one by artificial means. Children do not vote but they are the ones who will be sacrificed or saved by our votes. Do not be fooled by an empty slogan. Marriage equality is just a lie to confuse you.

    • Gidday Mauri – great post, also Grace, Ash and Janine: I am happy in the knowledge that this is the Great South Land of the Holy Spirit = we have some good news today, in that Kevin Rudd is not going to be given a chance at the antisemitic UN job. The media are noisy it is true, and we have strayed far from the narrow path as a people – however we are a light unto other Western nations who have fallen for this rainbow politics, and look at the state of the UK, USA, France, and Germany: write to your local MP, and have faith in our Lord Jesus, and pray for the young generation. They have not been given much of a change if they watch television and have ipads – but our God is powerful, and revival is coming out of the outback and blowing towards our towns and cities, via our aboriginal brothers and sisters. Its time to stop being cowed by political correctness – we know what is Good, and what is Just – and I am appalled that people who cling on to the “gay community” in a vain attempt to seek belonging are being used as pawns in this attack on Believers, but that is exactly what is happening. We must love our brothers and sisters who are in bondage to this lifestyle, but firm and unmoving in our conviction and our faith. I am serious Nick – you are always writing and often upset and upsetting, but you are not an enemy. We will protect our children, but you are a neighbour and I pray that you will see the light, and reject the lies you are holding onto. Write to Play School, write to the ABC : yes they are infested but they still operate under a charter, and I believe they have breached it here, as they do all the time, but this is the show we all grew up with, and by doing this they are robbing Christian parents of 20 minutes of peace in the arvo, as well as creating untold friction and heartache. Jesus said some very serious things about looking after children properly: I fear for the person who sanctioned this,.
      Stay Strong, Loving and Vigilant!

  6. Ash

    Here’s another chapter in redefining marriage straight from the US, and once again Kim Davis is in the spotlight for standing up for what marriage is:

    Kentucky clerk Kim Davis has made headlines again for refusing to issue a marriage license, this time to a woman who wanted to marry an animal.

    Elizabeth Ording filed a lawsuit against Davis, Attorney General Andy Beshear and Gov. Matt Bevin at the Kentucky Eastern District Court on July 19 for allegedly denying her the right to marry an animal.

    The 27-year-old plaintiff said her lawyer informed her that the wedding could take place, but the state refused to allow it.

    Ording argued that marrying an animal is not so different from marrying someone from the same sex.

    Earlier this month, a man filed a lawsuit against Davis because she refused to issue a license for him to marry his laptop. The lawsuit was also filed against Beshear and Bevin.

    The plaintiff, Mark “Chris” Sevier, wanted to prove that same-sex marriage is the same as marriage to an inanimate object.

    Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, found the lawsuit “frivolous.”

    “There is obviously no right for a man to marry a machine. When you make gender irrelevant to a gender-based relationship you open Pandora’s box and make a mockery out of marriage,” he said.

    Sevier had previously sued Texas for not allowing him to marry his Macbook.

    In an interview with Houston Press, Sevier said his intention is to prove that the courts are allowing people to do morally unacceptable things like marrying someone from the same sex. He’s challenging the courts to agree that this is what they have allowed to happen, or else let him marry his Macbook.

    • Ash. animals and machines cannot enter into a contract. Simple as that….

      That is why whatever a lawyer may have told the woman in question her idea is absurd, and as with the other case you cite clearly an attempt to ‘make a point’.

      In fact the point made in each case is that whilst animals and machines cannot enter into a contract of any kind, including marriage or any other form of relationship recognition, there is in principle no legally valid reason why two freely consenting adults cannot enter into such a contract.This has been recognised last month by the European Court of Human Rights.

      What we are being challenged to do at present is to decide what form that legal recognition of relationship should take in Australia.

      • Hi Margaret,

        Thanks for your insight.
        A company (non-human) can enter a legal contract as a person. The government can create laws and regulations to allow a machine or animal to have the legal rights of a person in order that it/they can make a legal contract. There are some companies which are giving employees the right to sick leave to care for their sick animals. Some people believe their animals are like babies, and they should get the same benefits as parents. Most people understand that marriage was originally about a public commitment to a life-long, exclusive sexual union “one flesh” between one male and one female, and any children which were created from this union had a right to their biological parents. However, the Humanist’s “Marriage Equality” is a fantasy marriage, fake marriage or makes a mockery out of marriage because the British law admits same-sex couples are unable to consummate the marriage and adultery is irrelevant for same-sex couples because adultery is only possible between opposite-sex couples, and they believe “gays” and “lesbians” can’t have sexual intercourse with the opposite-sex. However, same-sex couples make a joke of man-woman marriage as it has to be consummated, and adultery is grounds for divorce (not equal marriage at all). However, scientific reports show evidence that the majority of gays and lesbians have admitted to having past sexual relationships with the opposite sex. A Humanist’s “Marriage Equality” makes all marriages “open” to what ever the government defines a marriage – a legal union between 2 people (friends whom want a business partnership). This means couples in legal “open marriage” can now “come out” redefining infidelity to make equal with the Humanist’s “Marriage Equality.” When the Australian government makes the sexual intercourse and children both irrelevant in marriage then this does open up Pandora’s box and makes a mockery out of marriage. Australians have to admit the Hook-Up-Culture “friends with benefits” and “gay men are making open relationships work” and “lesbians not being sure of their sexual orientation” will all undermine marriage as we currently understand it in Australia. My 3 children were the ones whom informed me that this Humanist’s “Marriage Equality” was a joke like the Emperor’s new clothes, claiming it isn’t about a sexual union between one man and one woman or children and it was for boys to marry their boyfriends. We witnessed the huge trouble the Bishop in Tasmania got himself into with the anti-discrimination act when he tried to explain the Catholic teaching of marriage in the booklet “don’t mess with marriage.” I had to tell my son if you want to have a sexual relationship with your wife it’s going to have to be outside this Humanist’s “Marriage Equality” as this isn’t God’s marriage. My german forefathers coped without a state marriage certificate and we’ll have to do the same.

        Australians have been blessed by God when our laws reflect God’s laws, but if our states laws no longer reflect God’s law then our society won’t be good. Australians will become a divided nation like most other western countries. It is impossible for a Christian or a Christian church to bless the sin of sodomy. Health science clearly teaches that using body parts against their function is called abuse. Christians understand that God never created ‘abuse’ for his glory, but abuse entered the world when woman/man disobeyed God. The Bible clearly teaches about the sin of sodomy, and the wages of sin is death. Christians are told to search the scriptures and discern between right and wrong, truth and error. The government has previously identified all legal relationships including: same-sex couples are now classified as legal defacto couples and aren’t identified as married couples. The question being asked is: Can same-sex couples be a married couple? Based on the traditional understanding of marriage this is impossible. However, if the government makes all couple relationships a legal union, and marriage no longer is a man-woman sexual union and children are irrelevant, then it is possible to create a Humanist’s “Marriage Equality.” The big question will be: Why on earth would we celebrate this type of man-made marriage in a civil/religious wedding ceremony? A business partnership between friends isn’t a reason for a celebration with family, friends and the community. The government isn’t concern about the commitment and love in the man-woman defacto relationships. What is so special about the commitment and love in a same-sex relationship that needs to be recognised as the same as marriage? Will marriage end up being for the purpose of harm minimisation which is a feminists idea. I won’t be advising my 3 children and 11 nieces and nephews to have anything to do with this Humanist’s “Marriage Equality,” so I believe civil marriage will be reduce extremely quickly to a harm minimisation category. I believe if Sweden marriage rate is down to 23%, then it won’t take long for Australia to reach this level. I am for committed, loving and stable man-woman marriages, but I don’t believe the state has any right to exchange a true, traditional marriage for a fake “Humanist’s “Marriage Equality.”

        Australians are putting their ‘head in the sand’ if they don’t face the significant harmful heath and relationship problems caused by all the different types of abuse. When companies promoted smoking and drinking by advertising it in sporting events this clearly had a negative impact on the health and wellbeing of people. When people die early from alcohol and smoking related causes this impacts on the family and wider community. When society has advertised gambling or Ashley Maddison (adultery) these have also had a negative impact on the family and wider community. Doctors are reporting the problems of porn (with anal and oral sexual activities) as girls and women are presenting with faecal incontinence, anal fistulas, anal cancer, green vaginal discharge, STDS/HPV/HIV/AIDS, pelvic inflammatory disease, infertility. What will be the long term impact on our society if they have a shorten life-cycle like gay people? Who will be left to care for their children? What are going to be the long-term impact of pretending that anal and oral sexual activities are as good as sexual intercourse to be called marriage? Will this increase the spread of the drug-resistant gonorrhoea to the same levels as Britain and America? Will this increase the demand for the PReP drug? Will this increase the spread of HIV/AIDS? It is an epidemic in Africa and Asia with it becoming drug-resistant, and there is less funding available. Currently, HIV treatment costs $14 000 per person/year, and there are approx 27 000 HIV people in Australia. In America, this treatment costs $20 000 per person/year. The Zika virus is sexually transmitted with significant health problems and no available vaccine. Will the spread of the Zika virus increase as gay men whom want to practice unprotected sex? How many more children/teenagers will be raised in immoral environments like myself and will be confused about their sexual identity by exploring with both girls and boys? Is this called abuse or should the adults be praised for offering such diversity of sexual experiences to children/teenagers. I understand the reason for 2 of my girlfriends committing suicide. Would anybody advise that the way to have prevented these suicides was for them to get married? What message are we sending to the next generation about marriage? It will be impossible to teach the next generation the real reason for marriage when it is confused with sexual activities of same-sex couples. When the guardian reported of married men whom loved their wives were wanting to use prostitutes, other women or men to explore their “sexual bucket wish” because their wives had refused. It is obvious that same-sex marriage makes a joke out of the real marriage and this can only lead to family break-down. Does the government want to totally breakdown the nuclear family so children will be legally separated from a biological parent/s. When I read about Freddy Mercury who was the lead singer of Queen. He died of AIDS as he had contracted the disease in a gay relationship. However, he left his house and most of his wealth to his long-time girlfriend (Mary) and he described their relationship as a “common marriage.” He said, “If things had been different then you would been my wife, and it would have been all yours anyway.” “All my lovers asked me why they couldn’t replace Mary, but it was simply impossible.” Freddy Mercury may not have been a Christian, but he understood that there was something really special between a man and a woman, and this wasn’t possible with another male. We can pretend to the next generation that the sexual union and children’s lives don’t matter as long as there are two parents involved. However, I understand what it was like when my mother made me call her really close friend “Aunty.” What if there had been a law which made this non-related woman my legal “mother?” I had a choice to invite this non-relative to my wedding and I didn’t, but the government doesn’t want to give the next generation a choice because they’re “big brother” and they know best. We only need to review the sexual abuse in state care to understand that the government can’t be trusted. The current studies of family life in Australia show evidence that marriage needs supporting, not exchanging the definition of marriage. The feminists are reducing civil marriage to harm minimisation, and I can’t believe it can get anything lower than that, except to make it illegal. I believe there will be so many people laughing at the idea of civil marriage as it will go down as this biggest fraud to western civilisation.

        • Hi Janine
          Just a quick response on the contract aspect.
          An organisation can indeed be a legal person (n accordance with several very important and fairly onerous conditions). I did some major and very lengthy work in this area some years back in the field of incorporated organisations.

          So yes, a more interesting test case might well be for an individual legal person to attempt to marry a corporate legal person.

          But they would not get very far because a legal person is not (in law) the same as a real person and any legal authority would rule accordingly, even if it meant the insertion of an extra definition in the Marriage Act.

          As the law stood for many decades an interesting test case might also have revolved around the fact that the legal age for marriage for girls was only 12, at a time when the age of majority was still 21. So it might well have been asked why if most contracts had to involve persons who had reached the age of majority, marriage did not.

          But now that the age for entering a contract is 18 across the board that is no longer relevant.

          With respect I don’t see that there are any possible grounds on which any government could rule that an animal or a machine was capable of being a party to a contract.

          I’m not commenting on the bigger picture here, just on the idea of civil marriage as a contract.

          • Margaret,

            There are people whom try to tell me that the computer can’t do what I want. “Computers can be programmed to do what people want,” according to senior software developers. The current Marriage Act doesn’t allow for people to marry machines or animals because it is based on the traditional understanding of marriage in the Bible. However, if we have a Humanist’s “Marriage Equality,” then the government can redefine marriage into anything the people feel, want or desire. The legal system then redefines family (a child’s parent/s don’t need to be biological). A Humanist’s “Marriage Equality” is like Disneyland “where all your dreams come true.” A recent report has found “same-sex marriage” has confused the next generation about marriage in America. A majority of young Americans now believed it is acceptable to be a single-parent. The study found as the generation accepted same-sex marriage, then this increased their acceptance of being a single parent. This could have a huge impact on government spending to help support single-parent families in the future. Unfortunately, many studies highlight the poverty of single-parent families (mainly women as the single-parent), and the negative impacts of fatherless children have in society. Thanks for your thoughts.

          • Janine I’m simply setting out the legal situation, because I think it is very important to keep the debate focussed on the real and substantive issues rather than be distracted by hypotheticals that can never happen.

            I’d be interested to hear Ash’s thoughts on this since he brought the story to our attention.

          • Margaret,
            When I got married over 18years ago nobody ever heard about same-sex couples wanting to get married. The hypothetical Humanist’s “Marriage Equality” became a possibility with the long-time support of Micheal Kirby (ex- Australian’s high court judge) who identified himself as gay and an Anglican. If the Marriage Act gets changed, then Christians will have no choice, but to identify their marriage to the original meaning of marriage “One Flesh” Union. The reason that Christians will have to separate is to avoid the massive legal costs of trying to defend Christians and Christian organisations such as churches, hospitals, schools, adoption agencies etc. Christians would much prefer to use their money to help the poor and take care for our environment. The LGBTIAQ lobby-dictators won’t want to have anything to do with “One Flesh” unions which is defined by God’s Law. This is the reason marriage “One Flesh” union has been a Human right and it is supported by nature, religion, tradition, history, culture and social science from the beginning of time. Christians won’t want to have anything to do with Humanist’s “Marriage Equality- Harm minimisation” which is defined by government “a legal union between any 2 people (friends in a partnership). The law will define family, and the child’s parent/s don’t have to be biologically related. If governments “open” marriage to “same-sex marriage,” then they have to give “Marriage Equality” to “open marriage” which are already legal, but the majority of Australian married couples don’t identify their marriage as an “open marriage.” Since the Humanist’s “Marriage Equality” is all about harm minimisation (high LGBTIAQ suicide rate), then there is nothing to stop multiple spouse marriages, short-term contract marriages. This is a fantasy marriage like Disneyland where all your dreams can come true. Health science shows evidence when body parts are used against their function this is called abuse. The acts of sodomy was legalised because of harm minimisation. The LGBTIAQ lobby-dictators want to put the abuse (sin) of sodomy in marriage. Australians already have the abuse (sin) of domestic violence in marriage, but the government is trying to address this problem. Marriage use to have a positive meaning and was seen as been good practice for our society, but this has been destroyed by the high divorce rate, sexual revolution, Hook-Up-Culture “friends with benefits” so the “gays enjoying open relationships” and the “lesbians are unable to decide their sexuality,” and the married couples in “open marriages” can’t reduce marriage future than “harm minimisation.” The feminist will be glad to view the Humanist’s “Marriage Equality” for the purpose of “harm minimisation.”

            Christians shouldn’t feel ashamed about identifying their marriage as a “One Flesh” union because this is how God described them in the beginning of time. The purpose of uniting one man and one woman as “one flesh” to fill the earth with people. It is important for Christians to protect their God given right (Human right) to marriage by identifying it as “One Flesh” union. Christians want to protect their right to parenthood, and the right for children to be nurtured and raised by their biological mother and father. Christians want their right to decide their children’s education. Christians can have their “One Flesh” unions recorded in a church, Family history Books, Family Bible and a church marriage “One Flesh” union certificate. Christians believe “One Flesh” union should be public, exclusive, monogamous and for a life-time. Therefore, they don’t want access to the Family Law Act and don’t need a state certificate because they can use a church certificate. The government should recognise that Christians have the right to practice their religion and freedom of speech. Christians want sex education to not teach anal and oral sexual activities as the same as sexual intercourse because of the significant health and relationship problems. There is an epidemic of AIDS in Asia, drug-resistant AIDS in Africa, drug-resistance Gonorrhoea in Britain and America. There is a growing infertility problem caused by sexual activities. Christians aren’t forced to smoke, consume alcohol, gamble money, visit Disneyland or the football so they shouldn’t be forced to participate in a Humanist’s “Marriage Equality.” This means Christians can’t force LGBTIAQ people to participate in a “One Flesh” unions. This will keep our Christian churches and Christians free from having to bless the abuse (sin) of sodomy. The anti-discrimination Act won’t be able to be used against Christians whom want to protect and support their “One Flesh” union. Christians don’t need government to define our “One Flesh” union and create a purpose for it, they just have to acknowledge like the original Marriage registry that they exist for the good of our society by protecting and supporting the next generation. A marriage -“One Flesh” union has been the fundamental behavioural practice of building a civilised society because a nuclear family consisting of a mother and father with their children can build a committed, healthy, loving and stable society. The government would be left to manage the Humanist’s “Marriage Equality” – harm minimisation with the Family Law Act. Social scientists would be able to monitor the outcomes of people whom identify with “commitment ” and “love” to their relationship (How ever they define it). There were more than 60% of people identified as Christians on the last Australian census and there is only 5000-6000 LGBTIAQ lobby-dictators interested in changing the Marriage Act. I believe Christians will focus on protecting their religious beliefs and freedom of speech because Americans have realised when their first amendment to the constitution goes (freedom of religion) then their laws don’t make any sense and come under attack, then they have lost all other freedoms and have become a slave nation.

            I believe Australians are a lot smarter than any other western country and we can smell at rat. We won’t be exchanging our gold for monopoly money. We don’t have to exchange our true, traditional marriage because we’ll just identify it as a “One Flesh” union. The Humanist’s “Marriage Equality” is a fantasy marriage for the purpose of harm minimisation.
            Christians don’t need nor want a meaningless and pointless Humanist’s “Marriage Equality” as it makes a total mockery out of marriage – no consummation or adultery (not equal marriage at all) according to the English law, and Americans are wanting to marry their animals and machines – trust me, anything is possible in America – just look at Donald Trump. The change will happen if the government changes the “Marriage Act” because I’ll be the first to do it. I have experienced homosexuality and transgender and this has nothing to do with marriage as it they don’t abide by the rules of consent, monogamy or marriage. Christians don’t have a choice as they are light in the world and they are called to separate from darkness. They need to discern from the scriptures the truth about God’s marriage and the error of sexual immorality and homosexuality because of the abuse to body parts against their function and the spread of STDs/HPV/HIV/AIDS. If I found out as a teenager that homosexuality and transgender wasn’t a part of God’s plan for me, it is like the child whom could declare the King naked in “the Emperor’s New Clothes.” I can understand the apostle Peter whom denied Christ three times, but after Christ’s death and resurrection he was sure about his faith to the point of dying for it. I can’t pretend to LGBTIAQ people that marriage will make the abuse (sin) of sodomy feel better as this is a lie. They just can further trapped in this abusive gay life-style until they decide to leave. I want to protect children from being exposed to this sexualised life-style because they’re indirectly affected as they can’t escape their environment. I understand the emotions and suffering from child-on-child sexual abuse and adults abuse of power.

  7. Are our children really that valuable? Should we mind if minority groups touch their minds with sinful, adult concepts? Let’s see what Matthew’s gospel has to say :

    But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”

    “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me, but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea. “Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the one by whom the temptation comes! And if your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire.

    “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. …

    And what of those who would lead children astray? Paul’s Rom 1 tells us:
    Claiming to be wise, they became fools, Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

    Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

    Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

    • Hear, hear,
      I can see the truth in there,
      not just because it’s from the Bible, – but also because it makes perfect sense.

  8. Not so long ago , the idea of two men, or two women getting “married” was laughable, and buying babies was unthinkable.
    It is plain to see that Playschool is involved in this propaganda movement to influence the upcoming generation.
    I have concerns for the ABC management. I don’t trust them at all.

    I pray that the Australian public will be sensible, and realise where this is heading. i.e. the continual destruction of marriage and the natural family unit.

    And now for a bit of satire comedy that speaks of the reality:
    Monty Python, “I want to be a woman” :-
    I suppose this is offensive too. I still think it’s funny.

    • Mikel,
      I read a “Child” magazine which is popular, and couldn’t believe it was making transgender as a normal experience for children. I guess since society mind-set has got use to legally aborting (murdering) unwanted neonates, then it becomes normal to remove healthy sexual organs and body parts and give children hormones. People believe that the Nazis had a very sick mind-set, but they totally ignore what is going on today under our own laws. Rodney Croome doesn’t like the idea of a plebiscite, but he is a LGBTIQA lobby-dictator who wants to force our parliament to give him a Humanist’s “Marriage Equality.” The purpose is for harm minimisation because of the high rate of LGBTIAQ suicide. Rodney proclaimed, years ago the government couldn’t force them to accept a civil union so this time they don’t have to accept a plebiscite. LGBTIAQ lobby-dictators don’t abide by the rules of the Liberal election promise which clearly stated a plebiscite on the Humanist’s “Marriage Equality.” Rodney has made it extremely clear that he wants a Humanist’s “Marriage Equality” – harm minimisation, and he doesn’t care how he gets it or whether 99% of Australians don’t need it for themselves. Rodney will find out he has a fake marriage as Christians will identify their marriage as a “One Flesh” union. Rodney can keep his fantasy Humanist’s “Marriage Equality” – harm minimisation like the haunted house in the fantasy world of Disneyland. Australians are smarter than the rest of the western world as we understand that the genders of male and female matter in a nuclear family, and this family is the fundamental building block for a civilised society. Also, children need to be nurtured and raised by their biological mother and fathers. Christians are against designer babies from machines or womb factories. I can’t possibly understand the identity crisis the next generation will face when they find out the process of their conception and birth or the hurt from being denied a biological parent/s. The “Stolen generation” might be able to help these designer babies when they’re teenagers. I hope the government are going to reserve funds for these children like the current domestic violence because they’re going to need all the financial support they can get.

      • Hi Janine, I agree. And although I do subscribe the the teachings of Christ, it is also true that the vast majority of the world population agree (regardless of religion), that marriage is only between husband and wife.
        Even though the current policies of the lgbt/gender fluid education of children in the USA and Australia, (eg. Play Schhool, Safe Schools Coalition), is an effort to influence the upcoming generation into acceptance of sexless/unrepoductive marriage, there will always be a difference between the natural, biological family unit and kinship, –
        – and a legally recognised homosexual union. There’s a big difference.

        I also wonder how the younger generation will respond to this loose, anything goes, selfish generation and culture in the future. They’ll accuse us no doubt.

        Everyone knows that two persons of the same sex do not qualify for a marriage in the original sense. Children know it too, or they will find out when they get older.
        Changing a law won’t change that truth.
        I think, for a lot of people it comes down to humoring them (the aggressive lgbt lobby), in order to pacify them.
        I, for one, refuse to pretend.

        It’s like you say, as in the tale of The Emperor’s New Clothes,
        I cannot pretend that the Emperor is dressed in fine clothes, when in fact he is naked

  9. […] van Gend, President of the Australian Marriage Forum said the children’s program had missed the opportunity to ask the young girls about their […]

    • Yes, good article, I agree.
      The ABC ought to show all aspects of family relationships. As well as the fairytale nonsense of gay marriage.

      Have a look at that Monty PYthon sketch. It’s only two minutes.

      “It’s every man’s right to have babies if he wants to”. lol.

      Marry a woman, then you can have babies the normal way, like the rest of us.
      We all know it to be true, the kids know it too.

      If it wasn’t for the aggressive lgbt there would be no question about what marriage actually means.

      • Explaining the biology and mechanics of sex to our children is enough education for their young age.
        We don’t need schools or PlaySchools confusing the issue.
        How does Play School explain how and where babies come from two dads, or two mums.??

        “Your special”, I suppose. lol
        Poor kids. :'(

  10. … and I know I’m not alone, thank God. 🙂

    • Hola Mikel
      Yes – you are correct, I do find Monty Python’s life of Brian offensive, but for a long time I did not. The sketch contains a valid point however: all this – this LEGBITE politics, it is symbolic of people fighting reality. Take a walk in the queerest districts of inner city Melbourne or Sydney: you will find churches – BIG churches, and small, in near every street. We have a wonderful system where people can be educated or rescued and treated in hospitals, whether or not they have money. Our culture is based on Christian values: sure, there are sad chapters in our history, like anywhere, but the indisputable facts remain: only the God of Abraham, El Shaddai, made it known that He created all men equal. To pushback against the sacrament of marriage is rebellion against God, and against our country.

      P.S. Does anyone know of any good childrens’ tv shows that can replace Play School?

Leave a comment