What about the Kids?

The impact on children

Certainly, there are tragedies where a child cannot have both parents – through tragic situations such as the death or desertion of a parent. However, the disadvantage of a motherless or fatherless home should not be inflicted on a child – with the complicity of government – by the legalisation of same-sex marriage, same-sex adoption and same-sex surrogacy.

Australian-Family-out-bush-300x200Australian-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

Share Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow us Facebooktwitterrssyoutube

2 Responses

  1. Ray Ricketts

    The case against same sex marriage is overwhelming. The only arguments I have heard for the cause are based on ‘rights’ and ‘justice’. All rights confer privelege and responsibility as well as requiring being suitably qualified and equipped to handle the benefits of that right – gay marriage meets none of these basic requirements. I have a ‘right’ to be concerned about health but I am not qualified to practice medicine.
    The most serious objection of all is one I have heard no discussion of at all –and that is the messages this proposed changes to the Marriage Act would send to children, especially in their pubescent years ie the question of INFLUENCE. There is a large middle ground of teens who can be influenced in their ‘gender affinity’ by by what they are taught, the examples they are set, prevailing attitudes arround them and behaviour pathways established by gratification in sexual experimentation. Adolescence is confusing enough without being cast into a sea of nebulous alternatives by the social and educational establishment, with no sense of natural purpose or of a sound aspirational future. Sexual ‘pathways’ once established are very difficult to change.
    Then there are all the biabolical health and sexual abuse issues, none of which make for pleasant debate. Where are the voices of the professionals in these fields when we need them?
    The people of this nation deserve a referendum on this issue at the very least.

    Lets be strong for future generations

    Ray

  2. Anne-Marie Modra

    It has been known for years now through the study of identical twins that homosexuality is not genetic.

    The implication is then that children are born heterosexual. Therefore the case is even stronger that they should have heterosexual role models that is their biological parents.

Leave a comment