This poster seeks to manipulate public opinion by attributing to words a meaning they normally do not have. In this case, the word whose meaning is changed is “parent”.

A “non-biological parent” is, in reality, not a parent. At best, he/she can be a substitute for a parent.

On the other hand, children usually neither want nor need to establish “legally recognised relationships” to persons who are not their parents.

The poster suggests that there are quantities of children with “deep relationships” to persons that, instead of being one of their parents, are their father’s or mother’s same-sex partners. Is this assumption based on any social research? When and how was this research carried out?

The makers of the exhibition find that the failure of Member States to legally recognise the relationship between a child and the adult who is its father’s or mother’s sex partner is “certainly against the child’s best interest”. How does one come to such certainties???

But undoubtedly, the summit of extravagancies is reached where it is affirmed that a legislator’s failure to legally recognise such relationships is “a violation of a child’s right to be raised by his or her parents”. This implies a grotesque distortion of that right, which relates to the child’s right to live with its real parents, not to any third persons.

It is saddening to see children being instrumentalized in such a way. If the makers of the exhibition had any real concern for a child’s right to be raised by its parents, they would not advocate a lesbian woman’s right to be artificially inseminated with the semen of anonymous donors, nor would they militate for gay adoption. Instead, they would look for ways to ensure that all children could live andbe raised by their real (i.e., biological parents) – a perspective that would automatically exclude any campaigning for same-sex marriage or similar.

In actual fact, therefore, the ILGA agenda is diametrically and irreconcilably opposed to children’s rights.