‘Mother’ and ‘Father’ Are Redundant in Ontario

Genderless Marriage was legalised in Canada in 2005. Soon, babies born in Ontario will no longer be able to look at their Birth Certificate as a statement of biological fact, but rather a record of the adults ‘hanging around’ at the time that they were born.

Ontario’s government is about to remove the terms “mother” and “father” from provincial laws, while also raising the number of legal parents to four.

Bill 28 doesn’t require any record of biological parents, leaving children with no right to know which combination of the adults around them they are biologically related to.

The repercussions for future generations are immense – medical history, genealogy and identity are all stripped away, with no rights for children to access this information.

Advocates of Bill 28 claim it’s the next logical step after legalising gay ‘marriage.’ After all, granting same-sex couples the right to ‘marry and found a family’ isn’t possible without involving at least one more person.

You can’t have genderless marriage without genderless parenting, genderless education and inevitably, the commodification of children and state control over individuals when biological parents are no longer required to take responsibility for their young.

This is the ‘brave new world’ that awaits Australia if genderless marriage is legalised here.

Share Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow us Facebooktwitterrssyoutube

7 Responses

  1. It is difficult to even believe that this is for real. Canada of all places.

  2. There were plans for this as far back as the 1960’s (if not earlier) , plans of “our rulers” as expressed in statements from certain political foundations in the US & Britain. Sure, they were not 100% specific but the promotion of homosexuality was generally stated. This is political, social engineering, nothing to do with “human rights”. As your article and this website says, the human rights of children are being trampled upon and the “Brave New World” that Huxley warned us about is being implemented. Huxley moved in the political circles of “our rulers” so he knew what he was talking about. The populations of our Western counties are so easily led, and dumb!

  3. This video provides essential background information about the Brave New World of genderless marriage:


  4. Surely a grave injustice against children. Don’t see how it can possibly be justified later down the track when children want to know who their biological mother and father are.

  5. Ok, I’m new to this debate, so I’m asking for some opinion from others.

    As I see it, each side as a strong argument in its favour:

    a. Anti Gay marriage: The argument about absence of at least 1 biological parent seems very persuasive to me- the “stolen generation” argument. The deliberate creation of situation where a child is denied a biological parent is awful. Any reasonable person can see this, let alone child psychologists who have been strangely silent in the debate.

    b. Pro gay marriage- then I consider the main argument from the pro-gay marriage lobby- that is, to be treated equally includes to be able to marry. Not being able to marry, they feel like second class citizens, not in terms of legal rights which are the same as I understand, but in social status. Fair enough. Many people could sympathise with this argument, and offering the option of a civil ceremony also doesn’t address this issue

    But when I line up the positions of (a) and (b), I suspect (b) is going to win the day. Because argument (a) is already watered down by the fact that children are already been raised by gay couples. Laws already allow gay couples raise children, so the horse has already bolted. Also, gay lobby will argue that gay married couples will not always want children.

    I’m concerned that the anti gay marriage lobby is placing too much weight on argument (a), and not enough to address the gay lobby’s argument on (b).

  6. Ash

    Sound like a scene out of the movie “The Giver”. All born for a purpose, not for identity other than that purpose. Doesn’t sound like human rights to me. Just a decrepit new world order.

  7. Natural Parents Best

Leave a comment