The “sexual radicals” are plotting a revolution!
“Think of the child” says David van Gend, responding to questions on marriage equality back in 2016. “We also oppose same-sex ‘marriage’ because it is untrue – a legal fiction with no foundation in nature. Marriage is not a social invention to be cut to shape according to political fad; it is a social recognition of timeless natural reality: male, female, offspring. Only a terminally demented culture like the modern West would seek to repeal nature and build our society on an artificial foundation”.
Australian Marriage Forum also oppose same-sex ‘marriage’ because it is a package deal that brings with it the entire radical rainbow agenda. Once homosexual relations are normalised in the central institution of society, that gives the LGBT lobby the big stick of anti-discrimination law to normalise homosexual behaviour in the school curriculum, and to silence conscientious dissenters. Think ‘Safe Schools’ and Archbishop Porteous. ‘Marriage equality’ is not ultimately about marriage; it is about sexual radicals getting the legal clout to push their values down society’s throat.
The logic is simple: if the law says homosexual “marriage” is normal and right, schools will be obliged, by anti-discrimination law, to teach that homosexual behaviour is normal and right. There is no option. Parents today can push back against the ‘Safe Schools’ program – but parents will be sidelined and treated as bigots if they object to such material once homosexual ‘marriage’ becomes the law of the land.
Parents need to understand that the genderless agenda is a package deal: if they vote for ‘marriage equality’ they are voting for ‘Safe Schools’ on steroids and agreeing to relinquish control of their child’s moral education to sexual radicals.
If they vote for ‘marriage equality’, based on President Obama’s executive order this week to all 96,000 public schools in the US, parents are voting for their daughter to have to share change-rooms with disturbed young men who claim they are women – all on the basis of genderless ‘equality’.
The end game of any revolution is to remake society in its own radical image: that is achieved largely through controlling the education of the next generation and by silencing dissenting voices.
I am astonished at the portrayal of LGBT young people and families as so fragile that they must be protected from hearing any discussion about homosexual marriage and parenting. How condescending! And it goes with the pathetic proposition that we should overturn the foundational institution of society as a form of psychological therapy for LGBT young people and their families. There are less radical ways to help them feel loved and respected.
The evidence is clear on the benefits of legalisingsame-sex marriage
Emotive arguments and questionable rhetoric often characterise debates over same-sex marriage. But few attempts have been made to dispassionately dissect the issue from an academic, science-based perspective.
Regardless of which side of the fence you fall on, the more robust, rigorous and reliable information that is publicly available, the better.
There are considerable mental health and wellbeing benefits conferred on those in the fortunate position of being able to marry legally. And there are associated deleterious impacts of being denied this opportunity.
Although it would be irresponsible to suggest the research is unanimous, the majority is either noncommittal (unclear conclusions) or demonstrates the benefits of same-sex marriage.
A US study that surveyed more than 36,000 people aged 18-70 found lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals were far less psychologically distressed if they were in a legally recognised same-sex marriage than if they were not. Married heterosexuals were less distressed than either of these groups.
So, it would seem that being in a legally recognised same-sex marriage can at least partly overcome the substantial health disparity between heterosexual and lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons.
the impact of marriage denial on the health and wellbeing of gay men and lesbians conceded that marriage equality is a profoundly complex and nuanced issue. But, it argued that depriving lesbians and gay men the tangible (and intangible) benefits of marriage is not only an act of discrimination – it also:
- disadvantages them by restricting their citizenship;
- hinders their mental health, wellbeing, and social mobility; and
- generally disenfranchises them from various cultural, legal, economic and political aspects of their lives.
Of further concern is research finding that in comparison to lesbian, gay and bisexual respondents living in areas where gay marriage was allowed, living in areas where it was banned was associated with significantly higher rates of:
- mood disorders (36% higher);
- psychiatric comorbidity – that is, multiple mental health conditions (36% higher); and
- anxiety disorders (248% higher).
But what about the kids?
Opponents of same-sex marriage often argue that children raised in same-sex households perform worse on a variety of life outcome measures when compared to those raised in a heterosexual household. There is some merit to this argument.
In terms of education and general measures of success, the literature isn’t entirely unanimous. However, most studies have found that on these metrics there is no difference between children raised by same-sex or opposite-sex parents.
This subject needs to be put to rest, Australia voted yes to equality!