We mentioned
in a previous blog, that Ontario’s Bill 28 was quietly removing the terms
“mother” and “father” from provincial documents. That is only part of the bill.
It will also raise the number of legal parents for one child from two to four.
Yes, that’s
right—four parents!
The reason
we assume, pushed by the gay agenda, is that a child for gay couples requires a
third party for fertilization, and even a couple outside the marriage may provide
a child for a gay couple—hence four parents.
I was alerted
to this further content in the Bill by an article in Convivium Magazine by Cardus, written by Andrea Mrozek and available
here.
Definitely worth the read.
Four
parents? Surely childrearing will be easier with more money, more babysitters,
greater support? And for the child: birthday and Christmas presents from four
parents instead of the paltry two, bragging rights of “more parents than you”?
Choice of living with the most amenable parent?
But there are
downsides: more disagreements on raising the child, outside affairs by more
than one parent, betrayal between several parents, one parent spoiling or
usurping a greater share of a child’s time. And who takes initial
responsibility for the child? How does he/she manage up to six interfering
in-laws, or cope with the child opting to live with another of three parents?
For the
child? Confusion over who to obey, more parents that appear at irregular
intervals, a sense that belonging to all, he/she really belongs to no-one. Eventually,
identity confusion at their unknown heritage. Who are they really? Adult
preferences are the priority; the Bill gives scant attention to the children of
many parent families.
I am
reminded of a blog I wrote back in April of 2011, excerpts below.
. . . marriage restricted
to two people is based on the natural need for one woman and one man to
conceive and parent a child. This was the creation ideal in the Old Testament,
despite the acceptance of bigamous marriages.
But if members of the same sex can form a marriage,
restriction to two marriage partners loses its original rationale, making it
difficult for liberal governments and courts to deny marriage rights for other
arrangements.
Furthermore, families with more than two legitimate parents
were created by the so-called "two-mother" ruling of the 2007 Ontario
Court of Appeal. The court held that the biological mother of a small boy and
her same-sex partner are both legally mothers of the child. The boy's
biological father is still considered his father.
This family of two female married parents and a legitimate
father outside the marriage is an opening parody on polygamy. Furthermore,
Ontario recognizes multiple wives if previously married in a consenting
jurisdiction. Put that beside the irrelevance of only two in a marriage, and
polygamy becomes a reasonable option.
The slide into an
eventual definition of marriage with multiple relationships is predictable even
though the journey may be bumpy. Tradition, religion and social acceptance are
no match for the juggernaut of Canadian Charter rights currently defined by the
courts.
The distance
between four parents for a child and four in a marriage is a short step. Are
polygamous and polyamorous (group) marriages far behind? Andrea concludes in
her closing paragraph:
"My
prediction is that we will reach a point when a marriage is legally considered
any number of people who desire to be in it for any length of time, no
questions asked."
A utopian future, or a kid’s quagmire? What do
you think?
