Same-sex marriage: What happened to "Best interests of the children"?

Back in the 1990s, the divorce industry had a roaring trade. And one of their stock arguments was "the best interests of the child". It was then claimed, contrary to evidence, that children always did better with their mother than with their father. Decent men were swindled out of contact with their children, even when the mother was proven violent, or a drug addict, and despite the fact that statistically, a female child is ten times safer from sexual violence with her natural father than with any other stand-in father figure. That didn't mean, of course, that there were no safe step-fathers or no unsafe natural fathers; it is just relative probability over large numbers.

But, as many of today's young adults can attest, such facts were ignored on a spurious 'best interest..." argument and they grew up without their fathers; today's young men, having seen the treatment meted out to their own fathers, typically are much less likely to even see any point in marriage.

But I remember thinking some years ago (not quite sure exactly when) I wondered "What happened to the huge rows about family court bias towards mothers? I haven't heard that 'best interests of the child' line for a very long time!"

It faded away. All the usual man-bashing media quietly dropped it. Why?

Well now we know.

The reason, I am sad to say, is consistent with a deep, long-term, malignant plan to destabilise and destroy western society and its values.

The feminist victory in the divorce industry was locked down and consolidated. Marriage became essentially worthless to men something like 25 years ago. Since marriage and stable families is one bedrock (perhaps the main one) of a stable society, that part of the plan to wreck western civilisation was secured. It was time to quietly forget the "best interests of the child".

And now, of course, we see why. The next phase of the destabilisation operation is underway: same-sex marriage.

And this is portrayed in purely adult-directed terms: children's interests are quite simply never mentioned, except in defence against criticism by those defending normal marriage. In the "pro-" arguments themselves, children are simply ignored, completely and absolutely.

It would be a big embarrassment to have to put children front and centre of the same-sex marriage case, because the very same groups, and where not taken by death over the past several decades, the very same people, who so strenuously highlighted children's rights in the 1990s, today, ignore them absolutely. It was quite a brilliant strategic decision to stop talking about children for a few decades, so the public might overlook the huge inconsistency!

Well let's put the children back in there again and see what we make of the glaring mismatch between what they said then and what they say now.

THEN: "The welfare of children is so important that only the best will do: not even the natural father, only the mother, even if she is violent, criminal, or drug-adicted, is good enough for the child, whose welfare is paramount." (That's a made-up quote, but don't tell me it isn't accurate; go back and look, you'll find tens of thousands of comments, papers, articles, and court verdicts, that amount to exactly what I say here.)

NOW: (AMA statement [2]) "There is no putative, peer-reviewed evidence to suggest that children raised in same-sex parented families suffer poorer health or psychosocial outcomes as a direct result of the sexual orientation of their parents or carers. There is research highlighting that physical, psychosocial, psychological, and educational outcomes for these children are on par with, and in some aspects comparatively better than, children raised in heterosexual parented families."

NOW: (Guardian article [3]) "Children in such families do as well emotionally, socially and educationally as their peers from heterosexual couple families."

Compare: So how is it that in divorce of heterosexual couples, the specific person of the natural mother is of overwhelming advantage to the child, whereas now, any two persons, even two men, are just as good as both natural parents?

Compare: How is it that the welfare of the child mattered then and is ignored completely now, except when necessary to counter arguments by traditional marriage supporters?

But more widely: The manipulation of talking points over several decades gives us some reason to suspect that some very deep planning has gone into organising these attacks upon traditional families and traditional marriage. We need to stop this corrosion of our society whenever and wherever we can. One time and place is to vote NO in the forthcoming postal vote.