I WRITE in response to your editorial, ‘In touch with community’ and your article ‘Equality bid’, Mail-Times, April 1, with the hope of injecting some sort of sense back into the discussion.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
I wish to make two points.
My first point is that marriage equality is not possible for homosexuals because they simply do not qualify for marriage.
Marriage is about a man and a woman joining their lives together so that one day, they may if they so desire, bring children into the world.
This is obviously not an option for homosexuals, unless they marry a member of the opposite sex.
This is not to discriminate against them. They simply don’t ‘fit the bill’ for marriage.
Not unless of course the definition of marriage is redefined.
My second point is the concern I have for our nation’s future if our government ‘moves with the times’ and foolishly follows the ‘17 other countries, including New Zealand’ to allow gay marriage.
The traditional monogamous, heterosexual marriage is the safest and best place for raising and nurturing children.
Numerous social studies confirm this.
Children raised by their biological parents prosper and do best.
Not all families are able to be this traditional family for all sorts of reasons that life presents.
However, it should be the goal of any government to maintain this standard of excellence through the laws it passes.
If we allow homosexual marriage, then any child produced through artificial methods in that marriage will be raised in a family devoid of their true biological mother or father.
Some children already miss out on a mother or father through death or separation, and single parents often do a great job – but that is a loss nobody would wish on any child.
With the loud cry for marriage equality being pushed by gay groups at every opportunity these days, where are the rights of children in all of this?
Children have an equal right to their own biological mother and father.
We have to understand that laws for same sex-marriage mean same-sex adoption, same-sex surrogacy and that means the deliberate creation by law of ‘motherless’ and ‘fatherless’ families.
At present, the debate is framed around rights of adults, in particular ‘marriage equality’, but if equality for adults means inequality for children, where is the justice in that?
Buloke Shire Council, Erin McFadden and the law-makers of our land would do well to think carefully about any endorsement of marriage equality because they are meddling with a social institution designed to ensure the stability of a society and a safe and secure place to raise its children.
