In interviews with the Sydney Morning Herald, David van Gend of the Australian Marriage Forum and Lyle Shelton from the Australian Christian Lobby defended marriage on the grounds that the LGBTI movement has led a slanderous campaign that is both harmful to children and destructive to the integrity of the family.
van Gend explains that “marriage equality” is not really about equality at all, but about fundamentally changing society by pushing a new, radical set of values while simultaneously silencing conscientious dissenters.
In an attempt to further legitimise their ideas, the LGBTI movement has also adopted the slogan of “equality” as a means of implementing subversive, hypersexualised school programs to indoctrinate the next generation. van Gend explains:
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.
Lyle Shelton, Managing Director of the American Christian Lobby, has been long active in fighting against the Safe Schools agenda by revealing its true intent.
By their own admission, they see a world in which gender is irrelevant and where mothers are dispensable and unnecessary to babies and fathers are dispensable and unnecessary to their children. Gender theory, as taught by the so-called Safe Schools program, teaches children that "no one can tell you whether you are a boy or a girl". Gender theory instructs children in dangerous body altering techniques and puts them on a path to considering surgery they may later regret. Studies show that 10 years after sex change surgery, the suicide mortality rate is 20 times higher than the non-transgendered population. This, and other relevant information, is withheld from children by "Safe Schools".
In addition to refusing to address the serious issues that the LGBTI lifestyle poses to children's health, proponents of Safe Schools prevent any real debate on the matter, quickly suppressing anyone who dares to oppose them. Shelton notes how the LGBTI attitude toward the marriage debate prohibits even the most civilised and reasoned discourse.
There is a contest of ideas in our society and in a democracy that is fine. However, questioning the same-sex political agenda should be allowed without being labeled a 'homophobe' or a 'bigot'. I have met "Gayby babies" who love their lesbian mums but desperately wanted to know their father. These voices should be allowed a place in the debate. There should not be a war, there should be a free, respectful and fair exchange of ideas. Labelling one side 'haters', 'bigots' or 'anti-gay' is simply designed to intimidate people into silence instead of allowing a safe public space for all to contribute.
van Gend makes the case for allowing the silent majority to speak without fear of being labelled negatively.
Do you see how this game works? If anyone makes the case for keeping marriage between man and woman, the mere act of raising such an argument is "actually harming" children. There is only one solution: say nothing. Breathing a word makes us culpable for depression and even death in young people!
That is shameless emotional blackmail designed to silence one side of a serious debate.
Debate over marriage is healthy for Australia, and both sides should strive to carry on discussions in a manner that is both honest and respectful. Unfortunately, with increasing cultural hostility toward defenders of marriage, this has not been the case in the current debate. It’s important for same-sex marriage proponents to remember that those who believe marriage is the exclusive union between one man and one woman are not motivated by hatred, but rather by the overall well-being of Australian families and children.