What about the children?

Family-Fun-202x300
How would kids be impacted by homosexual ‘marriage’?

Well there are multiple answers to this question.

That's because it's not just the children of homosexual parents impacted but potentially every child in the education system.

______________________________________________

In the first instance, commentators such as Bill Muehlenberg, secretary of the Family Council of Victoria says:

It is not good for children. In most cases a child will do better with a mother and a father. As well children need role models as they are growing up. Children should be given priority, and not used as political footballs.

______________________________________________

Australian-born ethicist Professor Margaret Somerville condemns the deliberate destruction of a child’s biological identity as the child of a real mother and a real father:

It is one matter for children not to know their genetic identity as a result of unintended circumstances. It is quite another matter to deliberately destroy children’s links to their biological parents, and especially for society to be complicit in this destruction.

Some sincere people may question whether a child should be allowed both a mother and a father.

A group of young adults deprived, as donor-conceived babies, of the possibility of knowing both their mother and their father have come together as Tangled Webs Inc. They speak with authority (PDF 92KB) for the next generation of children – the next stolen generation – who will be deprived of what they call, very poignantly, a “whole mother”:

A child’s best interests are served when it is conceived and gestated by; born to and nurtured by, one mother. To fragment maternal roles through ova donation/gestational surrogacy is to deny a child its entitlement to a whole mother.

The UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child (PDF 164KB) affirms that a child must not, “save in the most exceptional circumstances, be separated from his mother”, and yet ‘marriage’ of two men and subsequent surrogacy will do exactly that, in a premeditated way. A little girl must live without a mother, purely to satisfy the desire of two men to have a baby of their own. What then of the rights of the child?

The American College of Pediatricians in 2004 concluded:

The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development. Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science.

Certainly, well designed and non-biased studies confirm that a child does best in every objective respect when raised by his or her own parents,Family-on-Bikes-300x200 or in the nearest equivalent context of an adopting mother and father.

It is often stated that it is better for a child to have two loving same-sex carers than a dysfunctional pair of biological parents. However, neither of these scenarios is in the interests of a child – and only the same-sex scenario is preventable.

In the interests of the child, we must reject both scenarios for the sake of the child, by restraining and retraining those parents who would inflict abuse – or even removing the child from harm’s way – and also denying those adults who would wilfully deprive a child of a mother or father.

Correspondingly, the child-centred approach to parenting also opposes the idea of a single man obtaining a baby by surrogacy, as currently allowed under Queensland law.

From a Concerned reader:

Since other countries have legislated in favour of SSM, the parents have lost their rights to oppose lessons about homosexuality and the like of their own children. This is a destruction of the most basic right of children to remain innocent for as long as possible, and, as such, it is appalling.
See:

MASSACHUSETTS:  A federal judge threw out a lawsuit filed by parents

Brainwashing our children in elementary schools

SCOTLAND Schools to teach "gay rights" even if parents object

SPAIN:  Teaching of homosexuality approved in schools

CANADA:  Homosexual lobbyists battle for children's minds

Vancouver School Board promotes homosexuality for teens

ABOUT SURROGACY

Impact on a Motherless/ Fatherless Child

The New Stolen Generation

with Psychologist, Dr Johanna Lynch

On 'Adult Choices' versus Kids Rights

by Dr David Van Gend speaking ahead of the Surrogacy Legislation presented in Queensland

Share Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow us Facebooktwitterrssyoutube

1 Response

  1. Margaret

    I agree wholeheartedly with what these Doctors have said. Whether you believe in creation or evolution, same gender sexual relationships have not been “allowed” by God or by natural selection to result in children or the perpetuation of our kind. Therefore we can safely say that such sexual unions run contrary to what is best for the continuation of the human race and therefore can only be concluded as being unnatural. If all of one generation of humans participated exclusively in same gender sexual relationships, our race would be extinct with the deaths of that one generation.
    Two consenting individuals’ choices to engage in same gender sexual relationships is a right to choose behaviour that is exercised by those individuals and that right to choose is protected by law in Australia. However, the responsibility we have to each other and to future generations to protect the sanctity of conception, bearing and rearing the next generation and to provide the safest environment for that to occur is a different matter entirely. The safest environment is within a loving marriage relationship where a man and woman have publicly committed exclusively to each other, and to the children that naturally result from their union. That provides the most secure basis for the raising of the next generation. A child who loses a biological parent through death still feels a bond of connectedness not experienced by children removed from one or both of their biological roots. I believe this familial bonding is a necessary part of our human nature that has been and will continue to be important for the well-being and perpetuation of our kind. For this reason marriage must remain defined as the union of a consenting adult man and a consenting adult woman to protect the safest unit in society for procreating and nurturing future generations.

Leave a comment