Sign up

Join Us in Defending Life and Family

Quebec Life Coalition defends the human person from conception until natural death.



Prostitution legalized in Ontario…is Quebec next?

Last week, a government-sponsored commission recommended that assisted-suicide be legalized in Quebec for certain groups of people. As if that were not enough bad news, yesterday, an article in the National Post informed us that prostitution has been legalized in Ontario. The article states: “the Court of Appeal for Ontario swept aside some of the country’s anti-prostitution laws saying they place unconstitutional restrictions on prostitutes’ ability to protect themselves.”

Specifically, this decision implies that within a year, the Canadian Criminal Code will be amended to allow the existence and operation of brothel houses for prostitutes.

“The landmark decision means sex workers will be able to hire drivers, bodyguards and support staff and work indoors in organized brothels.” Nonetheless, exploitation by pimps and soliciting customers on the streets remains illegal.

This decision truly shocks me. There is no logic in claiming that we can protect prostitutes by legalizing brothel houses. This will only increase the number of prostitutes, underage sex workers, pornographic pimps and sadomasochistic activities in our society. It is terrifying to see the twisted mentality that pervades our country today. Prostitution is illegal and dangerous for everyone involved - it is not a personal choice - it is the result of an aura of oppression, misogyny, mental disorder, and abuse of the body. Though I can understand how the legalisation of brothel houses deceitfully resembles a solution on the surface, it really opens the doors to so many further problems.

First off, what kind of an image do we give off to other nations if we legalize prostitution houses? We are saying “This is fine. We support prostitution. We even defend it in our laws.” Second, how can our children be protected from the risk of prostitution if their own nation makes it legal to work in a prostitution home? Clearly, legalizing prostitution means that more future children will be dragged into a lifestyle choice that is degrading and sinful. Third, the allowing of brothel houses will encourage prostitution simply because it will be deemed socially acceptable and it will be more readily available to any member of the public. Finally, it saddens me to say this but it is true: prostitutes, pimps, and customers need serious mental help to receive healing for their unhealthy, harmful lifestyles. Not only does the rate of sexually transmitted disease increase with the number of partners, but countless cases of physical abuse and mental agony result from the crime of prostitution too.

Let us not forget that even if prostitution becomes legalized in Quebec, it will remain forever a crime against God. Prostitution harms yourself and your neighbor. It does not respect the dignity of the human body with which we are created. It turns the body into a slave of sexual pleasure. We are in great need of renewal- please pray for the conversion of hearts.

Be the first to comment.

Why aren’t vegetarians pro-life?

I would like to bring to your attention two common inconsistencies in the pro-choice position. First, the typical pro-choicer refuses to recognize that unborn children deserve protection, yet is adamant in defending animal rights. Isn’t it a bit strange that a person feels so strongly about safeguarding animal life, and has no problem destroying human life in its initial stages of development?

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, an animal is “any of a kingdom (Animalia) of living things including many-celled organisms and often many of the single-celled ones (as protozoans) that typically differ from plants in having cells without cellulose walls, in lacking chlorophyll and the capacity for photosynthesis, in requiring more complex food materials (as proteins), in being organized to a greater degree of complexity, and in having the capacity for spontaneous movement and rapid motor responses to stimulation.” A human embryo is “an organism in the early stages of growth and differentiation, from fertilization to the beginning of the third month of pregnancy (in humans).” This means that an embryo is, at the very least, a member of the animal kingdom. The fetus is defined as “An unborn offspring, from the embryo stage (the end of the eighth week after conception, when the major structures have formed) until birth,” so at the fetal stage, it is clear that this ‘animal’ is clearly part of the human species.

Upon considering this argument, it is evident that a person cannot be both vegetarian and pro-choice, at least not if they are vegetarian for moral reasons (dietary reasons aside). If you believe it is wrong to kill animals, you must also believe it is wrong to kill unborn children for they fall into the category of animal at minimum. Many people also refuse to eat animals or animal products for religious reasons…but do these people know that many big companies (example: Pepsi) perform research on aborted fetuses to create new flavors or products?

In Québec there has been a recent controversy over Islamic halal meat production. Halal meat requires that the throat of an animal be cut, letting it bleed to death.” The Parti Québecois (PQ) claims that both consumer rights and animal rights are at stake here, and that halal meat production facilities must be thoroughly examined. The PQ stated that "This type of slaughter slams directly against Québécois values." Isn’t it ironic that many Quebecers are concerned about animal suffering and the slaughter of animals, but do not take into consideration the potential suffering inflicted upon human life in every abortion?

A second point I would like to emphasize is the inconsistency in the trend of eating only organic, natural foods while simultaneously consuming contraceptive pills. Many people are rightfully concerned about the levels of synthetic pesticides and chemicals added to nutrition. However, these same people also tend to advocate the use of contraceptives such as the birth control pill, the morning-after pill, IUDs, and condoms. Again, we see a certain level of hypocrisy here. On the one hand, a person may argue that you have to be very careful with the food you put in your body, that it must be healthy and free of rubbish. On the other hand, this same person claims contraceptive pills should be available to all women, even though these synthetic hormones have been shown to produce some negative health problems. Sound familiar?

So next time you meet ‘Ms. Organic-animal-rights-lover’, please don’t forget to ask her what she (or he) thinks about contraceptive pills and abortion. Try to elucidate some of these inconsistencies. It seems that many people are fooled into defending animal rights but not human rights, and emphasize organic eating while willingly polluting their bodies with contraceptives. 

Be the first to comment.

“The profound complexities of informed consent to abortion.” – article by Margaret Somerville

Margaret Somerville, director of the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law, recently published an article in Ottawa Citizen titled "The profound complexities of informed consent to abortion.” 

This article is very well-written and represents a commonly overlooked problem in society: women who are pressured into having an abortion, and then manipulated into believing that their life will return to normal after the abortion.

First off, what is informed consent? Informed Consent is the ethical and legal obligation to inform a patient of all the benefits and risks involved in a medical procedure so that the patient can make the best decision regarding any medical intervention. As Margaret Somerville puts it, Informed Consent “requires that the harms, risks and benefits of the procedure, and its alternatives, including doing nothing, are disclosed.”

In her article, Margaret Somerville presents the case of Anna (not her real name), a 32-year-old woman who was made victim of abortion in Quebec. Before her abortion, Anna asked to see the ultrasound of her child but her request was refused. This contrasts with the regulations in several states in the U.S. which mandate that a woman see an ultrasound image of her child before her abortion or at least be offered the possibility to view it.

Anna was devastated after her abortion. She is currently seeking psychological help and she shared her story with Margaret Somerville to spread the word on the dangers of abortion. This is not a rare case- unfortunately, many women suffer the same distress but their stories are kept behind a curtain so as to not disturb the pro-abortion status quo.

Margaret Somerville writes:

Informed consent is not present if the information is inadequate - that's medical negligence (malpractice). And even non-material information must be disclosed if it is raised by a person's questions, which must be answered honestly and fully. Anna's request to see the ultrasound image is relevant in this latter respect. Consent is never present where intentionally false information is given, especially when it involves consequences and risks - indeed, this can give rise to the legal wrongs of battery and assault.

Should Québec have stricter laws on informed consent for abortion procedures? Considering that abortion is an irreversible decision, shouldn’t women be better assisted and informed about the risks involved in aborting their child? Let us reflect upon this last comment which Anna told Margaret Somerville, “When a woman is pregnant, from my experience, she is much more vulnerable, and thus can be 'pushed around' more easily. This should be taken into account when a clinic is looking to have consent from a pregnant woman." – does this resonate with your experience? Please let us know your thoughts and comments.

Be the first to comment.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide are illegal & should remain so

Today, a 180-page report was released by the Dying with Dignity Committee suggesting that the Quebec's attorney general recommend to the Crown in Quebec that assisted-suicide be legalized. This is bad news for the pro-life side…it is the beginning of the second wave of societal degeneration. First, the unborn can be killed for any reason and at any time. Now, the elderly and those with “intolerable pain” are going to be allowed to request an assisted suicide. Soon, anyone who deems that their life is not worth living (or any person who has caregivers that wish to see them gone) will be euthanized or assisted in suicide. This means that, eventually, even children (such as is already the case in the Netherlands, google "Groningen protocol"), people with mental health problems ("incurable disease, psychological "distress"), adults (again, the "psychological distress" criterion, with the tenuous "incurable disease" criterion to be dismissed soon enough) and the elderly (see the "Free Will" initiative gaining steam in the Netherlands) alike will all be made victims of a system where people are treated as commercial goods that can be eliminated once no longer valid or wanted. If this seems like an over-reaction, you just haven't been keeping up with developments...

For further enlightenment on this topic, I invite you to read “EUTHANASIA AND ASSISTED SUICIDE: WHY NOT?", an interesting and informative document which offers quick answers to common arguments regarding euthanasia.

Below I have included some snippets of this document which I believe help in elucidating the problem of euthanasia and assisted suicide (please note that I have reworded some of the questions/concerns for the sake of brevity- the original formatting of the questions can be viewed in the document indicated above.)

“It is my choice” ----“Such a law would be a guaranteed recipe for abuse of the vulnerable; it would be incapable of protecting them from coercion by family members and others.” (page 3)

“I want to die with dignity” ----“We all have the power to respond with friendship, love and solidarity to the illness of others in order to uphold and protect their “right to life” until the moment of natural death. We need each other in death as we need each other in life.” (page 4)

“I don’t want to be hooked up to machine if it is time for me to die” ---“The withdrawal or withholding of extraordinary or disproportionate treatment, when its burdens outweigh its benefit, is not euthanasia because the intention is not to cause death but to allow the person to die naturally; in euthanasia the intention is to cause death – the patient does not die naturally but rather is killed by another human being before his or her time…There is a great difference between allowing to die and making die.” (page 5)

“I want control over when I die” – “Our society has always reached out to suicidal citizens who need help in living, not help in dying. It would be quite a contradiction to continue funding distress centers and suicide prevention programs while legalizing assisted suicide. If people chose to die while temporarily depressed or in intense pain, instead of receiving proper medical attention, they will potentially be deprived of many good years of life.” (page 6)

“Why force someone to suffer pain?” ---“We need to eliminate the pain, not the patient. Pain relief medications used appropriately rarely shorten life; the patient usually dies from his or her underlying disease. There is a huge difference between giving drugs to relieve pain and suffering, and intentionally using pain relief treatment to euthanize a person.” (page 7)

“I don’t want to burden my family” ---“The fear of being a burden is the key reason why some people ask to have their death hastened. Many Canadians also feel abandoned and are very isolated. They need to be consoled, encouraged and comforted.” (page 10)

“If euthanasia is already happening in our country, wouldn’t it be better to legalize it?” --- “If euthanasia is being carried out against the law, this shows that the law is incapable of controlling euthanasia. Legalizing euthanasia will not fix this problem. Providing government sanctions for euthanasia will endorse a practice that will harm the most vulnerable members of society and devastate the institution of medicine.” (page 12)

“Why are you imposing your religious values?” Euthanasia is not a religious issue, but a human rights issue. “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights clearly states that “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person” (art. 3). In order to uphold this right for all citizens, at this moment in Canadian history when we are faced with the prospect of legalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide, we need to (1) encourage new research and education on pain relief; (2) provide public funding for more palliative care centers and units in order to ensure that all Canadians have access to end of life care; (3) and develop fiscal measures to allow primary care givers to commit themselves freely to the support of their sick or dying loved ones.” (page 14)

Killing cannot be the solution to disease and suffering. Human life must be valued and protected in all circumstances- euthanasia and assisted suicide threaten this most fundamental human right. If you are a resident of Quebec, please voice your stance against euthanasia and assisted suicide by calling your MPP.

Be the first to comment.

Reflections on the Pro-Life mentality…is abstinence the only way?

These past few days I’ve received and answered emails from the pregnant (or possibly pregnant) women in distress. I am struck by how deep the problem of abortion is. After conversations with numerous young women who are worried about a possible pregnancy, I am made so much more aware that the issue of abortion really stems from an over-sexualized, promiscuous society.

The answer to avoiding unwanted pregnancies at a young age is simple: abstinence. I know that option sounds horrifying and impossible to many young people, but it really is the only fool-proof solution to avoiding pregnancy when you are unprepared (please note that for older, married women, the situation is quite different…nonetheless in natural family planning, occasional abstinence and respect for the woman’s cycle are very important).

In talking to numerous pregnant women, I realize how difficult it is to advocate the pro-life message. Why? Because being pro-life begins with a mentality of sex as an act reserved for marriage. It also begins with an understanding that the sexual act should not be detached from procreation- though a child does not need to be desired in every sexual act, God makes it such that a child is always possible, and thus one must be willing to accept that possible outcome even if this is not what you want.

Another issue I find difficult to explain is the problem of contraception. Unfortunately, contraception heavily adds to a ‘pro-choice, children-destroy-your-life’ mentality. To make matters worse, contraception does not always work as intended. Sometimes, a woman on birth control pills may forget to take her pills, or the dose might not be strong enough for her body- so, what happens next? She continues on in ignorance until one day-surprise! She is pregnant.

I briefly want to cite a recent publication by the American Cancer Society which blatantly admits that use of oral contraceptives is a risk factor for breast cancer and cervical cancer. The Global Cancer Facts & Figures, 2nd edition states that “recent use of oral contraceptives” is a primary factor affecting breast cancer risk, whereas “long-term use of oral contraceptives” is associated with increased risk of cervical cancer. Hmmm…these are things to consider for all women using contraceptive pills or thinking about it.  

In the end this post boils down to two important points: If you cannot envision having a child in the next year, perhaps you are not really ready for sexual relationships. On the other hand, if you are married, already have children, and are concerned about having another child, this may be a perfect time to learn to practice natural family planning. Work with your partner. These natural methods have been shown to work very well when used properly. And of course, understand that God may bless you with another child when you least expect it…that is part and parcel of engaging in life-giving acts!

Be the first to comment.

Advancements in genetic testing: should we be concerned?

Recently, the International Herald Tribune published an article describing the initiatives of Complete Genomics, a firm in Silicon Valley that has performed significant research on genomic sequencing technology.

Complete Genomics aims to lower the cost of human genome sequencing in order to make this service more readily available to the general population. On the company’s website, Dr. Reid predicted that the cost for gene sequencing could one day be as low as that of a blood test.

I believe that the impact on the medical community of whole human genome sequencing at a cost comparable to a comprehensive blood test will be profound, and it will raise a host of public policy issues (privacy, security, disclosure, reimbursement, interpretation, counseling, etc.), all important topics for future discussions.

Yes, and there is another vital issue that will be impacted by the potential widespread availability of genomic testing: bioethics.

I would like to make it clear that I completely support scientific advancement and research that does not injure human life from conception to natural death. I am frequently amazed by what science can do in assisting people with serious diseases. We are lucky to live in a time where many illnesses are understood and treated, though there is still a lot of work to be done.  

My concern with this news on gene sequencing is that too much information can cause great damage when it comes to medical testing and the diagnosis of genetic disorders. How many people, after going through genetic testing, may find out that they are “at risk” for certain genetic disorders and thus choose to euthanize themselves? Furthermore, how many mothers, after finding out that their unborn child has a genetic anomaly, will choose to abort their child?

We have already seen a rise in the number of abortions of female children since parents became able to know the sex of their child. This phenomenon will repeat itself if access to gene sequencing becomes commonplace- only it will be worse, because then the medical community will thoroughly defend the parents’ ‘choice’ on the grounds that the child’s quality of life would be lower, and that the child would have some life-threatening illness.

It can seem inconsistent on God’s behalf to give us access to so much information, and yet to also ask that we respect human life under all circumstances. However, the inconsistency is really within the medical community. God gives us information to help us, not to hurt us. In the same way, doctors and scientific researchers have a duty to help others and protect their lives.

Let us suppose, for example, that a mother has just recently found out that her baby has a genetic defect. Under such conditions, what can the doctor do? He can either advise her to abort her child, which would likely leave her with scars of suffering and guilt…or he could offer her resources to better prepare for the arrival of her newborn child. The woman could educate herself on the genetic disease, talk to families who have experienced raising children with genetic disease, and maybe even immerse herself in prayer (or companionship with friends and family) to develop the strength to accept the uncertainty that awaits her, and her child.

Also, let us not forget that genetic testing could help us perform surgeries in the womb, before the child is born, in order to replace a defective gene. As long as such surgeries pose no harm to the child, they would be ethically approvable and could even cure the child of his genetic anomaly. Dr. Jérôme Lejeune, a pro-life pediatrician and geneticist, always dreamed that one day a cure for Down’s Syndrome would be discovered. Given the rapid development taking place in the scientific field, let us hope that workers in the medical and scientific community orient their efforts towards initiatives that respect all human life.

Be the first to comment.

Secular and religious unite against abortion

I have good news to share with you today. 

First of all, Campaign Life Coalition has launched a new website,, which provides scientific evidence that life begins at conception. The goal of this website is to help educate people on why human life should be protected from conception to natural death. Furthermore, the site also gives a description of motion M-312, a motion advanced by Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth in order to re-examine section 223 of Canada’s Criminal Code, which states that a child is only human once he has completely left his mother’s womb.

I recommend the 5-minute video on the homepage. Though you may have already seen various videos of children’s development in-utero, I find this one is particularly well done and quite moving. You can also explore the website further (select “Take Action” option) to find out how to get involved and contact your MP to support motion M-312.

Secondly…another new website called is starting up April 3rd. The aim of this initiative is to inform women about the mental and physical dangers of abortion. The site is run by It is great to see that both secular and religious organizations unite in their aim to end abortion! will have a compilation of all abortion-related complaints to assist women in assessing the risks of having an abortion.

Be the first to comment.

Update on HHS mandate: contraception is a lifestyle choice, not a health issue

Sandra Fluke, a student at Georgetown University, recently argued that even Catholic universities such as Georgetown should be forced to pay for student access to contraception.

To my own amazement, President Obama telephoned Sandra Fluke to personally thank her for voicing the “concerns of American women." Fluke told NBC news: “I think this is about women's health. That's what it's always been about for me and that's what it's about for the… the many, many Americans who are emailing me constantly telling me how important it is.”

But is contraception really about women’s health? Aside the 14% of women who use the pill for ‘medical reasons’ , the majority of American women use birth control pills because they want to engage in sexual relationships without bearing the consequences of their own fertility. It is a very selfish business. The Guttmacher Institute (research arm of Planned Parenthood) admits itself: “The typical U.S. woman wants only two children. To achieve this goal, she must use contraceptives for roughly three decades.” Here, we see once again, the extreme dissociation between sex and children. People are having more sex with more partners, and yet they want less children- a trend which defies the way we were created.

I invite you to watch this video by Bill O’Reilley titled “Do you want to pay for other people’s activities?” O’Reilley’s commentary boils down the HHS mandate issue to one very simple point: contraceptive use is not, in most cases, a health issue…so why should it be included in health coverage? The Obama administration and many people around the world defend abortion as a woman’s right, and birth control as a woman’s health issue- if we dig a little deeper we discover what these two really are: murder and dishonesty. A woman needs neither abortion nor contraception to live a healthy, happy, secure life- I and plenty of other women around the world are testaments to that fact.

Be the first to comment.

Photos of aborted babies: should they be used?

Isn't it interesting that so many pro-choicers feel threatened by images of aborted babies, when aborting babies it is the very 'right' they so fervently advocate? When people stand up for a cause, they should not be ashamed to show what it is they are fighting for. However, the opposite is true for abortion...if you show one image of an aborted child to a pro-choicer, they will likely be angry, hostile, or enraged. 

I admit I feel somewhat ambivalent about the use of abortion imagery. Pro-Life groups such as the Canadian Centre for Bioethical Reform (CCBR) are known for their use of photos of bloody, aborted fetuses on highways, sidewalks, and next to abortion clinics. Recently they have been sending postcards with images of aborted babies to residents in Canada (to see the content of the postcards please click here).

I have thought about this a lot and reason that if the pro-lifer is shocked, saddened, and disgusted by images of aborted fetuses, the pro-choicer might be even more so. Why? Because in the pro-choice mentality, the fetus is considered as something less-than human, just a "clump of cells," with no shape or form, no human features. Abortion is not presented as an act of killing (which it definetely, undoubtedly is)...rather, it is advertised as a clean, simple procedure. When you have been lied to, the shock of seeing the truth hurts even more. 

So now comes the big question: Should graphic images of aborted fetuses be used to spread awareness about the horrors of abortion? On the one hand, people may find that these images are disrespectful towards the child who was killed. There is also concern that these pictures create strong feelings of guilt, shock or sadness in post-abortive men and women. Finally, what happens if a child finds the postcard in the mailbox? Will that child be scarred for life?

The CCBR has taken into consideration all these concerns, but nonetheless believes that the pros of using abortion imagery outway the cons. Though I found myself disagreeing with them at first, I realize (after further research) that their postcards are actually incredibly well-made and are meant to get people thinking about abortion as a criminal wrong rather than a protected right. Though people may be insulted or have their feelings hurt initially, respecting the life of unborn children takes priority when it comes to the abortion debate. 

The truth is that we are all, knowingly or unknowingly, accomplices in this war against unborn children. Just like the abolitionists of slavery risked their lives and took a stance against the injustice of their day, we too must stand out and speak up. This pro-activism is absolutely necessary in defending life because we live in a climate of moral relativism...many people have never seen an image of an aborted fetus, yet adamantly defend unlimited access to abortion. So, after some re-thinking on this issue, I think it is right to say that the CCBR should be commended for their efforts in revealing the truth about abortion to the public through these images. War against the unborn is raging- are we going to sit idle and let these crimes against humanity continue, or are we going to "unmask" the choice of abortion?

Please note that I would be interested in hearing other people's ideas on this issue. Finally, let us remember that in converting people to the way of Life, prayer is of irreplaceable value. As Jesus said, “This kind (of unclean spirit) can come out only through prayer.” - Mark 9: 29 NRSV.  

Be the first to comment.

Same-sex marriage & abortion: this is what happens when society shoves children aside

Yesterday, Maryland became the eighth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Democratic Governor Martin O'Malley, who signed the bill, announced that "We are all one Maryland, and all of us at the end of the day want the same thing for our children." 

First of all, Governor O’Malley’s statement is not true, because we do not all want the same thing for our children. People of good will, generally-speaking, want what is best for their children…but some people deem it acceptable to kill their children in the womb (hello abortion) or even to euthanize their newborn baby after birth (see this previously posted article).

Secondly…how ironic that Governor O’Malley brings up the topic of children at a gay-marriage bill-signing celebration! The reality is, homosexuals cannot conceive. Abortion kills unwanted babies, while homosexuality eliminates the possibility of babies altogether.

Many may reply to this statement with the question, “Well, who cares anyways? Marriage shouldn’t just be about procreation.”

Well, there’s some truth to that…but nonetheless, marriage is mainly about procreation. Why? Marriage is the union of a man and a woman recognized by the state, whose children will be recognized by the state too (and for those of us who are religious, marriage is seen as a sacrament, blessed by the hands of God…but we’ll leave that topic for another day).

This is what my argument boils down to: Homosexual couples cannot naturally conceive a child. Their partnership is void of fertility. Then why are homosexuals so insistent on legalizing gay marriage? What benefits are they looking for in marriage?

Adam Kolasinski wrote an article presenting the secular case against gay marriage. He writes:

Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.

Did you read that last sentence? It expresses the fact that marriage between homosexual couples is costly to the state and society. Over the past decades, we have seen the breakdown of the link between marriage and procreation in heterosexual relationships. The problem with homosexual marriage is that it will further widen the gap between marriage and children, leading to deeper societal issues.

It is my belief that dissociating marriage from the act of procreation builds an egocentric, selfish mentality of marital relationships. If marriage does not exist for the institution of family and building future generations, then why does it exist at all? Divorce, abuse, and declining birthrates all have negative impacts on economic and social development. Homosexual marriages will likely add to this confusion.

From the point of view of the child’s wellbeing, it has been shown that “children need both a male and female parent for proper development.” In other words, adoption or surrogate mothers would not be the way to go for homosexual couples because children develop better when they grow up with a biological mother and father.

Think about it: How many of you would be happy having had two mothers or two fathers instead of a mother and a father? I reckon most can testify that having a father and a mother provides the appropriate balance for a family. However, I want to emphasize that I do not think homosexuals are bad parents – rather, they simply cannot offer a parent unit that includes both a biological mother and father.

Finally, let us not forget that homosexual marriage could infringe upon our religious rights in much the same way as the current HHS mandate on contraception in the United States has. Here in Québec, the ERC course has wrought an atmosphere of moral relativism and religious indifference. Presenting homosexuality as a ‘personal choice’ and ethically neutral arrangement clashes with fundamental Christian teaching; it also prevents parents from overseeing their own children’s education. The state could take it a step even further and maybe, one day, force churches to offer homosexual marriage. Though this statement sounds outlandish, it is possible.

Currently it seems there are ten countries that have legalized same-sex marriage (Canada included). Please spread awareness of the dangers of homosexual marriage on the institute of family, child-rearing, religious freedom, and social stability. Help us build a culture of life!

Be the first to comment.