There is no ‘Happily Ever After’ for this Little Girl

Recently, the Herald Sun reported the story of two Gay men who are caught up in a custody battle with the Thai mother of a baby girl.

What they didn't report, is that whether the little girl is allowed to leave Thailand with her biological father and his partner, or remain with her biological mother -  she will be denied access to one or the other, probably for the rest of her life.

She spent 9 months listening to her mother's heartbeat and if she leaves, will never hear it again. She will never meet her Thai Grandparents, or hear their family story. She will never meet her brothers and sisters, if her mother were to have more children. And she will lose half of her identity, forever.

If she remains in Thailand with her mother, she will never dance with her biological father. Never meet his parents. Never hear their family story. And she will lose half of her identity, forever.

Sure, he might visit every now and then. But she doesn't need a 'benevolent uncle' in her life. She needs a dad.

This is why we cannot ever support Genderless Marriage. At its heart, it seeks to engineer families that cannot ever provide a child with their biological mother AND father, committed to raising their children together, for life. There is no substitute that equals this.

Genderless Marriage advocates claim that children are not affected by being denied their biological parent. But tell that to the thousands of donor conceived children, like Geradline Hewitt, who were told they should just be grateful they are alive.

NSW Labor Opposition's health spokesman Walt Secord, born in Canada with a Mohawk-Ojibway father, told the upper house of their frustration and tears.

"For reasons that we do not understand, our heritage, our blood or narrative is vital to us. What else could explain the boom in genealogy and the success of programs like Who Do You Think You Are? I for one have traced my father's rare family origin and I know the responsibility of belonging to a race of only 1800 people in the world .... Our genes are the reason for our existence."

Who are we to deny children of their identity?

And who are we to treat women as commodities? To lower women to the status of 'wombs for hire.'

Genderless Marriage advocates have already admitted that if Genderless Marriage is legalised, the battle for commercial surrogacy will be close behind. You simply can't have one without the other.

Is this the future we want for our children? For our society?

Children deserve their chance at being raised by their biological mother and father. Who are we to take that away from them?

Share Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow us Facebooktwitterrssyoutube

18 Responses

  1. This is one of the most hilariously stupid analyses I’ve ever seen.

    First of all, custody battles are a risk of all surrogacy, not just gay surrogacy. Straight couples use surrogacy and have these battles too. Unless their marriages should be banned, you cannot use this as an argument against marriage equality. I do have reservations about surrogacy for the reasons given, but the solution then is to do something about all surrogacy. Not legalising marriage equality will not solve the problem.

    Secondly, you fell for the post hoc, ergo proper hoc logical fallacy. Just because marriage equality might happen first, and commercial surrogacy happens second, does not mean marriage equality caused it. They’re pushing for legal commercial surrogacy now. They’re not trying to use marriage equality as a necessary step before it is legalised. Also, Parliament has had inquires about these issues, and knows the risks of separating children from their biological parents. They won’t act recklessly.

    Thirdly, what does the AMF think about abortion? We know David’s against it. Adoption is often offered as an alternative to abortion. However, that means that the child will be separated from its biological parents. Does the AMF think that children adopted deserve to live, but children born to surrogacy (which has the same outcome) are better off not existing?

    Lastly, surrogacy is decided by the states. States that have bans on it will continue to have bans on it, even when (yes, when) marriage equality is legalised.

    • Good point. It seems to me that the main objection to same-sex marriage is that it normalizes motherless and fatherless families, just as close relative marriages validate incest and inbreeding, and group marriages validate polygamous families. That said, if three sisters want to marry each other so they and all their children are provided with the protection of marriage who are we to object? Freedom man!

      • No, because my comment made the point that marriage and parenting are separate.

    • Nick – how did you become so heartless?

      I see this again and again. The LGBT/Feminism lobbies showing a complete lack of human decency. Our own sexual gratification does not, will not, and never has been more important that an innocent life.

  2. Nick,
    I can’t believe your comment, “This is one of the most hilariously stupid analyses I’ve ever seen.” This does show your lack of respect for the whole argument against “gender marriage” for everyone. This article does highlight the difficulty between gays wanting a child via surrogacy, and the right for the child to live with both biological parents. This child isn’t an animal for science and adults to experiment with her identity. Nick, Australia didn’t come up with the word marriage nor did the courts. We have lost count with the amount of times the Australian parliament has rejected “gender marriage” for everyone. Australians have spent enough time and millions of dollars changing laws to give same-sex couples the same legal rights as defacto couples whom have the same legal rights as married couples. Pretending marriage is only a legal union for everyone will never work in Australia. There are too many Australians like myself that don’t have a family history, religion or culture which requires them to have a legal marriage or identify with a legal “gender marriage.” Their forefathers came from places like Germany whom had Kings or rulers whom tried to control their minds and make them get married in their state church, but they refused. They came to Australia because there was separation between church and state, and now people like you – Nick are wanting the freedom of laws to bless your same-sex union by the church/religious people. The LGBTIAQ lobby are disguising it all in “marriage equality,” but your only wanting equality with “religious marriage” because legally same-sex couples are treated equally under the law. Nick, this is the reason behind a huge resistance both in the parliament and our society in changing the Marriage Act. The government is aware there will be at least a third of Australians whom won’t identify with “gender marriage” on a census or government forms so this creates a huge problem.

    Nick, there isn’t one civil nor religious law requiring couples to get “gender marriage.” I don’t exclude love, commitment, trust, honesty etc from all others. The only thing I exclude from all others in marriage is sexual intercourse “one flesh” which is a fundamental behavioural practice. Therefore, a same-sex couple and man-woman couple can never be equal in marriage. The majority of couples don’t get married to make their relationship a legal union. If you did some serious study on marriage you would have found it is primarily a public, life-long commitment to a sexual union called sexual intercourse between one man and one woman, excluding all others for the benefit of children. Nick, you’re not going to get rid of this fundamental behavioural practice of sexual intercourse by trying to remove it from legal marriage because same-sex couples can’t practice this behaviour. Married couples will identify with it as non-legal church marriage. I have told my children they would be out of their minds to get “gender marriage” because a legal union with no life-time commitment to the behavioural practice of sexual intercourse, which excludes all others and is the only way to have natural, biological children would destroy their mind and soul. The government is concerned they may create a marriage which nobody wants or identifies with and this will cause significant harm to health and well-being in society. The 2011 census showed only 0.7% of couples identified as same-sex couples and 0.01% children were in a same-sex couple relationship so it is obvious most Australians aren’t wanting to live in a same-sex couple relationship and even less of these relationships have children. The massive backlash against the Safe School Coalition program has given the government a strong warning that the community isn’t embracing “gender marriage” for themselves and their children. If I was wanting to make up my own rules about marriage we could make all girls marry their girlfriends because they have a natural orientation towards them from birth. Then when they get older they could marry a man. This would mean that girls don’t have to choose between a man and their girlfriend as they could have both. I didn’t make up the rules of marriage nor did Australia or the courts or LGBTIAQ people. The basic fundamental, reproductive nature of marriage has existed since the beginning of time, as sexual intercourse is the only way to have natural, biological children. Scientist, LGBTIAQ people, western governments aren’t going to convince the majority of Australians to give up the practice of sexual intercourse to reproduce children in marriage. The practice of sexual activities which same-sex couples can only practice with sexual intercourse causes significant harmful health and relationship problems. Therefore, the Marriage Act shouldn’t be changed to include same-sex couples whom can only practice sexual activities in marriage and sexual intercourse outside of marriage.

    Nick, tell me what kind of love do same-sex couples exclude from all others???

  3. I agree that all children deserve to be raised by their biological parents but, if that is a reason to deny same sex marriage, then it is also a reason to deny divorce. However our society has decided that there are circumstances where divorce is justified, whether or not you agree with all of them, you can’t deny few of them. As a result of this, the arguments made above for refusing same sex marriage are no more valid than an argument to refuse divorce. I do not believe in same sex marriage but this is not a valid reason to refuse to legalise it. Please discuss other reasons.

    • AJ

      Thanks for joining the conversation, Mandi. Yes, divorce is a tragedy. But two people don’t get married with the intention of separating and leaving their children in a devastating situation. Engineering a child to be denied any hope of a mum or dad at the point of conception is something else altogether. This is engineering tragedy for a child. Denying them of access to half their family story, their history, half their DNA, before they have any opportunity to speak for themselves. This is reducing women and children to commodities, who should never be ‘sold’ for a price. This is irresponsible at best… reprehensible at worst.

      • Your absurdity is too much for your own side. Please stop, for your own sake as much as everyone else’s.

    • Mandi, your comment about same-sex marriage is as if this is a special union for same-sex couples which has its own special and separate Marriage Act. Same-sex marriage is like Santa Claus or Easter Bunny in that it is a pretend marriage (sexual activities) which then characterises all man-woman marriage (sexual intercourse). The real meaning of marriage which is a public, life-long commitment to the behavioural practice of sexual intercourse (“one flesh”) between one man and one woman, excludes all others for the benefit of children is replaced in civil society to mean only a “legal union” as anal and oral sexual activities are taboo because of the significant harmful health and relationship problems. The legal divorce will have nothing to do with the religious meaning of divorce because a sexual union and children have nothing to do with the new “gender marriage” for everyone.

      I believe, my generation no longer believes in having a legal marriage or divorce as they no longer believe the government should be a part of our sexual relationship and children. Since marriage is a God given right, no one is required to have a legal marriage certificate or licence. No one is required to have a parent certificate/licence to be a parent. People understand the meaning of “open marriage,” and I don’t know of anyone going to celebrate an “open marriage.” Couples whom are wanting to celebrate “gender marriage” will find our society less interested in this types of marriage because it has no meaning. A Christian doesn’t make “love” and “commitment” to any person they’re attracted by feelings, emotions, desires, lusts and passion. Christians will have a religious church marriage which they refuse the State to be a part of their marriage. They’ll record their marriage in the Church, Family Bible and church marriage certificate. They will use a legal Will to protect their spouse and children with inheritance. I am not encouraging couples or my children to get “gender married” because the legal divorce isn’t fair (immoral) and there is no law requiring people to be “gender married.” Our government is changing into a dictatorship by telling Christians they have to bow down to the almighty “gay” altar so we have to behave like our forefathers whom have lived under totalitarian governments. Work is being replaced with robots/machines so this is the perfect time for Christian parents to spend time with their children. Christians will learn to live on less money, ownership of a house won’t be as important and they’ll spend more time at home with their children so they don’t have to spend time in child-care. If State school change into sexualised schools then this is the perfect opportunity for Christian parents to homeschool their children.

      Australians can learn a lot from the Americans whom have spent billions of dollars on “gender marriage” for everyone. I am learning to prioritise my family instead of going to work, and this isn’t easy as there is a shortage of experience healthcare workers in cardiac care. However, my children benefit from the time I spend at home with them and my husband has the time to focus on work. Christians will come in conflict with the law. I can’t swear on the Bible when the law doesn’t believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. What is truth? My truth and the law will be in conflict so I won’t be able to serve on a jury. The jury in court will no longer be representative of our society. Christians will have to seriously consider the work they do and will it come in conflict with their conscience. They may have to decide on doing no work rather than work in an immoral environment or work which goes against their conscience. Since our environment is forcing Christians to go against their conscience then they should expect Christians to rely on government financial support and Christians should feel entitled to government support. The government won’t have anything which unites our country together because both the law and marriage divide us apart.

  4. Ash

    The report gives us a real life example of the issue. What proponents of SSM will forever aim to do is to deflect the effects it will have on the institution, which they claim is a failed concept yet still want in on it, and turn the argument around to frame people who support marriage as is as intolerant and primitive.

    It’s psychological games and it is wearying. Perhaps this too is the goal: bore supporters of marriage to the point of giving up fighting for preservation of the husband-wife-child family unit.

  5. Ash is right. But it is no ‘game’. Their aim is best described as ‘NO marriage by law’ – rather than the deceptive description, genderless ‘marriage’. The apostle Paul stated that the Spirit expressly says that perilous times shall come – when marriage (what God calls marriage, the type of the Marriage of the Lamb and His Bride) will be forbidden – that means made illegal. It is interesting to read in The Australian Womens’ Weekly Helen Mirren says she has never seen the point of marriage. The natural, opposed to God in spirit, man or woman does not understand and will only have contempt for God and his laws of life instructured in His creation. This is what homosexuality is at core though many or most of these people do not understand themselves. So Christian brethren, this calls for real compassion on our part for the deceived LGBTIAQ, as we oppose this attack on all the cycle of life and centrally what SSM does to children.

  6. Ron

    Good one! I strongly go against the same sex marriage! I can’t imagine if my parents were a gay or lesbian! that is just way too wrong! High chances to get AIDS / HIV too, if my parents were G and L! Goodness me! I do not want this country full of diseases after 10 years! G and L are getting common! by opposing Government to accept G and Ls, I think governement should get some BILLIONS of dollars to fight these diseases!

    Dont be stingy! think of the consequences! all answers are in the bible!

  7. This is a query about the Contact email address “”. I tried to use that address to offer some ideas recently but after a week received a Postmaster message saying that the address has problems and the email cannot be delivered. Last August I also tried to use it but received no reply. Please check to see if there something wrong with the address.

    • AJ

      Hi David, it seems an overzealous mail filter is to blame. We have located your email and you shouldn’t have any problems emailing us in the future. Thanks for letting us know!

  8. Janine, in Australia, there is no legal difference between a marriage certificate certified by the church, a marriage celebrant or a registry office. Anyone conducting a marriage ceremony must meet the federal legal requirements. A church may sanction the marriage but in the eye of the law, a church-sanctioned marriage is exactly the same as a marriage by a celebrant or is a registry office and forms part of the Commonwealth Marriage Act.

    • Alison,
      My marriage church certificate has no number on it. My legal marriage certificate has a number on it, and is in the NSW registry office. My religion, culture and family history doesn’t require me to have a legal marriage certificate. Your comment on same-sex couples children have nothing to do with marriage as these children were created by other relationships or artificial insemination. There are other laws which protect their children like divorce, IVF, surrogacy and adoption. However, natural, biological children between one man and one woman are protected by marriage.

  9. I fully understand the argument for children having both a mother and a father. however those who argue that same-sex couples should not have children are saying that those children born to same-sex couples should not exist.

    • AJ

      That’s a rather nasty thing to say. We are talking here about engineering a life sans mum or dad for an infant, before they are even conceived, to fulfill the selfish desires of same-sex parents. Adults need to consider the rights of children, before starting a family.

Leave a comment