Thursday, June 16, 2005

The Battle Against the NDP Budget Bill – Next Week

Next week is when Bill C-48 is expected to come up for a final vote. This is the bill that includes the extra $4.6 billion of spending the liberals added to buy the votes of the NDP and keep their corrupt government alive. Defeating this bill is the last opportunity the Conservatives have to bring down the liberals before summer.

The mainstream media is pumping out stories today that the Conservative Party is trying to trade support for the NDP budget if the liberals will delay a vote on same-sex marriage. According to the liberal press, the liberals are not willing to make any deals with the conservatives to delay same-sex marriage. The idea that Conservatives offered a deal like this seems very unlikely for two reasons.

First of all, we are talking about an NDP budget bill that is filled with spending. The spending initiatives included go against everything Conservatives stand for. As well, it allocates money for things with no plans on how to spend it. This is exactly the kind of wasteful spending bill Conservatives loathe. If the Conservatives will not stand up for the Canadian taxpayer, then who will?

Secondly, the Conservatives are the only ones standing up to preserve the traditional family. Once the budget bill passes, there will be nothing stopping Canada’s left-wing extremists from rewriting a six thousand year old definition of marriage. The Conservatives have the votes now to topple the liberals with the defection of former liberal Pat O’Brien. Pat O’Brien has said he will vote against the government in a vote of non-confidence if he believes it is necessary to preserve the traditional definition of marriage. Now is the time for Stephen Harper to rally the troops for next weeks vote. This is the last chance we have to stop this liberal juggernaut and the idea that he is making a deal to sell out the Canadian taxpayer the way socialist NDP leader Jack Layton did seems ridiculous.

For the sake of the Canadian taxpayer and the traditional family which forms the cornerstone of society, Conservatives need to make this next opportunity to defeat the liberals count.

84 Comments:

At 11:16 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

Just curious as to why you are against gay marriage? How does it affect you as an individual first, and as a married man second?

 
At 1:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well Peter, you obviously DIDN'T read his story very well. Did you see "six thousand year old definition of marriage".

Gays and lesbians can live together, have all the rights etc.but they can't use the word "marriage". That term is already taken.Find some new term.Some come to mind but I don't think you would like them. I can see it all now.The minister says, I now pronounce you man and man.
Oh, and incidently, WHY is it so important for them to WANT to use the term "marriage"?

Horny Toad

 
At 1:18 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

First off, same sex couples want to use the term marriage because it is the ultimate form of commitment in our society. A civil union or whatever Conservatives want same sex couples to engage in just isn't the same thing.

Secondly, marriage has evolved drastically over 6,000 years. My wife will not be chosen by my family, nor will I have to provide a dowry. People get married outside the church, get divorced (regulalry), and some people even get married for reasons other than procreation. Allowing for same sex couples to get married is just simply the next logical step in its evolution.

Again, I ask the question - how does it affect you if same sex couples get married? Does your marriage suddenly become a sham? If that is the case, what about shows like the Bachelor, or the Littlest Groom? How does that make you feel? Or the 50% divroce rate?

 
At 11:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"First off, same sex couples want to use the term marriage because it is the ultimate form of commitment in our society. A civil union or whatever Conservatives want same sex couples to engage in just isn't the same thing".
Don't you really mean same sex couples want to use the term because then they will be "just the same" as other married couples and thus there will be less differenciation between them and "normal" folk. And as far as marriage over the years evolving, which I agree that it has, one area where it has NEVER changed is in the fact that it is between a MAN and a WOMAN.Like I said before, the term "marriage" is taken. Find some other term.

Oh, and By the way,its not just the Conservatives who oppose SSM,over 2/3 of the population oppose it as well.

Horny Toad

 
At 11:18 PM, Blogger The Evil Left-Winger said...

Right...the left wing extremists are out to redefine marriage...along with the other half of the country that wants to redefine marriage.

Support for SSM has been consistently polled at 45 - 55 % and attempts by the right to paint the pro-SSM movement as a radical minority show exactly how far out of tune they are with most Canadians.

Civil marriage is just civil marriage, it's a government institution. I think we all know same sex couples can't procreate...will their living together under the same name [marriage] as opposite sex couples somehow affect those opposite sex couples abilities to raise their children? If we limit same sex couples to civil unions (the Conservative version, which is the exact same thing as marriage, minus the wording) and they adopt children or artifically conceive, will they somehow parent those children better if they have a mere civil union and not a marriage?

If the right actually cared about the "family" they'd be limiting gay rights as much as possible...sematics do not destroy societies.

Moving on...

If you guys topple the Liberals next week, you are going to be in some pretty big trouble. You'll lose seats specifically to the NDP in Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and BC, not to mention seats you could lose to the Liberals elsewhere.

 
At 12:45 AM, Blogger Dodos said...

"Don't you really mean same sex couples want to use the term because then they will be "just the same" as other married couples and thus there will be less differenciation between them and "normal" folk."

No, they don't want to be the same, they simply want the same rights and privileges of all other people including marriage. Also, homosexuality is completley "normal." Many animals engage in homosexuality and it is found in every single culture across the world. I would think that is something normal.

"And as far as marriage over the years evolving, which I agree that it has, one area where it has NEVER changed is in the fact that it is between a MAN and a WOMAN.Like I said before, the term "marriage" is taken. Find some other term."

What kind of logic is that - yes marriage has evolved, but no it hasn't evolved to that point yet. You are right - it hasn't yet, but that doesn't mean it should not. And by the way, it will. Where did you get that 2/3rd stat anyways?

 
At 11:09 AM, Blogger Dodos said...

Hey Rosa Parks, that seats taken. Take another one!

 
At 4:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Civil marriage is just civil marriage, it's a government institution". Marriage is NOT just a government institution, it was around LONG before governments.

How can you compare what goes on in the animal kingdom to what humans do. By that argument then there should also be able to be "marriage" between an animal and a human.


"No, they don't want to be the same, they simply want the same rights and privileges of all other people including marriage".

They already have the same rights and privileges as other people regardless of whether they are "married" or not.But they can't have the term "marriage" as its already used to describe the union between a man and a woman.

"What kind of logic is that - yes marriage has evolved, but no it hasn't evolved to that point yet. You are right - it hasn't yet, but that doesn't mean it should not."

Its the kind of logic that is bases on fact.I realize that may be foreign to you.

Horny Toad

 
At 5:43 PM, Blogger The Evil Left-Winger said...

The legislation is the "civil marriage act" - not the "sociological marriage act". Civil marriage IS a government institution and government can define and redefine it to fit the social context that the government happens to serve.

The only reason Peter needed to make the animal kingdom analogy is your argument that homosexuality is abnormal and (although you haven't said it here a lot of conservatives do) "unnatural."

I again ask you to directly explain to me how changing the definition of civil marriage will negatively affect opposite sex couples raising children (or opposite sex couples alone). Failing that, can you explain to me why limiting same sex couples to "civil unions" and not "marriages" will be beneficial to society?

 
At 7:13 PM, Blogger Michael said...

Why should we extend marriage benefits to same-sex couples? What do same-sex couples do for society that we should extend benefits to them? The answer is nothing. Same-sex couples do nothing more for society than single people do. And if same-sex couples deserve the marriage benefits because 'a right is a right' than we single people deserve marriage benefits as well. Just once I would like to hear a same-sex marriage advocate explain the positive things that a same-sex couple gives to our country.

 
At 9:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As stated before I'm not opposed to gay unions along with the rights they deserve. I don't think homosexuality is "normal" however, no matter what the animal knigdom does. However, as a married person of almost 40 years I attach certain attributes to marriage, one of them being it is the union between a MAN and a WOMAN. Therefore a SSM is an affront to that particular attribute. In other words, to answer your question of "I again ask you to directly explain to me how changing the definition of civil marriage will negatively affect opposite sex couples raising children" by equating their proposed "marriage" to mine is an affront to my marriage.

Horny Toad

 
At 10:55 PM, Blogger The Evil Left-Winger said...

Michael: Same-sex couples make a lot of contributions to society. I could go into political and social activism examples, but I think you can come up with your own examples.

It seems to me that you're saying that the capacity to have children is a necessary prerequisite for marriage, and that anything short of creating children makes a marriage unbeneficial to a country and society. Maybe I am putting words in your mouth and if I am I apologize and ask for your clarification, but to me from what you've said, the only distinction I can make is actually having children.

I now have to ask you exactly what couples that choose not to have children contribute to our country; they fail to make the fundamental contribution to the country that differenciates same sex and opposite couples.

What about people that are phsyically incapable of having children? Any opposite sex relationship they may be in then becomes exactly the same as a same-sex one.

Horny Toad - Quickly to touch on the concept of "normalacy." It's a tricky concept. Do you mean normal as in natural? If so, then homosexuality is beyond a doubt natural - that is scientific. "Normal" as in what the masses conform to? No group is "normal" under that definition.

As far as SSMs being an affront to your marriage - I don't understand. Why do you object to sharing the concept of marriage with same-sex couples?

I am sure that when woman and blacks were made eligible to vote, there were many white men who felt as if that change suddenly underminded or challenged their vote and exactly what it was and what it meant.

 
At 3:20 AM, Blogger Dodos said...

"Why should we extend marriage benefits to same-sex couples? What do same-sex couples do for society that we should extend benefits to them? The answer is nothing. Same-sex couples do nothing more for society than single people do."

Wow, I must say - you have a limited view of what people can do for society. If having children is your only criteria for "doing" something for society, then you have set the bar really low. Having children isn't difficult - raising them to be happy, whole people is. Allowing same sex couples to marry allows them to be happy and fulfilled with their lives and in this day and age, that is all we can ask of people. To deny someone happiness is wrong no matter how you look at it.

"And if same-sex couples deserve the marriage benefits because 'a right is a right' than we single people deserve marriage benefits as well."

Sure, if you as a single person want marriage benefits then you can have them. Then you can pass on the benefits you recieve to yourself when you die, claims your health benefits you recieve for yourself....seriously, what does your statement even mean?

" Just once I would like to hear a same-sex marriage advocate explain the positive things that a same-sex couple gives to our country."

The role, and desire, of the state is to provide their citizens with the tools they need to be healthy, happy individuals. If you have a healthy citizenry, then they become more productive citizens of the nation. The positive aspect of ssm is that it allows a rather large segment of our society to feel as though they are equal to everyone else. As well, they will feel accepted by the dominant society. This is a positive thing.

"I don't think homosexuality is "normal" however, no matter what the animal knigdom does. "

No offence, but it doesn't matter what you think. In the 1950's, a majority of southerners didn't believe that it was right for blacks to drink out of white water fountains or attend white schools. We may live in a democracy, but that doesn't mean majority rules. Democracies also protect the rights of minorities and that is what makes us great.

"...by equating their proposed "marriage" to mine is an affront to my marriage."

Why? Are you that insecure in your marriage? Does the value of your marriage rest on what others do, or does the value of your marriage come from the relationship and life that you have spent with your wife? My parents have been married for 40 years and they embody what marriage is about - love, caring, compassion etc... Allowing two people, regardless of sex, to marry for those reasons is not an affront to your vows - it is a confirmation that what you have is special and something to strive for. Why would you want to deny others that same satisfication?

 
At 6:00 AM, Blogger Michael said...

“Michael: Same-sex couples make a lot of contributions to society. I could go into political and social activism examples…”

Then please do, because I have yet to hear anything that gay couples put into society that single people don’t.

“Sure, if you as a single person want marriage benefits then you can have them. Then you can pass on the benefits you receive to yourself when you die, claims your health benefits you receive for yourself....seriously, what does your statement even mean?”

Why can’t we name a friend, co-worker, girlfriend/boyfriend, drinking buddy or favorite street person to receive these things? Why does it have to be someone we are having sex with?

“Wow, I must say - you have a limited view of what people can do for society. If having children is your only criteria for "doing" something for society, then you have set the bar really low. Having children isn't difficult - raising them to be happy, whole people is.”

As a single person I helped raise the son of a co-worker. Little Wesley grew up to be a very happy and healthy young man, I was happy to be a part of that. I still don’t hear anything coming from the left in terms of what gay couples put into society that single people don’t.

“The role, and desire, of the state is to provide their citizens with the tools they need to be healthy, happy individuals.”

Peter: this is the most telling statement you have made so far. In the mind of a liberal or socialist this is the role of government. In reality the role of government is none of those things. The role of government is to defend against external threats with a strong military and protect citizens from one another through police, courts and good laws written by elected officials. Beyond that the role of government is simply to give each person the freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness on their own.

 
At 11:14 AM, Blogger Dodos said...

Maybe I'm not just understanding the comment. What do you mean by what gay people put into society that single people don't? What about married couples who don't have kids? What do they put into society that single people don't?

"In reality the role of government is none of those things. The role of government is to defend against external threats with a strong military and protect citizens from one another through police, courts and good laws written by elected officials. "

Isn't it in the best interest of the state to have happy, healthy citizens? I agree that the role of government is to do the things that you say, but it is in no way limited to that. Again, don't you want a happy citizenry? Don't they make for the most proactive and contributing members of society?

"Beyond that the role of government is simply to give each person the freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness on their own."

Agreed. And same sex couples simply what that when it comes to marriage. Marriage has always been the ultimate form of commitment between two people and that is why same sex couples want that right.

 
At 12:02 PM, Blogger The Evil Left-Winger said...

Firstly before I address specifically what you've said let me raise a new idea.

Marriage is a social institution/social structure. A just society will include all it's members in its' social institutions. It is difficult to say that people are truly as "equal" and as human as each other when they are being excluded from social institutions.

Alright, on to what you said -

Then please do, because I have yet to hear anything that gay couples put into society that single people don’t.

Things that gay couples put into societies? That's easy. Suppose that a gay couple works relentlessly on the next Conservative campaign and help deliver a close riding to the CPC. That is a contriution to society (especially by your definition).

If a gay couple voulnteer at, say, a shelter for abused women, that is a contribution to society.

If a gay couple donate money to a charity, that is a contribution to society.

If a gay couple buy a house together, that is a contribution to society.

Why can’t we name a friend, co-worker, girlfriend/boyfriend, drinking buddy or favorite street person to receive these things? Why does it have to be someone we are having sex with?

You've lost me. Generally we want to pass those things on to the people we love most, and for same-sex couples that would be there partner. My understanding is that with civil marriage inheritance is a much simpler and less taxed process, too, though I could be wrong on that.

As a single person I helped raise the son of a co-worker. Little Wesley grew up to be a very happy and healthy young man, I was happy to be a part of that. I still don’t hear anything coming from the left in terms of what gay couples put into society that single people don’t.

?

So, by your logic what do opposite-sex couples put into society? Obviously nothing special since you made the exact same contribution they did as a single man.

I also haven't seen the idea that straight couples that do not have kids either by choice or infertility are putting the same into society as same sex couples and single people addressed yet.

 
At 4:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I can harldy wait until they modify the meaning of marriage to include MORE than one spouse. And then, after that we can include animals because after all homosexuality is common in the animal kngdom. To further enhance this argument look at donkeys and horses that produce mules.Why not a human and a dog,they are already mans best freind.

Horny Toad

 
At 5:52 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

The slippery slope argument is a favorite of conservatives and as always, total b.s. Man and animal will never be allowed to marry because marriage is an issue of consent. So no pedophilia will never be legal and neither will beastiality because neither of those actions is consensual and therefore illegal. Marriage between same sex partners is an act between consenting adults. I hope that you can appreciate the difference.

 
At 6:13 PM, Blogger The Evil Left-Winger said...

Heh...careful there, I heard the rocks are pretty sharp at the bottom of that slippery slope you're sliding down.

Legalizing gay sex provoked no movement to legalize sex with animals or sex with children. Do please pinpoint why marriage would be any different.

 
At 6:22 PM, Blogger Michael said...

"The slippery slope argument is a favorite of conservatives and as always, total b.s."

On this one I completely disagree. In 1967 when the Trudeau liberals wanted to legalize homosexuality, the Conservatives of the day said, "If you legalize homosexuality today, the next thing you know gays will want to get married and adopt children."

And in those days the liberals said the same thing you just did. "The slippery slope argument is a favorite of conservatives and as always, total b.s. Just because we want to legalize gay sex does not mean gays will ever want to marry. The two are completely different. Everyone knows marriage is between a man and a woman. Conservatives are just fearmongering, etc. etc"

Here we are not even 30 years later and what is happening?

There is a polygamy cult is BC that wants the same kind of treatment that the gay community has been given lately. There is also a group called Freedom International that promotes everything from public nudity to sex with animals. Please visit their website and click the link titled 'Sexual Practices'.

 
At 6:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just wondering why you always refer to you conservatives in these arguments. Is it because you regard conservatives as the only people who still have morals and ethics ? Of course being a liberal you are well aware of a party with a total lack of morals and ethics.

Horny Toad

 
At 10:37 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

Michael - I guess it comes down to this. I don't think that there is anything wrong with homosexuality. In my opinion, the only difference between gay people and straight people is who they choose to sleep with. Our culture has been taught for a long time that being gay is wrong, but today we know better - it is a natural part of the human experience. Why discriminate against a group of people for being who they were born to be - and isn't this what the entire issue is about? Equality. Yes marriage has always been between a man and a woman, but that doesn't mean it always has to be that way. That is the great thing about traditions - they change and evolve over time as we change our values and philosiphies (sp?). Society and culture are not static, hence the reason we don't burn people at the stakes for being witches, nor do we legally segregate people of different color. In the evolution of our culture, this is the next step. Will it lead to legalized pedophilia and beastiality? No - those are something different all together. Will pedophilia become legal one day (as homosexuality did many years ago)? I sure hope not. It is a repugnant practice undertaken by seriously ill people - same goes for those that have sex with animals. Those are perversions - homosexuality is not (because as I said before, it is a natural human experience as seen across a wide variety of cultures and time).

As for polygamy. Well, I think that there are two types - polygamsists who enter into it as mature, fully functioning adults. Or polygamists who prey on children in cultish communities. The first is fine by me. The second is morally reprehesible. Again, it is an issue of consent - are the people involved legally adult? If so, then why not as long as the practice does not do harm to society.

I do not believe that legalizing gay marriage will lead to the downfall of society (that is pretty much a given at this point). Gay marriage is simply just the next step in our evolution as more compassionate and understanding people. Allowing gay people to marry, or adopt will not destroy the family as we know it. It will simply create different, and more, types of families. Let's be honest - the nuclear family is a modern myth. With 50% divorce rates in this country and the U.S., there are more people living in mixed families and single parent families then there are living in nuclear families. Gay marriage has not led to the breakdown of marriage and the family, the pressures of the modern world have done that. Gay marriage is not the cause of anything - it is the result of the evolution of the modern world.

I also want to apologize for painting conservatives with a very broad stroke. That is unfair of me, especially since I hate being painted as a liberal. These titles we throw around are boxes that do not allow us to speak as full people and limit others to think of us narrowly.

 
At 11:34 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Peter Dodson you seem to think that since SSM doesn't directly affect an individual hetero.....that you have some kind of a trump card in this debate.

Think a little deeper, if you're rationale holds true.....then we should never have done anything about the Holocaust. I could get going with more examples, although just one is enough to get the point across to anyone not blinded, by the virtues of SSM....(and what are they?)

Just because something does not affect you personally and in the flesh....it does not mean its okay.

So, wise up.....and present a sensible and critically reasoned argument.

 
At 12:15 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

Comparing same sex marriage to the Holocaust? You are a sick individual. The Holocaust affected everyone because it destroyed human life, as well as much of the pride of the human race. Same sex marriage does neither of those things.

Maybe you need to think a little deeper - your comparison is odious and reaks of hatred.

 
At 12:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually you're the sick one, Peter. You've spent plenty of time on this thread preaching the 'unnatural' to us. Invoking the 'hate card' is another sick trait. Despite tolerating gays for a bevy of rights, having the buck stop on SSM marriage becomes construed to hate.....go figure, on WHO is really full of hate.

This is not about hate, you fool.

My point on the holocaust was totally lost on you....as expected.

Now go explore your sexuality.

 
At 2:16 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

How am I full of hate? And what exactly is meant by your comparison to the Holocaust? I assumed that you meant that non-Jewish people, namely Germans and Eastern Europeans, in Europe in the 40's said, well, this killing doesn't affect us so we will be quiet about it. But the comparison is odious because you are comparing the whole sale slaughter of Jews to rights concernign marriage. Maybe I am not getting it - can you please explain further?

"Despite tolerating gays for a bevy of rights, having the buck stop on SSM marriage becomes construed to hate.....go figure, on WHO is really full of hate."

Tolerating? You tolerate the equal treatment of people? Wow, how big of you. I am sure the same argument was made in the South in the 50's - we can tolerate blacks having equal rights, but no way they will be able to marry white people. I'm sorry, but I have a hard time why people are so opposed to ssm other than the fact that they find homosexuality immoral or unnatural. This is a very ethno-centric view of homosexuality and is bigoted. The facts are out there - go and find them.

As for the comment about my sexuality, I think it's funny that whenever people defend the right of homosexuals to marry it is assumed that you are gay. I am not. I am a heterosexual, something I did not pick - I was simply made this way. But I do believe in equality and do not believe that homosexuals are deviant or that allowing them to marry will bring the destruction of society. Materialism, Hollywood worship, our dependence on oil and the 6 day work week have alreayd taken care of that.

 
At 8:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Facts Peter?

Facts prove that Gays die young due to lifestyle.

Facts also prove that Gays are promiscious.

More facts prove that Gay relationships are 3 times more likely to be violent.

There are more....

Now go and support such as it....an unhealthy and deadly lifestyle.

Tell me Peter, do you also hypocritically support anti tobacco measures?

If the liberal shoe fits.........

Oh!...and what are your facts?

 
At 8:53 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

First off, where do you get these facts? And please don't cite some right wing fundamentalist preacher. You seem to be quoting stereotypes more than facts.

I actually know many gay people, ranging in age from mid 20's to late 60's. These are all upstanding people who have families, strong values and are not the disease ridden, "loose" people that you assume gay people are. Do you actually know any gay people? Or are you basing your assumptions simply on reading right wing websites opposed to gay marriage?

 
At 8:54 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

And again, what was your point about the holocaust - my tiny liberal brain can't seem to follow your brilliant analogy.

 
At 9:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Peter you are nothing short of combative, with a real nasty streak towards anyone that feels the gay agenda has over-reached itself.

My facts have nothing to due with your tiny and convenient assumptions. I know and have known plenty of gays....not all are activist in nature.

I'll give you one simple and undisputable fact. Have one of your gay friends apply for some life insurance. A "lifestyle rating" will add a substantial amount of dollars to his premium costs. As it would with someone admitting pot use, or say cigarette consumption.

Peter try containg your irrationality. Preacher's don't run insurance company's.

Furhtermnore, I have had enough of your liberally immature insults. You've proven yourself....and done nothing to rationally explain SSM either.

When you do....we'll have something to debate.

 
At 10:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I'm sorry, but I have a hard time why people are so opposed to ssm other than the fact that they find homosexuality immoral or unnatural".

Why is it that its OK for you to spout off your ssm b.s. but its somehow bigotted etc. for me to oppose it.

Again, I don't oppose ssm because homosexuality is immoral or unnatural(which I think it is, by the way) but I oppose it because the term "marriage" applies to the union between a MAN and a WOMAN. Go get your own "term"

"Our culture has been taught for a long time that being gay is wrong, but today we know better - it is a natural part of the human experience"

That is total CRAP. It is NOT a natural part of the human experience unless you are refering to gays only. And, BTW, MOST people,while tolerating homosexuality don't agree that it is natural, no matter what you say animals do.



Horny Toad

 
At 10:43 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

Well Anomymous, if that is your real name, if I'm combative it is because I am tired of hearing the same old stuff from those that oppose ssm. I have yet to hear a rational, fact based argument against it. All we get is "that term's taken," "gay marriage will destroy society" etc, etc... But we can agree to disagree. All I can say is thank goodness for the Supreme Court and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

And btw - gay agenda? Come on. If there is an agenda, it is to be treated as equals - what is so wrong with that? Why does it have to made out that they want to take over the world or something.

As for Mr. Toad's Wild Ride, that's fine if you do not believe it is natural. There is plenty of biological and anthropological evidence (read - science) to prove me right. And when I say that homosexuality is part of the natural human experience, I mean in it's totality (this means that there has always been homosexuals in society, not that everyone has always been gay).

 
At 11:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Peter....I'm also tired of your crap. Citing the "Charter" and the liberally appointed Supreme Court, simply gives you a skirt to hide behind.

Just stay on your side of the fence. Be a good neighbour.

Anonymous

 
At 12:13 AM, Blogger Dodos said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 12:18 AM, Blogger Dodos said...

I am a good neighbour. My neighbours love me. I am courteous, quiet, and do not intrude on their personal space.

And no, I am not hiding behind the Charter - I am citing is as a document which protects the rights of minorities, which is exactly what this debate is about.

 
At 12:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Evil.

Promiscuity.... has lead to a spreading of disease, which factually has lead to a much shorter lifestyle for its participants.

You can argue yourself silly over the rights of a sexual preference, and choose to heighten it to a political lobby.

Homosexuality is a sexual preference, and only normal for gays.

The holocaust is a perfect example of evil in action. As the multitudes of innocent's were being slaughtered, the citizens of Germany looked the other way....while others condoned it, as it did not affect them personally.

You ought to try rationally exlaining the wide held liberal theory, that marriage is a 'human right'. How is this so? Seems more like a privilege to me.

Another faulty liberal theory happens to buy-into some kind of "southern-state" or "red-neck" analogy....when describing opponents to your cause. I do suppose this is counter balanced by those on the 'right', that may simply prefer to describe gays as Soddomites, bum-buddies and whatnot.

The real truth: Opponents to this cause may well live next-door to you.

Perhaps you can explain the purpose of perputual insult, since you share this trait with some of those, on my side of the political spectrum.

Both you and Peter Dodson have failed at a carrying on a crtically reasoned debate, and when confronted with that....you resort to insult and by-pass opportunity for a true exhange of thought. The both of you don't make for good neighbours, as you've chosen to vacate your liberal blogs (see Peter's blog site.....NOT ONE COMMENT in there). You rudely barge in here under the pretext of debate, because there is none amongst liberals.

Furthermore there is valid research on the 'gay lifestyle'....if you want a better informed opinion, you can seek it out on a computer, any time you choose.....although its easier to ignorantly discount them.

You offer more proof of brain-myopia if you can't remove your 'blinkers'. Do yourself a favour and learn more, instead of being a simple minded populist, that brilliantly chooses to enter a conservative blog in order to disrupt and agitate and insult.

You are difficult to respect.

 
At 1:25 PM, Blogger The Evil Left-Winger said...

My exchanges between Michael and many other conservatives over this and many other issues have been very pleasant and contructive, it's you that's the problem.

Promiscuity is hardly grounds for excluding people from an institution. If you want to argue that homosexuality is "dangerous" and homosexuals are "promiscuous" you're going to need to tie that into the actual civil marriage debate somehow. I assume that you think excluding them from civil marriage and making them just a little less equal is somehow going to make that promiscuity go away, right?

Homosexuals have never been fully embraced by society, so to say that they are promiscuous and lead dangerous lifestyles, while having some statstical backing as a sweeping stererotype is still a conclusion drawn on a group that hasn't been accepted. Shunning the gay community has not led to an end in their "promiscuity" and "dangerous lifestyles" and continuing to do so will not either. Try embracing it.

Homosexuality is a sexual preference, and only normal for gays.

Blogging is a hobby preference, and only normal for bloggers. What's your point?

"Normal" is moot. We're all very abnormal in one way or another. Sexuality is not a choice, that's hardly a debateable issue.

The holocaust is a perfect example of evil in action. As the multitudes of innocent's were being slaughtered, the citizens of Germany looked the other way....while others condoned it, as it did not affect them personally.

Right, that's why the Allied forces attacked Nazi Germany.

To extend your logic - I am condoning same-sex marriage because it does not affect me personally. Wait...same-sex marriage does not affect me personally? How strange...how can you claim that SSM does not affect me personally, yet somehow affects you and many others personally? If it doesn't affect you personally, exactly how do you justify opposing it?

You ought to try rationally exlaining the wide held liberal theory, that marriage is a 'human right'. How is this so? Seems more like a privilege to me.

It actually pisses me off when Layton uses the term "human right." You're right, it is a priviledge. But, because we do not have two classes of citizens in Canada, we extend priviledges and benefits to all members of society. That's also in the Charter, though it can be found firstly in the laws of common sense.

Another faulty liberal theory happens to buy-into some kind of "southern-state" or "red-neck" analogy....when describing opponents to your cause. I do suppose this is counter balanced by those on the 'right', that may simply prefer to describe gays as Soddomites, bum-buddies and whatnot.

You sounded like a redneck when you went off about the dangers of homosexuality and how unnatural it is. Like I said, that is an intolerant opinion that most Canadians will oppose, even some that oppose SSM will not agree with your reasonings for doing so.

The real truth: Opponents to this cause may well live next-door to you.

Perhaps you can explain the purpose of perputual insult, since you share this trait with some of those, on my side of the political spectrum.


I have a pretty good idea of who opposes SSM in terms of my real-life contacts. Yes, I get along with them fine. If the issue came up I would debate my side of it just as passionately as I am here, minus whatever "insults" I've made unless they start insulting me.

Both you and Peter Dodson have failed at a carrying on a crtically reasoned debate, and when confronted with that....you resort to insult and by-pass opportunity for a true exhange of thought. The both of you don't make for good neighbours, as you've chosen to vacate your liberal blogs (see Peter's blog site.....NOT ONE COMMENT in there). You rudely barge in here under the pretext of debate, because there is none amongst liberals.

When arguments have been raised (and for a debate with so much mud slinging there has actually been quite a lot of good discussion) they're been pretty constructive and critical.

Erm, am I wrong in assuming that you're supposed to debate on blogs? "Vacating my liberal blog"...obviously the conservatives that haven't commented on Peter's blog are good little boys that mind their own blog, eh?

Furthermore there is valid research on the 'gay lifestyle'....if you want a better informed opinion, you can seek it out on a computer, any time you choose.....although its easier to ignorantly discount them.

Let me ask you this, then. If you believe the homosexual lifestyle is dangerous and promiscuous and detrimental to society, blah blah, why do you support rights for gays at all? Why do you merely oppose civil marriage? If I were on the outside looking in, one of those "civil unions" would still seem fairly normalizing. Not quite as much so as civil marriage itself, but definitely very good treatment for a dangerous and promiscuous lifestyle.

As far as the actual studies on the dangers of homosexuality -- I have seen those. Again, consider the social context. Homosexuality is just now starting to become acceptable, during the time these studies would have been done it was still more or less a shunned minority.

You offer more proof of brain-myopia if you can't remove your 'blinkers'. Do yourself a favour and learn more, instead of being a simple minded populist, that brilliantly chooses to enter a conservative blog in order to disrupt and agitate and insult.

So, blogs aren't meant for debate?

You are difficult to respect.

That's touching.

 
At 3:12 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

"Promiscuity.... has lead to a spreading of disease, which factually has lead to a much shorter lifestyle for its participants."

You are right. And there are plenty of promiscious heteros in the world. Should we take their right to marry away?

"You can argue yourself silly over the rights of a sexual preference, and choose to heighten it to a political lobby."

This is about equality, regardless of sexual preference. People turn issues into political lobbies when they feel that they are not being treated fairly, whether it was Aboriginal peoples in the 60's, or farmers today.

"Homosexuality is a sexual preference, and only normal for gays."

Two points - by saying that it is a preference, you are implying that there is a choice involved. I do not believe that homosexuals choose to be gay anymore than I chose to be straight. Secondly, homosexuality is normal for society because gays are apart of our society.

"The holocaust is a perfect example of evil in action. As the multitudes of innocent's were being slaughtered, the citizens of Germany looked the other way....while others condoned it, as it did not affect them personally."

I agree with everything you say here, but I still don't understand what this has to do with same sex marriage.

"You ought to try rationally exlaining the wide held liberal theory, that marriage is a 'human right'. How is this so? Seems more like a privilege to me."

I think the evil left winger replied to this perfectly so I will say nothing.

"Perhaps you can explain the purpose of perputual insult, since you share this trait with some of those, on my side of the political spectrum."

How have I insulted you?

"Both you and Peter Dodson have failed at a carrying on a crtically reasoned debate, and when confronted with that....you resort to insult and by-pass opportunity for a true exhange of thought. "

I have tried to engage you, but you ignore most of my points, fail to expand on your own points when asked, and then cry about how I insulted you. If you are engaged in a reasoned debate, I would hate to see a unreasonable one.

"The both of you don't make for good neighbours, as you've chosen to vacate your liberal blogs (see Peter's blog site.....NOT ONE COMMENT in there). You rudely barge in here under the pretext of debate, because there is none amongst liberals. "

There are too comments on my site :) Actually, I could care less. I write for myself, not for others. And there is debate amongst liberals, I am part of an activist website that has plenty of debate. The thing is that rarely do conservatives leave their places of comfort and come to our blogs - we have to come over to your blogs to have any sort of debate with you.

"You offer more proof of brain-myopia if you can't remove your 'blinkers'. Do yourself a favour and learn more, instead of being a simple minded populist, that brilliantly chooses to enter a conservative blog in order to disrupt and agitate and insult."

Hey, your pretty good at the insults as well. Wait, what was your point again?

"You are difficult to respect."

Respect is overrated.

 
At 4:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Both Evil and Peter.

Does our Nanny-State pay you to stay home and pontificate?

Let's just your entrails of literary gab in this forum are going nowhere.

You go ahead and continue embracing homosexuality. A very large portion of society believes they have done so, up to this point....and some of us want to get off the bus.

The reason is clear....gays do not need SSM for equality.

And why do you mark hetero's as the trend-setters of equality, and aspire to its levels? One example is your quest for SSM. Another example is in the deportment of gay relationships, in which one person takes on a masculine role, and another a feminine. There is nothing unique about gay relationships, except it lacking a male and a female.

This is a quandry.

Why this parody of what we conservatives refer to as "normal"?....Or is there something about majorities, that's tied to the elusive definition of 'normal'? Even your liberal thinking can't escape the trappings of the logic, that you deplore in us.

You really want to be like us, which you reject....and in the same hyocritical breath you don't think that a conservative can be anything like you.

Am I still a problem Evil? And yes the gay lifestyle is unhealthy and costly to medicare.....just like cigarettes that you likely oppose. How can one be supported over the other?

Furhtermore, the equal rights won by gays to this point are fair and just....as I hope it reflects the justness and compassion of humanity. Civil unions would continue thought that train of thought.

SSM is another leap and truly exclusive territory, as might being gay to a hetero.

Now....I really do have a life.

Later.

 
At 4:12 PM, Blogger Michael said...

We were doing well here with 38 comments until the lib started swearing. I’ll tolerate views I believe are completely wrong on this blog, but please no swearing.

Peter, there are a few things I want to point out about your views. Number one is your view that not extending marriage rights to same-sex couples amounts to discrimination. This is not a human rights issue. Even Americans that fought segregation are disgusted listening to gay rights advocates paint it that way. This is not an issue of discrimination. This is an issue of the government’s right to promote the ideal. An opposite sex relationship is the ideal for having children and raising children. Governments have every right to promote this ideal with special benefits, while precluding marriage benefits to everyone else including us single people. If you want to engage in an alternative relationship or forgo relationships altogether as I have done, this is fine. But when you do this you forfeit the benefits of marriage.

On the subject of the promiscuous gay lifestyle, this is a fact. 40% of all people in Canada infected with HIV/AIDS are gay men. Gay men account for less than 10% of the population. The numbers do not lie. If you want to hear more about the mainstream gay lifestyle you don’t need to listen to any right-wing groups. Listen to John Mckellar. John is a Toronto area gay man, founder and national director of HOPE. HOPE is Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism. He writes very truthful and telling articles about the mainstream gay community from the inside. John is also more like the gay people you mention. He is committed, forthright and honest.

I want to close on the subject of marriage being a right. Marriage is not a right. In doing research for my articles, I have talked with church leaders. One Baptist minister said something that fascinated me. While explaining that marriage is not a right he pointed out that marriage is not even a right for opposite sex couples. He mentioned many times where a young couple would want to get married and he would recommend counseling. After the counseling sessions there were times when church officials simply refuse to marry people for many reasons. Marriage is more than just a relationship of convenience. Marriage is an institution, created by God, defined by God and if you don’t believe in God if would be difficult for you to understand it.

Again, governments have adopted civil marriage, because this God inspired institution has served civilization extremely well for 6,000 years. Some Conservatives like me would go so far as to call family the cornerstone of society. However, just because governments have seen the worth of this Godly institution to the point they have adopted it; it does not give them the right to redefine it to serve their purpose.

 
At 4:41 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

"Does our Nanny-State pay you to stay home and pontificate?"

No, I actually have three jobs, including a home business that I run with a friend of mine. I certainly don't work 9-5 if that is what you're asking.

"Number one is your view that not extending marriage rights to same-sex couples amounts to discrimination. This is not a human rights issue."

Well, some gay people would argue that it is. I am more concerned with how those being discriminated against feel about it. Marriage is a social institution, one which is held up as the ultimate union between people who love one another. Same sex couples are discrminated against because they can not enter that union. I really don't care whether it is a human rights issue or not, it is still discrminatory to not allow them to participate (as many courts throughout this land have stated).

"An opposite sex relationship is the ideal for having children and raising children"

But that is not the only reason for people of the opposite sex to enter into relationships. Not everyone gets married to have children. And what about gay couples who adopt? Do they then get to enter into marriage?

"On the subject of the promiscuous gay lifestyle, this is a fact. 40% of all people in Canada infected with HIV/AIDS are gay men. Gay men account for less than 10% of the population. "

There is no doubt that AIDS rates amongst homosexuals are higher than in other groups. I do not believe, however, that this precludes them from being able to engage in marriage, nor does this fact mean that homosexuals are depraved people. It is simply how history has progressed and it is a great tragedy that many gay people are fighting against. I really just wish that when it came to ssm, we did not have to debate the morality issue.

"Marriage is more than just a relationship of convenience. Marriage is an institution, created by God, defined by God and if you don’t believe in God if would be difficult for you to understand it."

This is what I have trouble with - I do not believe in God. Nor do many Canadians. Marriage is both a social and a religious institution. Marriage has evolved from a religious institution to what it is today. As I have stated before, marriage has evolved drastically over 6,000 years and this is, in my opinion, simply the next step.

"However, just because governments have seen the worth of this Godly institution to the point they have adopted it; it does not give them the right to redefine it to serve their purpose."

Again, marriage is not just a religious institution, but also a social one. Marriage is the ultimate union in our society between two people who love each other. It is only fair that all peoples, regardless of sex, get to participate. And I do not believe this is people re-defining anything - they simply want to participate. As I have said before, just because marriage has always meant a man and a woman, it does not mean that it always has too.

 
At 1:06 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is what I have trouble with - I do not believe in God. "Nor do many Canadians."

Perhaps you would like to justify this outrageous(and wrong BTW) statement with some facts.

Horny Toad

 
At 9:53 AM, Blogger Mikey said...

Here's my quick two cents on all of this.

Remember Feminisim....what did they want again?....I'm havin trouble here....

OH YEAH!!!

They wanted certain terms changed and certain inequaities rectified so they could feel respected.

Honestly, and after reading this and making my own blog a while ago, that's all the homosexuals want.

Respect.

They're not asking for equal pay, they're not asking to be able to vote, they just want to get married.

With shows like the Bachelor and 'who wants to marry a millionaire wifebeater', what's wrong with granting a civil marriage to gays?

Notice the word 'civil'. Who cares if the Church doesn't want to marry them, they're a bunch of hypocrites anyways. ('God loves everyone...but sorry homo....you're going to hell)

Hell, the anglicans are looking into marrying them.

Honestly, if you don't want gay marriages to pass, you don't have gay friends or seem to take some perverse happiness in knowing that you're denining happiness to a sect of people in our society.

THEY DON'T CONVERSE WITH YOU, THEY DON'T PUSH HOMOSEXUALITY ON YOU, THEY JUST WANT TO GET MARRIED.

Pretty simple.

Let it go....let the hate go....it's not going to screw with society, if anything, it'll promote awareness. Maybe people will start to think "Wow, after getting over the fact that Lance is gay, he's a pretty cool guy....I mean...it's like he's straight, but not!!"

What's the big deal? That the term is already used?

So what....that's why we have AMENDMENTS!!

So now what to do we gotta to get past....the term's already used...so we admend it....we give em civil marriages so it doesn't get the bishop's panties in a knot (oh, the pun is just too good to say not intended). If they want kids, I'm sure they'd make sure the children (if they were old enough to understand) would want to be entered into a same sex family, (I hope that association didn't make people cringe....I wanna say it again lol SAME SEX FAMILY!!!) and not just throw them there.

Will little Johnny get picked on at school because he's got two daddy's or two mommies? Only by the kids who have ignorant and bigot parents. By allowing same sex marriages, it will also allow for us to step back and say "whoa, these people aren't so bad" just like what happened with black people.

Let's face it....can I be the first to say it here.....HOMOSEXUALITY IS THE NEW FORM OF BIGOTRY IN OUR SOCIETY.

People cannot say they don't want same sex marriages and still say they have nothing against a gay person. That's a joke.

Just face it ssm opposers, you're bigots.

That's right, I said it. I'm not hiding behind anything but my personal belief that if two people cannot get married because of their same sex, then there's something seriously wrong with us.

Denying happiness is what we're doing. Way to go bigots!

 
At 9:54 AM, Blogger Dodos said...

I'm not sure why it is outrageous. I did not say a majority, I simply said many Canadians. Canada is a pluralistic society - we have Sikhs, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics, Christians, Animists etc... Heck, in the last census, something like 20,000 Canadians put down that their religion was Jedi. In that same census, 2001, nearly 4.5 million Canadians, or 16.2% of the population, said that they had no religion. That is a lot of people (again, I did not say majority, I simply said many). If you want to check out the stats, go here:

http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/products/highlight/Religion/Page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo=PR&View=1a&Code=01&Table=1&StartRec=1&Sort=2&B1=Canada&B2=1

This is why I have trouble with basing the marriage argument on religion, because first off, we have seperation of church and state in this country, and second, we have a plethora of beliefs in terms of spirituality. That is why there are both civil marriages and religious one's. And this is why the ssm legislation has a clause in it saying that religious institutions will not be forced to marry same sex couples.

 
At 12:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mikey....look up the word 'bigot'.

It's just another word that's been twisted by you evolving Marxist's. Oh contraire Mikey, I believe by your action and words....that it is you that subsist's on hate, to feed your elite and condescending liberal ego.

Revisionist's are U, since history and logic, does not side with your cause.

 
At 1:46 PM, Blogger Mikey said...

Bigot - One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Ah damn....you got me there....dictionary.com hasn't updated their definition of bigotry to include sex as well.

As for my 'elitist' attitude, you're way off the mark.

People....living....together....in...happiness....

Sounds John Lennonish doesn't it?!

Revisionist AND Revoluntionist I am, becuase you're right...history doesn't agree with me on this one. But LOGIC?!

Two people want to marry because they're in love, almost sounds like a normal marriage!!!

But they're gay...wait....stop the train...this can't happen!! Why not??

Because they're gay??

People cannot marry because they are gay.....sounds pretty prejudice to me.

Get off your high horse and identify yourself....calling us names like that, you can't even be bold enough to let your name out.

But you're bold enough to say SSM is wrong.....who's the hypocrite now?

 
At 3:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mikey.

Despite John Lennon's legacy, he was a Marxist, like you. And since when was John Lennon regular folk anyhow? His millions of dollars must not qualify? Wealth and elite go hand in hand, Mikey. I guess your just a poor NDP'er instead.

Yes I did get you the definiton of 'bigot'. You do know what means don't. Time for you folks to lobby Colliers, Websters and the rest of them. How did that get by you?

In addition, your skewed defintion of bigotry bites you right back in the face, as exemplified by your absolute intolerance of conservatives....which is further witnessed by your childish insults.

I was once a liberal Mikey, then I grew up.

Logic?....Yes logic, straight and untwisted. Hoist your perversions elsewhere.

History Mikey?....I trust far more in history, than the rants of the immature in our society.

Telling us that your are Mikey, does not exactly bring you to face with anyone. I sure don't see an address or phone number. So, you want a name?.....how about Frank, since I am. Or perhaps Attila, since you see me as barbaric. Or might you prefer Billy-Bob?....rather fitting of a 'red-neck', dontcha think?

As for calling you names....have a look at the other intelligent liberal posts, including your bigotted diatribes.

I called you "a condescending liberal"....do you need a band-aid for that?

 
At 3:54 PM, Blogger Michael said...

Mikey: you are wrong about two things.

"They're not asking for equal pay, they're not asking to be able to vote, they just want to get married."

In your effort to simply the debate you complete deny what this fight is really about. This is a fight for benefits, make no mistake. If homosexuals wanted to exchange vows, wear each other's weding rings and call their lovers hubby, they could do that now. What the gay rights advocates are fighting for is material. Health and dental benefits from employers, transfer of estate without probate, tax deductions and many other material things. This is not simply, a case of "we want to get married and be accepted". The fact remains that homosexual couples do not do anything more for society than single people and they do not deserve those material benefits while single people are precluded. If homosexuals deserve those material benefits, then single people should be allowed to make all the same claims and just name a friend, co-worker, or someone else they care about.

You are also dead wrong when you say, "THEY DON'T CONVERSE WITH YOU, THEY DON'T PUSH HOMOSEXUALITY ON YOU, THEY JUST WANT TO GET MARRIED."

What is a gay pride parade if not the most obvious, flamboyant, in your face way of pushing homosexuality on people. Homosexuals don't just want to have a loving relationship in the privacy of their own bedrooms, they want to rub our noses in it. I can understand your desire to portray the gay community in the most respectful of terms, but you can't say things like that when the truth is so plainly the opposite.

 
At 3:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mikey, I should have proof-read my last post...hope you can make it out okay.

I guess mistakes happen you rush things.

Like our Gov't feverishly working overtime this summer to pass SSM, and save our country ASAP....from its history.

Frank, Attila & Billy-Bob

 
At 4:27 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

"What the gay rights advocates are fighting for is material. Health and dental benefits from employers, transfer of estate without probate, tax deductions and many other material things. This is not simply, a case of "we want to get married and be accepted"."

You are right here Michael. They do want those things, as well as wanting to be able to take part in the most loving of institutions - marriage. What you are wrong about is that this fight is just for those material things. I have said this a million times. Marriage is upheld in our society as the ultimate union of two people. Same sex couples want to be part of that institution because by not being able to, society is telling them that their relationships are not as important or valued.

"The fact remains that homosexual couples do not do anything more for society than single people and they do not deserve those material benefits while single people are precluded."

I'm still not sure what you mean by this. Gay couples do nothing for society? I am assuming that you are referring to the ability to have children. Well, people have a lot more to provide the world than simply having children (there are 6 billion of us living an unsustainable existence on this planet, especially in the west). You yourself stated earlier that you played a hand in raising a child - you as a single person, in your own definition, did something for society. Gay couples also raise children. And again, I ask, do straight people who have no children become exempted from marriage because they "do nothing" for society?

"What is a gay pride parade if not the most obvious, flamboyant, in your face way of pushing homosexuality on people. Homosexuals don't just want to have a loving relationship in the privacy of their own bedrooms, they want to rub our noses in it."

Yes those parades are flamboyant, but what is wrong with that? The great thing about humanity is the diversity in our experience. Homosexuals have been a marginalized group in our society for a long, long time. What you are seeing is a group of people telling the rest of the world that they are no longer ashamed, but in fact proud of who they are. I agree, these parades are not for children, but neither is the majority of shows on TV. If you find them offensive, great don't go to them. I find it offensive when religious people come to my door and try and convert me, or when Jim Pankiw sends offensive literature thru his House of Commons budget to my home. But I tolerate it because that is what we as a diverse group of people must do - tolerate and respect each other.

 
At 4:31 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

I was just thinking more about your comment about gay couples "doing nothing" for society. In today's world, parents spend so much time working and raising their kids, they have little time to worry about the bigger issues in life. I have no children, but am in a common law relationship. I have the time to volunteer in my community and think about the issues that face the world. Again, I think your idea of what people do for society is very, very limiting. If a married gay couple works together and finds a cure for cancer, are they "doing nothing" for society?

 
At 5:53 PM, Blogger Mikey said...

"your absolute intolerance of conservatives..."

Naw, you got that wrong. I play conservative poker, but I digress.

Because I believe in SSM, it makes me intolerant to conservatism?

Childish remarks?

Ok, first off, Michael......way off the mark!

'The fact remains that homosexual couples do not do anything more for society than single people and they do not deserve those material benefits while single people are precluded.'

Woah...woah...WOAH!!!

You make it sound like homosexuals are actually straight before they make this decision...as if they thing to themselves "My wife left me....what am I going to do without my benefits! WAIT! If I parade as a gay person and push for SSM, I can get those back!"

Honestly, you're making it sound like homosexuals are some seperate beings.

Because they are gay, they can't entitle themselves to some of the married rights other people are if they're married?

Before I say bigot again, let me explain something to Frank 'Attila'. It's only a matter of time before Websters or whoever else will pick up on the fact that bigotry includes sexuality. You'd be blind not to think that.

I haven't heard a straight ( pun WELL intended) answer from any of the opposers yet....what will SSM passing do to you?

Simple. Nothing, you will go on living your lives, but DAMMIT you'll have to deal with those men holding hands in the street! (quite popular and respectful in other countries I hear)

What will SSM passing do to our society?

Again, nothing. We'll learn to accept it, just like society eventually accepted black people into schools, and women to vote and work.

To me, it just seems way tooo simple. And for us to be arguing over this fact is a joke!

Two people want to marry, but because we were taught first from the bible that sodomizing was evil, we thought gay people were evil.

Then those gay people contracted AIDS. That MADE them more evil!!

Some were taught early in their lives that homosexuality was not 'normal'. That it wasn't 'right'.

Well, I was taught that everyone is equal under the sun. (orginally it was equal under God, but then I found out that He likes to be a little trig when it comes to that subject of homosexuality)


Don't you think we're being a little hard headed on the subject?

I mean it's two people wanting to be married.

Does being Gay make you less than a person? Does being Gay mean you can't be entitled to certain things?

Why is that?

Why do we put certain restrictions on these things?

You can't honestly come and tell me that is because of the sanctity of marriage. You can't tell me that it's because of the 'tradition' of marriage.

Since when was it traditional to get married in a drive thru chapel? and for 20 bucks to boot!

Since when was it traditional to get married through a selection of 15 other people? and the person choosing was a wifebeater, but he's a millionaire and the word 'millionaire' sounded good on television at the time?

Explain those things to me and then come back and tell me that two gay people can't be married because of these 'traditional' you guys rant about.

As for me being a condescending liberal?

I got tough skin pal. Try again.

Peter's right too. The Pride parade wouldn't be needed if the fact that people hold signs saying "God Hates Fags", and some people beat the living crap out of other people because they're gay.

Wait a minute.....Don't they have the Million Man March too? How come that doesn't bother you? I mean, it's the same thing. Except instead of a sexuality saying "I'm gay and proud", it a black man saying "I'm black and free".

Were gays enslaved? (because I KNOW someone will say "well, Mikey the black people were enslaved and beaten and killed"

Take out the enslaved part and you have the reason why the Gay Pride Parade goes on.

I'll say it again, probably not for the last time either, it's a simple matter if you take your prejudices out of it.

Gays are people too. All they want is to be married. Not too difficult, but then, I've been deemed immature.

Whatever....you guys go on saying how bad it would be....you don't know how wrong you are, and so blind.

I want each of the opposers to say they're ok with gay people, that they don't hate gay people. I bet all of you could. Because words mean nothing.

But, how in the hell can you say on the other side of things that they can't get married because of the fact that they are gay?

Isn't that hypocritical?

 
At 7:46 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mikey....stop asking "why this and why that".....you've been given a good number of reasons why SSM has its detractors. It's also childish to keep asking the same re-phrased question, over and over again.

It's SSM that's hypocritical as it seek's are a redefinition of marriage in order to gain a status-quo....and furthering the hypocrisy by attemtping to live a parody of a heterosexual couple.

Could it be that you've gone very far down the trail....and now you're lost?

And truly Mikey, take off the "bigot" blinkers, it only serves to provide yourself with a self-bestowed sense of high-ground.

Civil unions, yes.

SSM, no.

FrankAttilaBilly-Bob.

 
At 8:02 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

For those who ask "how does homo's getting married affect straights who are married let me turn that around.

For example, the bums in the park want to be refered to as MP and be addressed a "honorable member". That wouldn't hurt the real MP's, now would it? And while were at it perhaps they could be paid like MP's as well.
Or perhaps all garbage collectors can be MDs and referred to as doctors. Real doctors shouldn't be bothered by that because,after all, it doesn't hurt them.
Or how about convicted fellons being refered to as Joe Blow QC, I mean how does that hurt lawyers?

I'm sure there are some teachers on here. How about we refer to ditch diggers as "teachers". I mean, teachers should'nt be too concerned about that should thy?

Horny Toad

 
At 9:34 PM, Blogger Michael said...

Wow Horny Toad, I have never heard that analogy before but it is absolutely correct.

I would just like to point out Peter that you seem to have very selective reading abilities. Every time I say, "Homosexual couples do not offer anything to society that single people cannot offer," you seem to read, "gays offer nothing at all to society." And then you go on to add that I have a very narrow view of homosexuals. Then you go on to list things that gay people might do like raise children or give to charity. You baffle me.

Single people raise children and single people give to charity. Single people vote. Single people pay taxes. I reiterate, there is nothing a gay couple can offer to society that a single person can not offer.

Your logic is amazing. On the one hand you say that homosexuals should be allowed to marry and receive material benefits for their trouble and on the other you make homosexuals who are party to a gay union out to be something better than any one individual. Thereby saying that single people should be denied material benefits.

Let me phrase the question this way, since you only seem to care about gays getting their stuff and nobody else. Why should a gay man who is married deserve a tax deduction while a single gay man deserves none? What does a married gay man do for society that makes him entitled to more material benefits from government then a single gay guy?

 
At 10:12 PM, Blogger The Evil Left-Winger said...

To Michael, a couple days late:

We were doing well here with 38 comments until the lib started swearing. I’ll tolerate views I believe are completely wrong on this blog, but please no swearing.

Would that be me? If it is, I apologize.

Peter, there are a few things I want to point out about your views. Number one is your view that not extending marriage rights to same-sex couples amounts to discrimination. This is not a human rights issue. Even Americans that fought segregation are disgusted listening to gay rights advocates paint it that way. This is not an issue of discrimination. This is an issue of the government’s right to promote the ideal. An opposite sex relationship is the ideal for having children and raising children. Governments have every right to promote this ideal with special benefits, while precluding marriage benefits to everyone else including us single people. If you want to engage in an alternative relationship or forgo relationships altogether as I have done, this is fine. But when you do this you forfeit the benefits of marriage.

I know this is addressed to Peter and has probably been replied, but let me address it anyways. Segregation was just as much the government’s right to paint the ideal as is their right to paint the ideal on SSM.

You seem to be saying that homosexuality is a choice. It isn’t. On that basis, your whole “wanting to enter an alternative relationship” argument falls apart.

If you still want to claim it is, you can look to the fact that no one would choose to enter a relationship that is still being denied marriage, for one. There’re a few common sense-based reasons.

On the subject of the promiscuous gay lifestyle, this is a fact. 40% of all people in Canada infected with HIV/AIDS are gay men. Gay men account for less than 10% of the population. The numbers do not lie. If you want to hear more about the mainstream gay lifestyle you don’t need to listen to any right-wing groups. Listen to John Mckellar. John is a Toronto area gay man, founder and national director of HOPE. HOPE is Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism. He writes very truthful and telling articles about the mainstream gay community from the inside. John is also more like the gay people you mention. He is committed, forthright and honest.

I’m going to need a source on the 40 % stat.

Assuming AIDS is common in gay and bisexual people – how is that their fault? They had sex? A lot of people have a lot of sex and do not get AIDS. Did a gay pimp once upon a time have AIDS and give them out to the community?

The fact that a lot of gay people may have AIDS is not grounds for denying them access to a social institution. I trust you do not think that limiting the semantics game (as Harper has essentially conceded this is) to “civil union” will somehow make the AIDS disappear.

I want to close on the subject of marriage being a right. Marriage is not a right. In doing research for my articles, I have talked with church leaders. One Baptist minister said something that fascinated me. While explaining that marriage is not a right he pointed out that marriage is not even a right for opposite sex couples. He mentioned many times where a young couple would want to get married and he would recommend counseling. After the counseling sessions there were times when church officials simply refuse to marry people for many reasons. Marriage is more than just a relationship of convenience. Marriage is an institution, created by God, defined by God and if you don’t believe in God if would be difficult for you to understand it.

Civil marriage most certainly is a right. The government does not deny marriage licenses on the grounds that they think a couple needs counseling before getting married or something.

Marriage in our society is two things. Civil and religious/cultural. Civil marriage is merely a system of tax policies, insurance policies, inheritance politicies etc. The marrige you’re reffering to that the Baptist minister told you about is religious. That is completely irrelevant to the civil marriage debate. Churches may or may not marry any couple to anything that they choose to, that is freedom of religion (and yes, I disagree with the gay rights activists that wish to take away charitable status for Churches refusing to perform SSMs). You cannot force a Church to marry people, and Churches hold the right to refuse to marry people.

Civil marriage still needs to be extended as a government-based institution to same-sex couples since that is appropriate with relation to the social context we live in.

As far an “institution created by God” goes, if you are so religious that you see marriage in that light, then whatever happens between the government and Jim and Bob living down the road shouldn’t affect yourself, your partner (opposite sex presumably) and how your union and vows relate to God.

Again, governments have adopted civil marriage, because this God inspired institution has served civilization extremely well for 6,000 years. Some Conservatives like me would go so far as to call family the cornerstone of society. However, just because governments have seen the worth of this Godly institution to the point they have adopted it; it does not give them the right to redefine it to serve their purpose.

If you care about the family as a cornerstone of society, you would put women back in the kitchen ASAP. I am dead serious. With women working full time, houses are left empty all day and infants are sent to daycares to be raised by strangers (whether or not that can be a good thing is highly debatable and beside the point). If women were still exclusively homemaking housewives, teenagers could not come home during the day and do, say, irresponsible things. If women were still in the kitchen, as it was in traditional families, there’s a whole plethora of negative situations that would not arise.

If we had kept blacks as slaves, we wouldn’t have to worry about gangs, either. Yes, that is a sweeping stereotype and can be applied any racial group but I hope you follow my train of thought for the sake of argument.

I’ll take a little bit of equality over a little bit of order any day.

 
At 2:21 PM, Blogger Mikey said...

Frank, explain why civil 'union''s are ok but civil marriage is not to you? (And to the rest of the conservates too for that matter)

It's that your consolisation prize for them?

"Sorry guys, I mean....we don't have anything against you two being together, but just for the sake of tradition, please use the word union instead of marriage. It would keep the feathers unruffled. Thanks!"

It's a joke.

So is this statement,

"and furthering the hypocrisy by attemtping to live a parody of a heterosexual couple."

Are you saying that because they're gay, they're going to make a mockery of marriage.

I guess your views of marriage differ here, to me it's two people who want to be happy and together forever.(or until one decides for a divorce)

The fact that it could be two males or females does not bother me none because of the fact that they're not trying to get married for a publicity stunt, they don't want to be married to be part of the status-quo, they don't just want to be married for the benefits.

It's because as a society, we've put marriage on the highest pedastel of love. People 'love' each other so deeply, that they decide to marry. It's the way things go. It's the natural progression of a relationship. You get together, you fall in love, you get married.

Now, because two people are gay, we deny them that last step. They want to reach the home stretch there and denying that last step because of their sexuality does not make any sense to me.

It almost sounds like we're disgusted by the fact that two males or females could love each other so much that they could even fathom marriage.

But it's all in the natural flow of our society and to put them on the outside is what we're doing when we can't allow them to enjoy marriage.

I mean all they are doing is going down to city hall or wherever governemnt building they need to and just have the regular schpeel said to them before they say "I pronounce you man and man". It's not a big affair, maybe afterwards in a private hall or something, but it's not like it's a big affair.

Remember the first couple that got married? The only reason there was a crowd was because it was all press people.

All I gotta say is let them be. Marriage in our society is a joke anyways. You can't tell me it isn't with the divorce rates and the shows on TV.

 
At 5:01 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

"I would just like to point out Peter that you seem to have very selective reading abilities. Every time I say, "Homosexual couples do not offer anything to society that single people cannot offer," you seem to read, "gays offer nothing at all to society.""

My confusion lay in the analogy. When you say that homosexual couples do not offer anything to society that single people cannot offer, you are implying that both these groups cannot offer something that straight couples can. But they can.

"Single people raise children and single people give to charity. Single people vote. Single people pay taxes. I reiterate, there is nothing a gay couple can offer to society that a single person can not offer."

So what? What is the point? By your logic then straight couples offer nothing more than single people.

"Your logic is amazing. On the one hand you say that homosexuals should be allowed to marry and receive material benefits for their trouble and on the other you make homosexuals who are party to a gay union out to be something better than any one individual. Thereby saying that single people should be denied material benefits."

Can you refer me to where I say this because honestly, I can't see it.

"Let me phrase the question this way, since you only seem to care about gays getting their stuff and nobody else."

Really? Again, where did I say that?

"Why should a gay man who is married deserve a tax deduction while a single gay man deserves none? What does a married gay man do for society that makes him entitled to more material benefits from government then a single gay guy?"

What does an opposite sex couple do for society that a straight single person can't? Why do straight married couples get tax breaks when straight single people don't?

 
At 10:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mikey.

Truly, I question the rationale behind the mini liberal assault in here. It is every bit in your face, as is the daily... and considerably more public 'gay agenda'.

Despite your misguided committment to SSM, you cannot begin to fathom our opposition which is based in principles you forsake. Deny it if you will, but you are a product of these principles. We are not, nor can we be..... direct products of a homo-sexual relationship.

The math doesn't add up, which is why a redefining of 'marriage' is needed by your 'cause'....to achieve a perceived, and self manipulated sense of equality.

Umm....this is like cheating. So you cheat yourselves, and others by redefining this institution.

The material arguments made by 'gays' have lead to the idea of civil unions.

I consider this 'fair ball'.

You chose to pre-paraphrase me, in calling civil unions a ....."consolation".

That reflects a bad and revealing attitude on your part. Aside from being assumptive, it suggests that gaining the 'material' side of your argument....it is not enough.

It's equal in every sense of the word....other than in the sex of the partners.

This has created an equation...and you seek to alter it.

The very fact that you need a man and a woman for a marriage, is not something that escapes the 'gay movement'. That's the very reason you seek to redefine marriage, before you can justify equal entry.

But that's the liberal mindset, isn't it?

Kinda like an earlier 'fruedian-slip' on the use of the word 'bigot'.

Bigotry by defintion cannot target sex....nor does it include sex. The liberal mindset on this.

Re-define bigot.

On the matter of religion. You libs deplore it, because it opposes. You don't want it in your face....you don't want mandatory prayer and that sort of thing.

Fair ball. I could do without mandatory prayer myself.

This is a conservative blog....and from what I gather, open to discussion.

The descension of libs in here on the subject of SSM has been less about discussion, and more about the immature need to impose your will upon us, scolding and all.

You are guilty of another hypocrisy.

You are preaching from the 'liberal pulpit'.

Are you looking for converts?

Are you setting up a 'mission'?

So Mikey and Evil and Peter, what's with your repeated verbal barrages?

How many ways are there to say "No!"

Get the message that we fundamentally differ on this subject.

I wouldn't condone assailing or harrassing you folks on this. So why such a healthy direspect with those that are unwilling to go beyond 'civil unions'?

Tolerate us too.

 
At 12:23 AM, Blogger Mikey said...

Frank, I never said that you couldn't have an opinion, my big problem is the intolerance of gays.

I seek the changes in marriage and (even if you think it's being liberal) bigot because of the persecution of homosexuals.

You cannot tell me truthfully that being gay is an easy lifestyle. The name calling, the inside jokes, the assaults, the deaths, I could go on, but you get my point.

These people are the new scapegoat of our generation because it's deemed weak by some to be gay (mostly the male side of things), and wrong.

However, people are wrong in thinking that homosexuals have a choice in the matter. People are intolerant to that fact.

So when I see a roadblock like them wanting to get married, it just shows to me in such a politcally correct world we can deny people that right. I mean, we want everyone to be equal. By letting them get married it would mean it's equal to the rest of everyone else.

See what I'm saying Frank?

I don't think that you shouldn't have that opinion, I'm just saying that in a world where everyone wants to say 'everyone is equal' it seems fishy to me that everyone should be up in arms about this issue.

It's prejudice to me, that's all. I really don't think it's being extreme either. Sexuality is the new prejudice in the world.

You can at least agree to that can't you?

 
At 12:55 AM, Blogger Dodos said...

Interesting comment. And I say that in a respectful way. Sometimes in an argument we tend to be concerned more with being right than explaining our point. I will try to do this.

Of all the things you said, this is the most telling to me:

"The very fact that you need a man and a woman for a marriage, is not something that escapes the 'gay movement.'"

Where we fundamentally differ is that you believe that since marriage has always been between a man and a woman, that it always has to be. I don't. I believe that society, and it's institutions, evolve to reflect the values of the society of the day. That is why we no longer have slavery, women as chattle etc.. And I don't say this to belittle you or to try and demonize you. I say it because these same argument were probably used many years ago when it became legal for people of different color to marry. "Marriage has always been between people of different colors and that's the way it should always be."

Are we seeking to re-define marriage? Yes, we are. Just as it was re-defined many times before. And we are doing this because we believe that same sex couples should be able to enter into this most important of societal institutions. Why? Because it is the fair, in my opinion, thing to do. Gay people are equal to me in every single way imaginable. if I should have the right to enter into marriage, so should they.

I also disagree that allowing gay marriage will lead to some sort of break up of the family. As I have said before, the nuclear family is no longer dominant in society. Family is the people who love and support you, whether they be step dads, step sisters, adopted parents, or your grand parents. It is up to individuals to define who their family is.

"On the matter of religion. You libs deplore it, because it opposes. You don't want it in your face....you don't want mandatory prayer and that sort of thing."

I respect that people hold different values, including beliefs in the Christian God, but as a nation, we live by the rule of law. We are no longer a Christian nation. We have many different creeds, beliefs, faiths, etc... and as a result, we allow the law to determine what is fair and what is not. The law says, including in my home province Saskatchewan which is a very conservative place, that it is un-Constitutional to deny homosexuals the right to marry. Yes you may believe it is wrong because your faith says that marriage is between a man and a woman, but as I said before part of living in a democracy is knowing that people's individual rights, as well as privleges, are protected. That is why slavery was abolished and why the Civil Right movement succeeded. The majority is not always right.

"Aside from being assumptive, it suggests that gaining the 'material' side of your argument....it is not enough."

No, it isn't enough because it isn't marriage and that is what same sex couples want because for 6,000 years, people who loved each other and wanted to spend their lives together and have families got married. Civil Union's are nice, but they aren't marriages - they do not carry the same weight in a societal sense. It shoudl tell you something that gays are not saying, OK, we got the material benefits in same sex unions so let's not push for marriage. They are saying, yeah, those material benefits are all right but we want the real thing. We want to be apart of that institution that people have always said is so loving and important. We should take great pride in that.

I hope that you will respond to this and engage me section by section. I am here because I am trying to understand why people oppose same sex marriage so vehemently. I think that I am starting too, but I don't think you understand why we support it.

 
At 4:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's going to be too hot of a weekend, to stay in the city. So my time is limited by plans....and also by the redundancy of our conversations.

One thing about equality. It does not exist. What does exist is the unwritten law of nature.

The equality you strive for is entirely subject to human judgement, and therefore flawed. If equality must be legislated and controlled by authority, it is artificial....and can only last as long as laws are observed, or as long as the 'authority' holds power.

Power is transient.

Therefore your form of equality follows the same path.

Gays are not the new scapegoat of bigots as you tell it. What is it that blinds you to the fact that gays have it considerably better today, than say one hundred years ago?

Gays are not any new scapegoat at all, how ludicrous. In fact it's the 'gays' that are painting Christians, in a bigotted and negative light.

Majorities are not always right, I surely agree. But I believe the forces of 'nature' collide with keeping down a majority.

A 'majority' has a certain will to prevail.

And it begs another question. If the 'majority' cannot rule, or set a 'standard'....by what logic does a minority intervene and lay down law? Where is a mandate? How does snubbing the majority serve a cause, and in particular over time?
How dare you call this process democratic. Do you understand the tenets of democracy? Or is this subject to re-definition also?

You are creating 'elite's'.....because the majority is rendered as a non factor, and possibly wrong.

And speaking of elite......we are on our way, with the sinister advent of "hate laws".

Elevating a 'minority' for such special consideration is UNEQUAL.

Murder is murder......one very long sentence will do. By 'discounting' the value of non-minorities....you ultimately create a new and vulnerable target.

This belies any notion of equality. Which brings me back to my original premise.

We are not going to see eye to eye on this.

Your sense of equality is flawed and certainly undemocratic.

 
At 4:47 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well Peter, perhaps you'd like to address the following points. I especially like this point
"The majority of Canadians do not want marriage to be redefined. Virtually every poll has indicated this fact with as much as 69% of the nation in objection.
Statistics Canada released its findings that only one percent of Canadians are homosexual or lesbian. Another .7 percent of Canadians are bi-sexual. Even this community does not wholly support redefining marriage."

Horny Toad


31 Reasons to Vote "No" to Changing the Definition of Marriage

by Dr. Charles McVety, President, Canada Christian College and Canada Family Action Coalition

February 4, 2005
The government has no authority to change the definition of a religious term such as marriage.

They have no right to change the definition of "baptism", "communion", "bar mitzvah", "marriage" or any other religious term.

Same sex marriage is not a "human right". The United Nations’ "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms make no mention, directly or indirectly of such a right.

When women gained equal rights in Canada, they were not renamed "men". Laws were passed to give them rights. Same sex couples do not have to be called "married" to receive rights.

If marriage is redefined, it is redefined for everyone. Are your married? If so, to a man or a woman? To properly identify oneself every married couple in Canada will then have to define their marriage as a "same sex marriage" or an "opposite sex marriage".

To change the definition of marriage is a violation of Article 16 of the United Nations’ "Universal Declaration of Human Rights". This article demands government protection of "family" and "marriage".

To change the definition of marriage is a violation of Canada’s "Charter of Rights". The first line of the Charter reads "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:" It is a violation of "The principle of the supremacy of God" to re-define a sacred institution.

Re-definition of marriage violates the first "fundamental freedom" listed by the "Charter of Rights" that states "Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: a) freedom of conscience and religion". By dictating religion the state infringes upon the freedom of religion.

Re-definition sets up a "two tiered" Charter of Rights where homosexuals and lesbians have powers over the religious.

The Prime Minister has betrayed his colleagues attempting to force cabinet members to go against their religious convictions and vote to redefine marriage. If he will not protect religious freedom for his friends he will certainly not protect ordinary Canadians.

Two-tiered rights regimes suppress the underclass. Religious institutions are being forced to host same sex nuptials such as the Knights of Columbus hall in Port Coquitlam, British Columbia. Religious schools such as the Catholic School in Whitby, Ontario are being forced to accept same sex relationships. Religious
individuals such as Scott Brockie are forced to print material against his conscience. You and your Church, Synagogue or place of worship may be next.

Two-tiered rights are currently violating freedom for those who conduct marriage ceremonies. Religious commissioners of marriages in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have already been threatened with loss of livelihood if they do not succumb to the dictates of the state and agree to marry same sex couples.

Religious freedom for Clergy will not be upheld. On December 9, 2004 the Supreme Court clearly articulated that the federal government has no ability to protect Clergy from marrying same sex couples. The Court says this is a Provincial responsibility however no province in Canada has legislation in place to protect Clergy. In fact at least three provinces have already attacked Clergy freedoms.

Religious freedom in education is being debased. Religious students are forced to study same sex values, relationships, activities and homosexual and lesbian way of life. There is no protection or conscientious objection caveat to alleviate students from being exposed to objectionable material.
Same sex education is commonly used as a proselytizing tool. Much of the material leads the student to question their sexuality by their dreams and level of stimulation when exposed to explicit material.

Re-definition of marriage undermines the foundation of society. Our civilization is based on the traditional definition of marriage. Social engineers are now attempting to demolish society as we know it and build their own "Brave New World".

Family is our foundation. The United Nations’ "Universal Declaration of Human Rights",Article 16.(3) states "The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."

Marriage is the foundation of family. The place for pro-creation and development of children. Same sex couples cannot pro-create.

Marriage is the foundation of government where members are governed.

Marriage is the first level of implementation of the law where members are encouraged to keep the law.

Marriage is the first level of education where members are taught civilized behaviour, morals and ethics.

Marriage is the first level of healthcare where the sick are cared for.

Marriage is the first level caring for the poor.

Radical social-engineering cannot be enacted without full debate, discussion, involvement and participation of vast majority of the citizens in a free country. Dictatorships have attempted to radically change society in other ways and the result is catastrophic. Not even the most corrupt Communist or fascist dictatorships have attempted to redefine marriage.

Re-engineering society is not a priority of the people however it has become the number one priority for the Prime Minister. Instead of focusing on Canada’s vital issues such as healthcare, education, security and taxes, Mr. Martin is fixated on same sex marriage.
If same sex marriage was a "human right" then most same sex couples would exercise this so-called right. In fact same sex marriage has been legal in parts of Canada for almost two years and only a couple thousand have become married. Over 99 percent have not entered into so-called "same sex marriage". Now the social engineers want to re-define marriage for the .006 percent of the population of Canada.

The majority of Canadians do not want marriage to be redefined. Virtually every poll has indicated this fact with as much as 69% of the nation in objection.
Statistics Canada released its findings that only one percent of Canadians are homosexual or lesbian. Another .7 percent of Canadians are bi-sexual. Even this community does not wholly support redefining marriage.

There is an electoral consequence to violating the will of the constituents. Numerous Members of Parliament lost their seat subsequent to voting against marriage.

Betraying the trust of the people creates an electoral consequence. Many Members of Parliament voted for marriage before voting against it. Mr. Martin and 215 other Members of Parliament voted for marriage in 1999. Over 130 Members voted for marriage in 2002. Now some are changing their vote. Their word yesterday appears to have no bearing on their actions of today. Who knows what they will do tomorrow? Such subterfuge will not tolerated by the electorate.

Radically changing the Liberal Party will bring demise. Throughout its history the Liberal Party was moderate and centrist. Now the Prime Minister is bringing in an extremist agenda of redefining marriage, talk of polygamy, decriminalizing marijuana and discussions on euthanasia. In addition they grant 582 work visas to Romanian strippers and pay $250 million dollars to Liberal friends. These are not Liberal Values they are Extremist Values.

For the sake of our children and their children, the cornerstone of civilization must be protected.

 
At 10:23 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

Horny Toad.

As I have stated before, it does not matter if the majority says that they do not want marriage to include same sex couples. Democracies do not work on a majority rules basis - this is why we have the Charter, which protects the rights, privileges and freedoms or minorities.

Again, if you had done a similar survey in the 1950's in the South re: segregation, you would have had similar numbers of people opposing it. A majority opposition, however, does not mean that you are right as history has told us time and time again.

 
At 10:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, Mr. "I'll hide behind the minority rights veil" if you cared to read through the points you would have seen that this is NOT a minority rights issue. In fact its not a "rights" issue at all.

But then I guess if you don't have a good argument against these points its convenient to play the "rights" card.

Horny Toad

 
At 12:36 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Peter.

What is your level of education?

I simply cannot believe what I am reading from you.

You say it doesn't matter if the majority doesn't want SSM?

Right?

You also say, "Democracies do not work on a majority rules basis"

That is right, isn't it?

Well....you are exposing a lack in your command of the English language, and your understanding of political theory, with that last quote.

A little something from Websters dictionary.

DEMOCRACY:

GOV'T BY THE PEOPLE; ESPECIALLY: RULE OF THE MAJORITY.

(ho-hum.....so little time, so many definitions to re-write.)

 
At 10:17 AM, Blogger Dodos said...

Anonymous. First off, for a guy who has been crying about how mean and vicious us liberals are, you sure can sling the mud with the best of them.

Second. Yes democracies work on a majority rules basis. But in order so that the majority does not trample on the rights of minorities we have a Charter and an independent judiciary - these institutitons uphold the rights of minorities and ensure that those minorities are not discriminated against by the majority. A simple Political Science 110 class should help clear that up for you.

Third. Yes, I realize that you do not see this as a rights issue. I do. So does the Supreme Court. So do 7 (or is it 8) provincial courts. Essentially what they are saying is that same sex couples should not be blocked from entering into one of societies institutions. You disagree with this. I understand. As I have said before, thank god for the Charter.

I think it's funny that Anonymous posted that rant earlier about how I, as well as the couple other liberals here, weren't listening to the conservative talking points on this issue, but I think you aren't doing the listening.

 
At 4:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Have done plenty of listening.

Your definition of democracy is bunk. It says plenty about who you are, and what your political leanings are.

Marxist.

Don't further amuse me by pulling out some 'Politics 101' course you may haven taken in high-school. Defining democracy as you did suggests you never went beyond '101', nor did you much pay attention either.

I did.

Debate......and lose at your own shameless peril.

Send your adults, would ya?

 
At 6:52 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 7:00 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

So are you saying that the government and its institutions have no obligation to protect the rights and freedoms of minorities?

 
At 7:39 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

From Wikipedia.org (Democracy):

Whether or not there is a very broad and inclusive franchise, majority rule may lead to a fear of so-called "tyranny of the majority." This refers to the possibility that a democratic system can empower elected representatives acting on behalf of the majority view to take action that oppresses a particular minority. This clearly has the potential to undermine the aspiration of democracy as empowerment of the citizenry as a whole.

 
At 10:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

SSM is not mandated by the majority.

Your expanded definition of 'democracy' does not support your claim. And our judges are not elected are they?

Nor do I hear you 'lefties' demanding a referendum on this subject, which might at least bear out your claims.

A better definition of 'democracy', is its original....by the Greeks.

Demos: the people (implies majority)

Cratia: of the country.

'democracy'= the people of the country.

Go pound salt.

Furthermore, of course the Gov't has an ogligation to protect the rights of minorities.

A problem arises when the rights of minorities, are elevated over the majority.

This point escapes you.

As has the true meaning of democracy. Study some history....understand its origins....understand its intentions.

You are over your head.

But don't let that stop you.

 
At 10:48 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And, BTW Dodson, while your in over your head I noticed you have notresponded to any of the 31 points I posted. Perhaps there are imposiible for you to explain.

Horny Toad

 
At 3:21 AM, Blogger Dodos said...

"A problem arises when the rights of minorities, are elevated over the majority."

Said the slave owner to the bishop.

 
At 3:22 AM, Blogger Dodos said...

Horny Toad - I will respond to them when you respond to one question posed at you. Deep breath. You can do it.

 
At 10:09 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Which was???????????????????

Horny toad

 
At 1:31 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Take your garbage elsewhere Dodson.

This has typically turned into the usual 'in your face' brinksmanship, which is all too commonly furnished by your 'loonie left'.

Lets go back to your bunk definition from Wikpedia.org.

You never did provide a definition at all did you?

Your stupidity knows no bounds, as you yourself provided a reference to your false claim.

YOU DID NOT PROVIDE A DEFINITION OF 'DEMOCRACY'.

Anyone reading these posts is invited to check YOUR source.

WHAT YOU PROVIDED WAS A PART OF AN ESSAY IN WIKPEDIA, PERTAINING TO DEMOCRACY.

It was entitled "ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST DEMOCRACY"

Whats makes you think this essay is a definition?

The clear definition in Wikpedia, which is at the top of the page.

Reads as follows:

The word 'democracy' originates from the Greek "the people", plus "to rule" and the suffix io; the term therefore means "RULE BY THE PEOPLE"

You provided us with BS, then stupidly reference it.

Are you that illiterate?....Or will you grab at any straw in order to prevail?

You are blinding yourself.

If you came into this forum to understand us....you have failed.

If you came here to debate us. You have lost miserably.

The evidence is in print.

I condescendingly pity you.

Game over.

 
At 3:33 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

A few comments based on earlier postings:

1. I am interested in the fact that gay mariage is linked to promiscuity, polygamy ect...

Mariage is the opposite of promiscuity isn't it?

Marriage is the symbol in our society of a long term monogamous commitment between two people in our society - it seems that ssm will lead to less promiscuity amoung LGB folks not more...

The real problem is that ssm threatens the privilege of heterosexuals precisely because it elevates same sex relationships to an equal plane with those of heterosexuals.

2. Everyone keeps talking about the difference in same sex couple's contribution to society as being the lack of the ability to raise children.

Tons of lesbian couples are presently having children - using the same technology that a high percentage of heterosexual couples who are infertile use (infertility is rising - probably due to pollution). Perhaps fertility treatment is deemed unatural - if it is then it should apply to everyone.
Second - many many many gay and lesbian couples are adopting children or raising children from previous relationships. This is especially true for lesbians who have come out later in life - and here the typical story often holds- often the men have dissapeared from their children's lives. Many children are lucky to be raised by two mothers.


3. The holocaust comment was disturbing. Did the writer know that LGBT people too were killed along with the Jews during the holocaust and that they were marked with pink triangles before their execution? (that is incidentally the origin of the use of the pink triangle as a symbol)

Allowing a minority group to participate equally in society is not equivalent to engaging in masacres of minority groups.

Once again - the writer is threatened because he realises deep down that he has privilege - and that threats to this privilege might make him worse off...

One way that I think same sex marriage might threaten heterosexual men is by questioning our cultural dictum that a women needs to get married to a man and that women shouldn't enjoy sex.

Homosexuality challenges both of these cultural beliefs that privilege straight men in the following ways:

a. They don't need to address their partner's sexual needs by learning to pleasure her. Incidentally they often demand sex whenever they choose.

b. Women are pressured to "settle for" men who are emotionally or phisically abusive because without a man they are not a real person.

That's all for now -
Peace and love from an anonymous lesbian in a healthy and normal monogamous relationship - helping to parent a child.

 
At 3:46 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 3:52 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

Anonymous. I find it funny that someone who seems to hold themselves in such high regard needs to lower themselves to the level of us liberals with the name calling. I also find it amusing that you constantly need to reassure yourself that you are right. That is how the right works - keep telling everyone you are right so that they can't see how totally wrong you are.

You are right on one thing however - I did not provide a defintion of democracy, I simply expanded on the extremely limited defintion that you provided. This apparently makes me stupid and illiterate in your books. Go figure.

But please, keep calling me illiterate, stupid etc.. - this is another favorite tactic of the right. Ignore the content of what people say and attack the person saying it. As well, I would just like to point out that I have not once engaged in personal attacks during this debate. Only you.

"A problem arises when the rights of minorities, are elevated over the majority."

How is allowing same sex couples to marry elevating their rights over the majority? Isn't it simply ensuring that the minority has equal access to the institution of marriage that the majority already have?

 
At 4:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Mariage is the opposite of promiscuity isn't it?"

Well my dictionary (Funk & Wagnall) describes marrige as "a legal contract entered into by a man and a woman to live together as a husband and a wife.

It also describes promiscous as "indescrimate,expecially in sexual relations"

Hardly the opposite.

No wonder you don'r see a problem with SSM.

Sorry, I have to go now so I can have sex with my wife while she vacumns out my workshop.

Horny Toad

 
At 11:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Toad.

Looks like you grossed-out the SSM crowd, with that kind of language.

Get much vacuuming done?

Frank

 
At 12:40 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, damn, my wife doesn't much like it but then-----who cares!

Horny Toad

 
At 2:12 AM, Blogger Rink Rat said...

Peter said, "This is why I have trouble with basing the marriage argument on religion, because first off, we have seperation of church and state in this country, and second, we have a plethora of beliefs in terms of spirituality." I thought it was the US who has a separation of church and state, I didn't know we have one. Why haven't we changed the words to O Canada to remove the reference to God? Oh yeah, while we don't throw people out of the country for not believing in God, we as a nation are not ashamed to say God has a role in how we attempt to live.

The point Mikey makes about the church being hypocrites, well (and maybe the "church" forgets or misrepresents the point), while God may love a gay man, he doesn't love what the gay man may be doing. Don't blame God for the actions of the "church".

 

Post a Comment

<< Home