Patrick Craine, Canadian Bureau Chief of LifeSiteNews, promotes our latest MarriageADA video on the threat of same-sex marriage infringing on the rights of parents:
Just as Ontario’s new Premier Kathleen Wynne has announced plans to reintroduce an explicit sex-ed program, the Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance, and our friend Damian Goddard have released a great video about a striking case where exactly this type of program has been used as a battering ram against parental rights.
... It’s bad enough that this stuff would be taught in the classroom at all – why not let parents judge for themselves when their kids are ready to discuss sex? – but now there’s an increasingly entrenched opposition to even informing parents when it comes up.
The video is an interview with Dr. Steve Tourloukis. Tourloukis asked the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board to be told when his kids would be discussing same-sex “marriage” and other controversial issues in the classroom, but they said to do so would be a violation of “human rights.” So he’s taking them to court to get a declaration that the parent has primary authority over his children’s education.
The school board, amazingly, has the gall to oppose him in court on even such a basic proposition.
This type of abuse by schools is coming to cities across North America and the West, so parents need to be ready. Our children’s hearts and souls depend on it.
You can watch the video right here.
7 Comments
It's rather laughable that this organization calls itself the Marriage Anti-Defamation Alliance. "Defamation" is defined as a claim that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation a negative or inferior image. Yet Gay couples do not consider marriage to be negative or inferior, otherwise we would not be interested in joining our Straight counterparts in this institution.
Once again we see supporters of marriage corruption completely dependent upon the bastardization of language just to lend an appearance of acceptability to their depravity.
The Emperor has no clothes.
Randy -The biggest examples of the "bastardization of language" has to be the terms "protecting marriage, "pro-marriage" or "marriage supporter". I am the product of a happy 49 year marriage (ended by the death of my father). I consider myself to be very pro-marriage. I believe in marriage equality.
Allowing homosexual relationships to ape a heterosexual institution is defamation since it degrades something that had been established to promote and protect the best interests of children into something that places the promotion of adult sexuality at the highest priority, far above the needs and upbringing of children.
Marriage has been established to suit the best interests of children, not for the sake of promoting the sexualities of adults. No child has ever come out of homosexual unions and redefining marriage for such relationships makes the.institution solely about the sexual desires of adults while children are considered an irrelevant byproduct. Promoting such a defamation degrades our values and civilization under the guise of "equality" and "civil rights."
@Bobby,
As an engineer we know that in order to marry two parts one part MUST have a male connector and the other part MUST have a female connector. If you would like to connect two parts with similar surfaces you must bond said parts by their pre-defined faying surfaces, but we know this bond is incapable of ever becoming a marriage - the joining of opposites.
So clearly you are the one seeking to bastardize the word marriage; to change its meaning from the joining of opposites to the joining of whatever you want.
note:
By law the only two words that can never be redefined are the words "May" and "Must."
May: you have a choice
Must: you have no choice
Jeanette Exner said:
"Yet Gay couples do not consider marriage to be negative or inferior, otherwise we would not be interested in joining our Straight counterparts in this institution."
Well, based on the SSM rhetoric and argumentation, you are not interested in joining the institution of marriage. You are interested in swapping the SSM idea for the marriage idea and imposing that on all of society. You would join a non-marital type of scenario and then mislabel it "marriage". You need to stop pretending otherwise and then forthrightly make your case in favor of the SSM idea.
The SSM idea is in conflict with the marriage idea.
The marriage idea: 1) integration of the sexes, 2) provision for responsible procreation, and 3) these aspects combined as a coherent whole (i.e. as the foundational social institution of civil society).
The SSM idea is segregative (by sex, by sexual attraction, and by gay identity) and cannot provide for procreation within it -- responsible procreation is extrinsic to the one-sex-short scenario.
So the gay emphasis in your comment suggests, strongly, that you place gay identity politics over and above the marriage idea. However, would there by a gay requirement for those who'd SSM? If not, why not?