Netherlands sees a future of “pink” families (it’s enough to make one “see red”)

The Netherlands “progressive” march to total moral meltdown continues at an accelerating pace.

It was the first country in the world to legalise same-sex unions. Now the Dutch Justice Ministry is about to commission a report which will examine the possibility of recognising three parents (or more,) for one child, so-called “pink” families.

It appears that the Netherlands is not content with redefining marriage, now they are intent on redefining family. In the process, they are also obviously redefining insanity  i.e bestowing gravitas on clearly unhinged lifestyles.

In the Japan Times (yes, the Japan Times,) which had an article about the “pink” families, we were treated to a “charming” tale of children with four parents, two homosexuals and two lesbians!

These poor children are victims of abnormal and cruel social engineers. One of the children was quoted as saying, ” I think my friends are a little jealous, because I’ve got two mommies and two daddies and they’ve only got two parents.”

A politician in the Netherlands, from the Green Party, by the name of Liesbeth van Tongeren, quoted in the newspaper, said,

“We need to broaden the concept (of what constitutes a family)….no longer can you see parenting as a purely biological link or say that a child can only have two parents.”

How interesting, the homosexual lobby use the same arguments for the redefining of marriage i.e.  “we need to broaden the concept of…..” (fill in the blanks.)

They agitated for civil unions/partnerships, then the demand became “gay” marriage.
They agitated for “gay” adoption, now the demand is for “pink” families.

Is anybody out there listening?

PS       In our original post, the comment made by one of the children in the article in the Japan Times, was not quoted accurately in our post. The child’s actual words are now in this updated post.

20 thoughts on “Netherlands sees a future of “pink” families (it’s enough to make one “see red”)

  1. I would have thought you would have applauded such a move. You bang on about gay couples not providing ‘complementary’ role models and this seems to resolve that problem ensuring the child has parents of both sexes. In many ways it goes back to a more traditional form of family where rearing of children is done within a group or extended family. While it is certainly not necessary to have parents of opposite sexes if it works for some families then why not. What right have you to decide what a family is – you have no more right to define it than anyone else.

    I couldn’t find where the child said he felt sorry for other kids. He said “I think my friends are a little jealous, because I’ve got two mommies and two daddies and they’ve only got two parents,” That is not the same thing at all but sloppy reporting seems to be the norm here.

    What is immoral about having more than two parents ?

    When you say the gay lobby agitated – what exactly do you mean? I am only aware of a group of people demanding to be treated equally under the law. It has always been a laudable ambition to get rid of discriminatory practises and if you see that as agitation then that is a good thing. It is significantly better than those who agitate to have their prejudice and discriminatory practises protected under a guise of religious exceptions, religious privilege and opt outs.

    • golfieni,

      You are correct. The child in the article did not say he felt sorry for friends who have only two parents, when he has four. The inaccurate quote was due to a mis-reading of the child’s quote and a failure to re-check his words. You may call this “sloppy” reporting and we would not disagree with you. However, we stand by every other word in our post.

      We are opposed to gay adoption, whether it is two homosexuals adopting a child or four homosexuals (males and females) having children among themselves through artificial insemination, so how you can say we have concerns about gay couples not providing complementary role models (as if that was our only objection to gay adoption) we do not know. We are opposed to gays EVER having the right to adopt children (and they cannot marry either, no matter what the law says.)

      Do you really need us to explain what we mean when we say that homosexuals agitated to get this or that demand?

      We have evidence that some of them have threatened and intimidated those who oppose them. Some have used violence. Some have disrupted Church meetings and other meetings using bullhorns etc. Look at the case of Lilian Ladele, who refused to officiate at civil partnerships and see how she has been persecuted for daring to deny gays what they agitated for.

      • “…and they cannot marry either, no matter what the law says.”

        We can and we do – and in the UK it will not be long before it is legal and every bit as equal as your marriage no matter how much you stick your head in the sand.

        You probably do have some evidence, but the evidence stacked up against christians (threats, intimidation, violence (judicially backed in some cases), prejudice and bigotry) make any actions by gay people a drop in the ocean.

        “Some have disrupted Church meetings and other meetings using bullhorns etc”

        You yourself have engaged with others in this type of activity at Belfast Pride. It is OK for you to do it but not people who oppose you ?.

        Lillian Ladele was not persecuted, she was sacked for not doing her job. This has been through the courts and no persecution has been found. The courts found that religious beliefs do not justify discrimination in the delivery of goods and services.

        • golfieni,

          We don’t know what you are talking about when you accuse us of disrupting meetings and using bullhorns. Where is the evidence of such conduct on the part of Christians who witness against Belfast Pride?

    • Glenn. Who are you to judge that two people publically declaring their love for each other and making promises to each other is fake? If you don’t know the couple marrying then you are in no position to comment on the sincerity of their words.

      • Susie. Golfieni asked you a question that you appear to have missed. (I am sure that you wouldn’t just have ignored it because it was inconvenient for you to provide an answer!). I will repeat his question for you now as I too am interested in your response to this question!

        “Some have disrupted Church meetings and other meetings using bullhorns etc”

        You yourself have engaged with others in this type of activity at Belfast Pride. It is OK for you to do it but not people who oppose you ?.

      • Rob,
        Marriage is by definition the union of members of the opposite sex. Just because two people of the same sex get together and call it marriage, that doesn’t make it so. They can call it committing to each other, they can call it promising themselves to each other, or anything else – but it isn’t marriage.

      • I hadn’t missed it Rob, I was just so staggered by her memory capabilities. I offer my eye witness testimony that the protesters at Pride (both Belfast and Foyle) have used loud hailers and other devices in a crude and crass attempt to disrupt the joyous occasion. Fortunately they are no match for the people who purposely form a barrier between the protesters and the parade. Mrs White says she was present at the protest so my comment stands.

        I would offer the links to evidence available on the web but Mrs White has an aversion to evidence showing christians making fools of themselves or to support assertions of their misbehaviour or other inhuman activities.

      • Golfieni,
        No, I have GOD and thousands of years of history which say marriage is between members of opposite sex. All you have is YOUR opinion based on perversion and an agenda to destroy real marriage so as to force acceptance of homosexuality.

      • Glenn. Is this another novel biology lesson from you? A rose knowing a dandelion. Didn’t realise roses were so complex! Do give me a reference for this knowledge.

        • Rob,
          Don’t be obtuse. It’s a metaphor. One doesn’t have to be something in order to recognize it for what it is.

          The ultimate origin of what marriage is came from God. The definition of marriage has been historical for thousands of years. Only within the past few decades have people declared another meaning for it.

          It is not “equality” to redefine a word so as to try to shoehorn something else into it. Same-sex unions will never be the equivalent of real marriage. You can pretend all you want. It isn’t about celebrating your union – it is about demanding societal approval. You will never have that from moral people.

      • Glenn

        Glenn, Where did you get your definition of marriage from? Wherever it was, it is not a very reliable or contemporaneous source, as currently same sex couples can legally get married in eleven countries – Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden. Yes MARRIAGE not some inferior second best alternative like we have currently in UK, but very soon I will be able to be married to the one I love in UK as well and that marriage will be identical to that a heterosexual couple can have. Time to get your head out of the sand Glenn. Equality is coming!

  2. Glenn,  you state in your reply, “The ultimate origin of what marriage is came from God. The definition of marriage has been historical for thousands of years. Only within the past few decades have people declared another meaning for it.”

    REALLY GLENN?!!!

    Oh well, let’s go with your supposition for a moment and let us consider the options!  Which “god given” definition should I follow then…..    Let’s consider the options……..

    Ok i am required to take my dead brother’s wife and produce heirs for him – Deut. 25:5-6; Gen. 38:8)

    But then it doesn’t matter if I am married already as POLYGAMY is fine.  (Exodus 21:10-11; 2 Sam. 12:7-8

    And then in top of all this I can buy wives for my male slaves and then keep the wife and kids for myself after setting the slave free (Exodus 21:2-4

    And SUSIE ANN will love this next one.  She was advocating the other week that woman should have children to their rapists.  The bible is even more hard line than her!  It says the woman should marry her rapist!  (Deut. 22:28-29)

    Oh and so much for all this chat about sex out of marriage being wrong.  I can just follow the example of king David and have not only wives but concubines as well and have lots of children to all of them.  2 samual 5:13. Maybe they were immaculate conceptions!  

    Oh my, so many choices. 

    Perhaps now I will leave Glenn’s comment where it belongs in cloud cuckoo land, and having looked at the historical evidence above and other more recent historical changes, such as interracial marriage becoming legal, we can all come too the sensible conclusion that marriage is not a phenomenon that has remained fixed for thousands of years but has continually changed to reflect society at that time.  

    I should remind readers that most of the above may be illegal under UK law but don’t worry, if you follow it and get caught just tell the judge Auntie Susan says that if gods law and the law of the land disagree, we have to follow gods law.  That defence should also work if you are caught stoning your child to death for disobeying you. Deuteronomy 21:18-21

    • Rob,
      Did you look at all your examples from Scripture? Besides the fact that you use all the passages outside of their context – which is usual for ignorant people like you – you didn’t contradict at all what I stated: That marriage is the union of opposite-sex people.

      Your ilk always bring out the canard of “inter-racial marriages,” but those were still between opposite-sex people, and were also defined historically as marriages until racists decided that they didn’t want those unions.

      Admit it – history shows the definition of marriage has always been the union of opposite sex people. Period.

      • Glenn. In your musings above you say “Admit it – history shows the definition of marriage has always been the union of opposite sex people. Period.”

        Sadly once again you atempt to pass off your thoughts as fact without looking for evidence to back it up.

        Have you forgot about Emperor Nero who had a same sex marriage in AD 64 or what about the marriage described by the poet Martial in Ad 101. Martial describes the marriage of two men: the bearded Callistratus as bride, the rugged Afer as husband.

        So think it is time for you to admit Glenn that marriage is not as simple a concept that you are trying to put forward! And certainly has not only been for opposite sex couples!

        • Rob,
          Two incidents of perverts in thousands of years and that is your “evidence”?!?!? Nero was also a pederast – should we have “marriages” of men and boys based on that?

          Sorry to burst your bubble, but you can find people throughout history who violated the societal norms without the approval of society at large, but that doesn’t make them examples of what marriage always has been recognized as in every society. Why do you think the dictionary has always defined marriage as the union of man and woman? Of course modern dictionaries published by liberal publishers will always redefine words to meet the liberal agenda. Welcome Orwellian “newspeak.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s