SO, it appears anti same-sex marriage campaigners are worried about the children.
In full-page advertisements in newspapers this week, the Australian Marriage Forum (AMF) asks “is it ‘equality’ if you force some kids to miss out on their dad?” and “is it ‘loving’ to destroy the primal love between mother and baby?”
Well, here’s some questions in return. “Do you realise that not all couples who marry want, intend or can actually have children?” and “Are you aware how insulting and discriminating it is to others assume that this is the ultimate goal of a legal union?”
As a woman who hasn’t and won’t have children, I would like to tell the AMF that their views are as offensive and disrespectful as they are archaic and ignorant. A child being the goal of marriage is as simplistic and naïve as saying sex is only for procreation.
For a start, it negates anyone beyond child breeding years as having a purpose to wed the person they love. It tells the infertile that they may as well not bother with marriage. It tells anyone who has remarried that their union is of less value than one in which children will result.
And can we talk about what such shallow views say to the children who are already born, parented by gay couples? How dare they be told that their parents have “forced them” to miss out on a mother or father, that they are destined to be damaged by the loving unit that created them because their parents share the same chromosomal make-up.
Top Comments
Gay, straight, single, couples, foster parents, guardians, grandparents, aunts, uncles etc, etc, etc, these are all examples of families with children, all of them are normal and all of them are different, as long as the children are in a loving FAMILY what is wrong with the way it's made up?
I have tried to look at both sides of the issue, but the anti gay marriage arguments never make any sense to me, I don't see how a child is being 'discriminated' against if they have same sex parents, they are no more discriminated against than single parent or divorced families as far as I can see, also how people define their own marriages is nothing to do with anyone else much less me, I don't see what the fuss is about.
The idea is that naturally, to those who can have children - it is achieved via man + woman.
But these kids are denied this. Instead, regardless of what is the naturally occurring way - the same sex couple does as they wish - the kid doesn't get a say. It's sad enough many people have to go through childhood without two parents...denying a child of the basic natural occurrence of man + women = child.
Why go against the form of nature in which the world we know today was built on?
Again your argument doesn't make any sense to me, no child gets to have a say in which family they end up in, they are born into a family and that's it, it has always been that way, and what about IVF babies, they are not born in a 'naturally occurring way' either, is that wrong too? I'm more confused than ever.