Friday, September 10, 2010

A "four-way struggle" demonstrates danger of "gay marriage"

This story in today's Age, "Four-way struggle to care for baby E" eloquantly demonstrates precisely why "gay marriage" is a bad idea. The State supports and encourages and safeguards marriage with all the power of the law BECAUSE it is the environment most suited for the raising of children. Homosexual unions are, by their very nature, unfruitful. Any same-sex couple which desires to become "parents" must in one way or another "import" a child into the relationship. A child cannot be conceived by and born to a same-sex couple without the involvement of at least a third, or possibly even a fourth, party. Nor is it the natural place for a child to be raised.

Now go ahead and argue with me.

14 Comments:

At Friday, September 10, 2010 3:23:00 am , Anonymous Tony said...

Just focussing on the notion of 'importing', David, is this the same for a couple who adopt a child?

 
At Friday, September 10, 2010 4:19:00 am , Anonymous Gareth said...

Just what would the Lord think after shedding his blood on the cross that two thousand years later the human race would be at the stage of arguing over whether homosexuals should be adopting children?

 
At Friday, September 10, 2010 4:27:00 am , Anonymous Schütz said...

So adoption or, as you describe it, ‘importing’ is not an issue that is unique to gay couples and, it seems to me, you can’t use it to argue against gay couples.

Well, not against gay couples per se, but certiainly against gay couples adopting a child. Adoption by gay couples is always "importing" a child into a situation which is unfruitful by choice and by definition lacks a mother and a father.

This fits into my argument against the State recognising same-sex marriage, because as soon as you use the word "marriage" for this relationship, you imply that they have some sort of right to children. They don't.

 
At Friday, September 10, 2010 4:44:00 am , Anonymous Peregrinus said...

". . . as soon as you use the word “marriage” for this relationship, you imply that they have some sort of right to children."

I've never seen anybody argue that, because someone is married, they have "some sort of right to children". The idea strikes me as bizarre. How can you have a "right" to another human being?

Can you point me to somewhere where this argument is advanced?

 
At Friday, September 10, 2010 6:50:00 am , Anonymous Tony said...

At the risk of being seen as a tag team, I'll defer some of the questions raised to Pere, but you seem to not only imply that sexual orientation is a 'choice' but that it's a selfish choice in the case of homosexuals. Am I reading you right?

 
At Friday, September 10, 2010 10:56:00 am , Anonymous ellie said...

and me being heterosexual and unable to have children I by nature are inferior too? thankyou for your confidence

 
At Friday, September 10, 2010 12:20:00 pm , Anonymous Tom said...

The same thing he thought on the Cross? I love you, repent, come to me and have eternal life...

 
At Friday, September 10, 2010 5:30:00 pm , Anonymous Gil said...

Not going to argue.

When I saw the story I said a prayer for the kid.

Should probably have said a prayer for the "parents" but I found that harder to do.

 
At Saturday, September 11, 2010 4:13:00 am , Anonymous Gareth said...

Tag team, just gay (sorry cute) or the blind following the blind?

 
At Saturday, September 11, 2010 5:14:00 pm , Anonymous Louise said...

Indeed, but I shake my head that we are actually debating whether gays should be allowed to adopt children. I mean, really...

 
At Saturday, September 11, 2010 5:20:00 pm , Anonymous Louise said...

Amen. Well said, Christine!

One of my favourite comments in favour of gay marriage was that "we couldn't possibly do any worse than heterosexuals." But of course, any divorce rate higher than 50% among gays would be worse! And that's almost certainly what would happen. Or, as one witty writer noted, "the only reason gays want marriage is so they can have Gay Divorce Court." Perhaps they see their straight friends getting divorced and want the right to get a divorce too?

 
At Sunday, September 12, 2010 7:15:00 pm , Anonymous Kyle said...

I personally think that this is best outcome for what is a very complicated situation. I am not sympathetic to the mother's claim that the genetic father was merely a donor and therefore should not have any co-parent responsibilities and access. As Catholics, we should recognise that he has a legitimate right as father to his children. Whatever his sexual orientation or whatever the means of conception, he remains the father and I think we should be satisfied that this outcome at least ensures a mother and father will be involved in the child's life.

 
At Wednesday, September 15, 2010 3:04:00 am , Anonymous Gareth said...

Maybe your claim to have any queer friends is pure fantasy.

After all why would the Queer folk with their million dollar homes, flash cars, slick fashion, latte sipping and party lifestyle have any time for a Aussie battler 'Catholic' Internet nerd such as yourself?

 
At Wednesday, September 15, 2010 4:26:00 am , Anonymous Peregrinus said...

. . . the Queer folk with their million dollar homes . . .

Well, now at least David knows how to solve the housing problem!

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home