Saturday, August 27, 2005

Homosexuality verses Incest in the Eyes of Religion

A criminal court in Ontario convicted a mother and son of incest last week. The liberal media was silent on the case that involves a 43-year-old mother and her 25-yeald old son from Kitchener. Both these adults were convicted of a crime for their involvement in a loving adult sexual relationship. The couple had three children together.

The story comes only a month after the federal liberals succeeded in redefining marriage to include homosexuals. The liberals say they made the change to end discrimination once and for all in this country for people involved in adult sexual relationships.

At the same time that liberals were working to redefine the 6,000 year old definition of marriage, the liberal media was doing everything in its power to portray homosexuality as being mainstream. One of the most popular tactics they used was to give a booming voice to people of faith willing to endorse homosexuality while branding those religious followers who were opposed as being intolerant.

The media was filled with stories of ministers that would say positive things that might advance the gay agenda. When the Christian United Church lobbied the Supreme Court on behalf of same-sex marriage advocates, they were praised. The media gave loving support when Jewish Rabbis got together to sing the praises of gay marriage. Even Moslem groups that supported the gay agenda were put on a pedestal by the liberal mainstream media when they spoke in favor of same-sex marriage. The media was relentless in amplifying the few dissenters of the three major religions which overwhelmingly oppose the concept of homosexuality.

The liberal media also used the death of Pope John Paul to advance the cause of gay advocates. The media branded the late pope as being too conservative and demanded that he be replaced by a more progressive spiritual leader. When it was announced that Cardinal Joseph Alois Ratzinger would be the next pope (Pope Benedict XVI), the liberal media was horrified. He was immediately branded a radical conservative, with extreme views that would set back the church a thousand years. The liberal media did not even try to hide their bias.

Given the reporting of Canada’s mainstream media, you could only conclude that liberal journalists were hoping for Reverend Gene Robinson to become the next Pope. The media and gay rights advocates gushed with stories of him all year. For the first time ever gay advocates had an open homosexual promoted to the position of Bishop in a Christian church. The liberal media could not hide their glee when Gene Robinson went on the recorded as saying that he believed Jesus Christ was gay and then gave his flimsy reasoning to support his belief. His comments were made in spite of the fact that Jesus himself makes it clear that no homosexual will ever inherit the kingdom of God.

How is it that the media can find clergy in every major religion willing to advance the gay agenda, but none to endorse incest? Not only do liberal people of faith not endorse incest with the fervor they use to promote the gay agenda, but they describe incest as sick. Since the bible is the book that all three major religions are based on (in addition to the Koran for Moslems), it is worth exploring that book to illustrate a point.

The bible makes it clear that homosexuality is wrong and there is not a single character in the entire book that was portrayed as being gay, not even Jesus (sorry Gene).

[Leviticus 20:13] “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; there blood will be on their own heads.

In fact, one of the most famous stories of the bible is the story of Soddom and Gomorrah. In that story, God himself rescued Lot and his family before He rained down fire and brimstone on two cities of people whose most prevalent sin was homosexuality. It is an amazing story when you consider that it took place between 4,000-4,150 years ago and the term soddomy is still used to this day to describe homosexuality. God did not do this because he believed homosexuals should have the right to marry and receive full marriage benefits from government as liberal clergy and the liberal mainstream media would have you believe.

Where then does the bible stand on incest? After all, the children of Adam and Eve did not have the childern of neighbors to marry and have children with. Nor did Noah’s children, Ham, Shem and Japheth, have anyone to repopulate the Earth with after the flood.

What is interesting about the Soddom and Gomorrah story is what so many people do not know. God rescued Lot, his wife and two daughters, because Lot was a righteous man in the eyes of the Lord. As they fled the coming destruction, Lot’s wife looked back and was turned into a pillar of salt. Lot then fled to a cave where he lived with his two daughters. Not only that, but Lot fathered children with both of his daughters.

Interesting, is it not? Lot was not only a polygamist, but he was also the most famous man of incest in human history. Lot’s older daughter named their son Moab and he bacame the Patriarch of the Moabites. The younger daughter had a son named Ben-Ammi and he was the Patriarch of the Ammonites. Most importantly, Lot was considered a righteous man in the eyes of the Lord. So much so, that God himself sent his angels to rescue him. In spite of this, liberals fall silent when an adult woman and her adult son are convicted of a crime in Canada for doing the same thing that a righteous man of God had done.

This begs the question. How can gay advocates and the liberal mainstream media promote same-sex marriage by amplifying the voice of liberal clergy who defy the clear teachings of scripture while being so intolerant of incest, also in defiance of teachings from that same book of scripture? Since the religion of liberalism can always find reasons to justify their position, what justification do liberals have for continuing to discriminate against two consenting adults in a committed loving relationship when those two people just happen to be related?

The fact that liberals would use religion to advance the cause of same-sex marriage while continuing to oppose incest is baffling.

77 Comments:

At 11:31 AM, Blogger SoN oF DaD said...

"At the same time that liberals were working to redefine the 6,000 year old definition of marriage, the liberal media was doing everything in its power to portray homosexuality as being mainstream."

I remember the CBC's Julie van Dusen being interviewed on Newsworld. She stated that on the same-sex marriage debate, Stephen Harper had "moderated" his views in the sense that he would be more open to civil union recognition.

Did you spot the bias?

It's in the word "moderated".

The word Van Dusen should have used was "modified."

"Modified" is a neutral term. It does not carry with it the bias that is inherent in the term "moderated," especially in the context it's used in the SMM marriage debate.

Van Dusen, I'm sure unwittingly, exposed her own bias on the issue by her use of the word "moderated." Certainly, when I heard her use the term in the context she did, alarm bells went off.

It's funny how the MSM just grasps any issue and decides whether it's "moderate" or not, regardless of the public's sentiment toward it.

In 1999, the Liberals, along with the Reform Party - the latter doing so in that unabashed consistency of theirs that holds true to this very day, unlike the Liberals, who switched positions - voted against redefining the defining of marriage. SSM at the time was seen as a "far left" concept, because it was only the NDP that supported it.

Then after the Liberals said, "You know what? SSM is acceptable'", the MSM decided that indeed supporting SSM was a "moderate" position to take.

And they all sang from the same hymnbook.

When the vote took place in 1999, Ontario Liberal Party Leader Dalton McGuinty stated that marriage was between one man and one woman. Then, after Chretien, Martin, et al changed their tune, McGuinty, just like that changed his position as well.

These people stand for nothing.

 
At 1:33 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

What I don't get is this - you want your politicians to take one position and hold it forever. As if sticking to your guns was more noble than learning more about something and then making an informed decision. It is not a sign of weakness to change your position if more information comes to light. In fact, it is a sign of weakness to stick to your guns in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Much has changed between '99 and today. First off, in '99 we didn't have a multitude of upper court decisions claiming that not allowing ssm was against the Charter. The idea of ssm has also become more acceptable within our country (if not - where are the protests. Why aren't people lining the street complaining about this?). It is perfectly OK for politicians to change their position on something especially when more information is made accessible to them. You call it flip-flopping, I call it a process of maturation. If we all had fixed attitudes from day one till the day we died, where would be? Still stuck in the middle ages I'm sure.

 
At 2:33 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

I was just thinking about this. Michael said that "the fact that liberals would use religion to advance the cause of same-sex marriage while continuing to oppose incest is baffling."

This is what I find baffling. Many ssm opponents use the bible to oppose ssm because as you said, the bible says that two men whould not lie with each other. So using your logic, isn't it hypocritical of those same people to not support incest since you showed that the bible supports it?

It has to work both ways doesn't it?

 
At 2:57 PM, Blogger SoN oF DaD said...

"It is not a sign of weakness to change your position if more information comes to light"

"More information"? By "More" mean 'new' information that has come to light - information we didn't have before? Is that what you are saying? What is this new information you speak of? Is there some new light to be shed on this issue? What issue regarding gay relationships did we not have until recently that would or should sway us in support?

"where are the protests? Why aren't people lining the street complaining about this?"

This is a ridiculous argument. Canadians of course are 'more' concerned about health care, education, etc. That doesn't mean that it's not an important issue. It's especially ridiculous coming from an ideology - the left - who supports 'fringe' issues which, by definition, don't have broad based support. the 'left' deals primarily in 'forgotten' issues, that's why the NDP and Green Party are where they are in the polls. So it is rather ironic for someone like you to argue that becuase the public is not clamouring makes it an unimportant issue.

Were Canadians lining the streets over Adscam? And Adscam has dropped off the radar screen. So by your logic the theft of our money is not an important issue. Correct?

Regarding the Charter: You do agree that any laws in the criminal code that are in conflict/violation with the Charter are unconstitutional, don't you? You beleive the Chater is the holy grail, right? So what about an adult son and father wanting to marry? Their relationship can be constituted, by definition, as a 'gay relationship', correct?

Do you believe that in this instance that a criminal code definition should override the Charter, and if so, on what grounds? That it's in the interest of protecting "children"?

We're not talking about 'children'. We're talking two mutually consenting adults. The laws preventing people from marrying children (people not of legal consent) would remain in place, regardless of heterosexual, homosexual, or this 'adult' son and father wantig the right to marry.

So what are your arguments opposing this adult son and father from marrying?

You can't argue against it on personal, moral objections. That would make you like the SSM opponents whom you so despise. As well, allowing these two to marry wouldn't affect you because, by virtue of being opposed to such relationships, you would not take advantage such a change to the laws that would allow this couple to wed.

Just like heterosexuals have no interest in marrying people of the same sex (a mantra spewed by SSM advocates and their shills in the media in their push for SSM), you would have no interest in marrying your adult children, father, etc.

So what's the problem here?

 
At 4:09 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

"What issue regarding gay relationships did we not have until recently that would or should sway us in support?"

Information can be gathered in a variety of ways. We can learn by reading, or by experiencing. We can expand our belief system a myriad of ways. if you had asked me 6 years ago if it was OK for homosexuals to marry I would have said no. Back then I had no idea what was meant by the word equality. Know I do and I understand that there are way more important issues to worry about than whether two people in love should be able to marry. Allowing gays to marry will not bring Armageddeon - our materialistic, selfish lifestyle will.

People grow mentally and with that their ideas change. Homosexuality is not a disease. It is a natural thing that occurs naturally in many different species, including our own. If you accept that homosexuality is natural, then why wouldn't it be natural for them to want to marry in a society that holds marriage up as the most important relationship two people can enter into. Isn't that logical?

So what new information have we received? That homosexuality is natural and to deny them the right to marry is discrimination under the criminal code. If you accept that, it is pretty easy to accept same sex marriage as legitimate.

I just think you are limiting people's personal growth by saying they have to believe one thing forever. With new experiences our ideas and beliefs change - isn't this natural? Do any of you actually know any gay people and have real friendship's with them?

"Were Canadians lining the streets over Adscam? And Adscam has dropped off the radar screen. So by your logic the theft of our money is not an important issue. Correct."

Whether it is important and whether people perceive it as important is two totally different things. Yes, many people think this is an important issue - but the majority don't seem too. People are so wrapped up in their daily lives they don't care about anything. In the face of strong evidence that we are the cause of climate change, the vast majority of us refuse to do anything about it. We are great at ignoring what is important. Yes AdScam is an important issue, but obviously not important enough because the Liberals still lead in the polls.

"So what are your arguments opposing this adult son and father from marrying?"

I don't have any. If an adult father and an adult son want to get together, why do I care? If they want to go to court and try and over-turn the laws forbidding incest, then all the best too them. We are a free society and as long as your actions do not infringe on another's person's space and safety (and the safety of those in the future) I really do not care what you do in your life. You have no right to tell me what to do, I have no right to tell you what to do (as long as what you do doesn't interfere with anyone's personal space or safety).

I find it odd that this group of right wingers is shifting the debate to whether or not we will support extending marriage rights to incestual adult couples. Why not cross that bridge when we come to it. Arguing against something with a "what if" is not a very strong argument. I still have not heard a soild argument from the right why marriage should be limited to one man and one woman.

Think of this - the majority of southerners thought that emancipating the slaves was a bad idea. They probably argued that if you freed the slaves, then one day they would want equal rights and the right to marry pretty white girls. And yes those things have come about - but isn't that good? Traditions change when societies values change. I cannot imagine a day right now when society will become accepting of incest as they have with homosexuality. But I will cross that bridge when I come to it.

I should also point out that simply because some same sex couples may oppose incestual marriage does not automatically mean that same sex marriage is wrong. That is not logical.

 
At 8:57 AM, Blogger SoN oF DaD said...

"People grow mentally and with that their ideas change. Homosexuality is not a disease" - Dodos.

Dodos attempts to shift the debate from one of "marriage recognition" for homosexual relationships to a debate on whether homosexuality is or is not natural.

If he approaches this debate from that angle, he is doomed to fail.

We will NOT have our eyes taken off the ball. This is about "marriage recognition", not anyone's views on the sexual practices of gays and lesbians.

Let me tell you something, Dodos. I am as right wing as they come. I vehemently oppose SSM just as much as I vehemently defend homosexuals having the right to have their relationships. I would defend to my death any state intervention to make the practice of homosexuality itself illegal as I believe homosexuals should have the right to be in their relationships.

The issue being debated here is one of "marriage recognition" for these relationships. Do not attempt to mislead the readers by suggesting that people like me cannot have an acceptance of gay relationships in our society without agreeing with you that those relationships should receive marriage recognition.

DO NOT attempt to equate 'acceptance' with 'affirmation'. The two are NOT synonymous and any argument by you to link the two will be shot down accordingly.

 
At 9:40 AM, Blogger Dodos said...

William - you asked me to tell you waht new information has come to light the last few years and for me, I have learnt that homosexuality is something normal in all species. For me, once you accept that homosexuality is healthy and normal it is much easier to accept that same sex marriage is healthy and normal. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm simply answering your question.

 
At 10:17 AM, Blogger SoN oF DaD said...

You're making the leap from gay relationship acceptance to marriage status acceptance.

99.9% of the public support gays having the right to have their relationships. The majority of the public, however, are opposed to SSM ... which brings me to another point - the paradoxical logic you have in citing the majority when it suits your purposes to do so, but arguing against them when they don't support your cause.

Here's an example of where you cite majority opinion...

"I cannot imagine a day right now when society will become accepting of incest as they have with homosexuality.."

'Society' meaning the majority in the context of what is and is not acceptable to them.

Dodos agrees with the majority in this regard but he disagrees with society's view on the SSM vs. civil union status, therefore the will of the majority is out of order to him.

The public supported 'civil union' recognition as a compromise (the CPC compromise) where as you opposed it, choosing instead to demand nothing less than SSM.

Don't cite the majority in your arguments opposed to incest marriage recognition because it exposes your hypocrisy.

Inconsistency doesn't matter to you.

You continue to bob and weave.

You can't suck and blow at the same time

…no pun intended.

 
At 12:07 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

Where are you getting your info from re: societies opposition to ssm?

 
At 12:13 PM, Blogger SoN oF DaD said...

SOMETHING FOR DODOS TO FURTHER CONSIDER..

When something in the criminal code - in this case, the laws prohibiting incest for this adult son-father scenario I floated (all good debates require exploring hypothetical situations) - is in violation with the Charter, it’s the Charter that prevails, correct?

Since this adult son and father couple arrangement constitutes a ‘gay relationship’ by definition, and that not allowing gay marriage has now been deemed to be in violation of the Charter, then isn’t preventing them from getting married a violation of the Charter? Or are you arguing that in this instance the criminal code should prevail over the Charter? Isn’t the Charter the Holy Grail for you folks?

And if you believe in this instance that the criminal code definition should supersede the Charter, on what arguments do you base this on?

Inbreeding? There’s no chance of that because these are males in the example given.

Society must protect ‘children’? These are two ’adults’. The laws against adult-minor relationships – regardless of heterosexual, homosexual or incestuous relationships - would remain consistent. So nothing would change in that regard.

So what are your arguments opposed to an adult son and father wanting marriage rights? And just to be clear, you are “fully” opposed, in spite of trying to make it look like that you’re giving them tacit approval for their cause when you said…

If an adult father and an adult son want to get together, why do I care? If they want to go to court and try and over-turn the laws forbidding incest, then all the best too them

First of all, you used ’get together’ as opposed to ‘marriage.”

What’s the matter, Dodos? You couldn’t bring yourself to use ’marriage’ because your sentence concluded with “…all the best to them” and that you don’t really mean all the best to them?

As well, being ‘indifferent’ (which you’re not, in spite of how you tried to phrase your remarks) is simply not acceptable in this debate. Take a stand as it relates to this ‘adult’ son and father couple and their pursuit of marriage rights.

Do you or don’t you support them in seeking to attain marriage rights? And remember, if you’re opposed, don’t even think about using ‘procreation’, or the ‘child protection’ argument, or for that matter, citing the majority opinion in your reply.

So what’s it gonna be?

 
At 12:16 PM, Blogger SoN oF DaD said...

Where am I getting my info that the majority oppse SSM? the latest poll I saw, which was commissioned by COMPASS for the NATIONAL POST showed that a majority oppose SSM.

I'll try and find the link.

As well, it's a fact that more people support 'civil union' recognition as opposed to SSM ... unless you want to argue that more people support SSM than civil union recognition. That would be totally illogical.

 
At 12:34 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

If an adult father and son want to try and change the marriage laws I would not oppose them and I would support their right to challenge those laws. I doubt they would win, but that is neither here nor there. And by the way, their relationship would be incestual first and gay second. Unless you are willing to admit that a father-daughter relationship is heterosexual first and incestual second.

To be honest, I do not care what people do as long as their behaviour does not impact other people's liberty, freedom or personal space. I would not oppose an adult incestual couple desire to marry and would support their right to challenge the laws that make it illegal. I believe that there are way more important issues to worry about than some "what if" that will probably never rear its head in my lifetime.

 
At 12:37 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

The National Post? For someone who continually harps on the CBC for being bias I hope you are not exposing your hypocricy by using the Post as an un-biased source.

And I seem to remember some folks here chastizing me for using public opinion polls a while back, but now that they are in your favor they are OK? Interesting.

 
At 12:48 PM, Blogger SoN oF DaD said...

"If an adult father and son want to try and change the marriage laws I would not oppose them and I would support their right to challenge those laws."

"I would not oppose an adult incestual couple desire to marry and would support their right to challenge the laws that make it illegal"


No, no, no!

Supporting ones 'right to challenge' is not the same as agreeing or disagreeing with that right being granted, should it be.

Do you or do you not support marriage status for 'adult' incestuous couples? Yes or no?

And remember, these are adults and such a change to the defintion would not impact you in that you would not marrry one of your 'adult' children.

So yes or no? Should they be given the right to marry if they are mutually consenting adults?

 
At 12:55 PM, Blogger SoN oF DaD said...

The National Post? For someone who continually harps on the CBC for being bias I hope you are not exposing your hypocricy by using the Post as an un-biased source.

And I seem to remember some folks here chastizing me for using public opinion polls a while back, but now that they are in your favor they are OK? Interesting.


The National Post did not do the polling. COMPASS DID!

Is it because you disagree with the results that you trash the poll?

DODOS! You have written many things on your blog with links to polls!

Frank was right in pointing out your inconsistency on such issues.

Dodos applaudes Chuck Cadman for listening to his constituents.

Dodos applaudes Belinda Stronach for ignoring her constituents.

 
At 1:11 PM, Blogger SoN oF DaD said...

Here is one of the last polls I saw. And it was commisioned for the CBC.

It shows that a majority oppose redefining marriage to allow for SSM. Only 44% agree with SSM.

Also, can you imagine what the result would have been if a third option was included, that being 'civil union' recognition? How many of that 44% would have gone for that? I would say probaby half, thus diminishing the support for SSM even further, down to into the 20s.

Again, Dodos will cite the majority viewpoint when it supports his cause (hence, how uses links to refer his readers to polls) but will trash those polls when they're not in favour of him.

 
At 1:16 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

"So yes or no? Should they be given the right to marry if they are mutually consenting adults?"

Yes.

"Is it because you disagree with the results that you trash the poll? "

No, I just thought it was funny that's all. You are great at pointing out other's hypocricy, but cannot see you're own. I have no problem using polls, but have been criticized by you and Frank for doing so. You also harp on the CBC for being bias, but ignore the bias of the National Post. It's just funny that's all.

"Again, Dodos will cite the majority viewpoint when it supports his cause (hence, how uses links to refer his readers to polls) but will trash those polls when they're not in favour of him."

I never trashed the poll. I simply pointed out your own hypocricy. You really need to learn to read better.

 
At 1:16 PM, Blogger SoN oF DaD said...

'civil union' recognition as a compromise is something only the evil right wing supports.

That's why SWEDEN refused SSM and instead adopted 'civil unions.'

You can't get anymore right wing than SWEDEN, can you?

 
At 1:22 PM, Blogger SoN oF DaD said...

"You also harp on the CBC for being bias, but ignore the bias of the National Post. It's just funny that's all."

I don't have a problem with media bias. But I do have a problem with taxpayer-funded media bias.

The CBC is taxpayer-funded while the post is not.

And you said "YES" to incestuous couples being allowed to marry.

That's all i wanted you to say.

I admire your consistency. You should have stated that unequivocally right from the start.

Peeps, DODOS supports incest marriage.

I'll leave it there.

 
At 1:31 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

The problem with civil unions is that that was not what same sex couples wanted. They wanted their relationships to be equal to that of heterosexual couples. A civil union is not equal to marriage - you know this and I know this.

And as for your incest question, its just ridiculous. If I support it I'm some sort of freak, if not I'm hypocritical. I can't win with you guys because you don't support same sex marriage so anyone who does is wrong. What a great world you live in - everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. I think your attempt to equate ssm with incest is dishonest at best. Why not try and engage the isse of ssm and then deal with your hypothetical when it occurs (which it never will in our lifetime).

Why are you guys so transfixed on ssm anyways? If you spent this amount of time and brain power worrying about issues that really matter like climate change or poverty, imagine what you could do. Instead you worry about issues that in the big picture do not matter - allowing same sex couples to marry in no way harms society. Society is well on its way to destruction already and ssm has nothing to do with it.

 
At 1:45 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

"Peeps, DODOS supports incest marriage."

Well if God supports incest, why shouldn't I?

 
At 1:47 PM, Blogger SoN oF DaD said...

In it great that we're both consistent, though being on polar opposites of the issue?

I'm consistent in that I support the traditional definition of marriage which is defined as "one man to one woman to the exclusion of all others" (just as it has always been defined) while you're consistent in your support of marriage for anybody ... including, as we have just learned, those involved in INCEST.

I think I'll stick with the majority of Canadians who oppose SSM (but are for 'civil union' recognition, just as I am), who oppose marriage recognition for polygamists, and who, without ANY DOUBT whatsoever, are opposed to your sick and depraved mindset which would allow for people who are involved INCEST to be allowed to marry.

"If I support it I'm some sort of freak, if not I'm hypocritical"

Exactly! You can't win. You're either a freak or a hypocrite! So do the right thing and support the traditional definition of marriage or be labeled accordingly.

"I think your attempt to equate ssm with incest is dishonest at best"

Um, didn't you just equate it by finally breaking down and recognizing it in the context of the debate we were having, which was my attempt to equate the two - a strategy that, by having you finally accept INCEST MARRIAGE - has worked.

"Society is well on its way to destruction already and ssm has nothing to do with it."

Exactly!

"Peace", DODOS!

 
At 2:03 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

"Um, didn't you just equate it by finally breaking down and recognizing it in the context of the debate we were having, which was my attempt to equate the two - a strategy that, by having you finally accept INCEST MARRIAGE - has worked"

Never once did I say that ssm was equal to incest. Point out where I said that. And please, use my words not yours as you have shown a complete unability to understand what I say. All I said is that if the time comes that an incestual couple wanted to challenge the marriage laws I would support them as is there right. If they are an adult couple who wants to do it, so be it. But I also clearly pointed out that I do not ever think this will happen.

I just think its sad that your worldview doesn't allow for alternative views. In your world all that oppose you are hypocrites or freaks. Who gives you that power? What makes you so right and me so wrong? What is it about same sex marriage that challenges you so much that your only defence against it is "well if we allow this, then incest will occur!" Is that really all you have William?

And again, Micheal said that God said incest was OK. I mean, for you to be consistent (and not hypocritical) don't the church goers here then have to support incest? I mean, especially if you use the bible as a defence against ssm. I don't expect an answer on this one as I know how William and his kind loathe engaging questions that they have no answer too.

 
At 4:03 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

I just wanted to say a few words on this topic.

First off, I think it is extremely weak that the strongest argument you have against same sex marriage is that it may lead to the door opening on incestual marriage when we all know that the chances of that happening are next to none. To believe that this is true you need to believe that somehow homosexuality and incest are in fact equal acts. This is not true. Homosexuality and incest are two very different things. I have never read any literature that states that incest is normal, natural and healthy. I have read plenty of literature on homosexuality that states that. Your comparison is very revealing on where you stand on homosexuality itself.

Honestly, is this the only argument you have? Can you imagine a world in which we didn't do something because of the absolute remote chance that something absurd might happen? Where would we be as a society if we allowed "might be's (but unlikely)" get in the way of social evolution. This line of argument by you is not an argument at all because it doesn't tell me why same sex marriage is wrong other than it could possibly maybe some day lead to something happening but most likely not.

I should also point out that simply because I support the right of incestual couples to get married does not mean that I believe incest is a natural or acceptable thing. I do however believe in the rights of people to do what they want in a free society as long as it does not affect other people's freedom. Noam Chomsky was once chastized for defending the right of a holocaust denier to speak and write what he wanted. Chomsky was not saying that the holocaust didn't happen, he was simply stating that the man had the right to say it. Free speech is an absolute right because if it isn't, then someone has to legislate it, namely the government. Once you limit speech, you no longer have free speech. And none of us want the government to legislate what we can and can not say.

Incestual couples have every right to challenge the marriage laws and I support them in that right because we are in a free country. We all must because then we are no longer free. Then it is up to the government to tell us who we can and can not marry. And let's not even talk about the slippery slope we could go on with that one.

 
At 4:49 PM, Blogger Michael said...

“And please, use my words not yours as you have shown a complete unability to understand what I say……And again, Micheal said that God said incest was OK”

There is no such word as unability. Michael is never spelt with an “eal”. And I never, ever, ever wrote that God said incest is okay, nor would I. The fact is quite the opposite.

 
At 4:59 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

Oh no, I mis-spelt words. You should just ignore everything I write from now on.

"And I never, ever, ever wrote that God said incest is okay, nor would I. The fact is quite the opposite."

Well, you did write this:

"Lot was not only a polygamist, but he was also the most famous man of incest in human history. Lot’s older daughter named their son Moab and he bacame the Patriarch of the Moabites. The younger daughter had a son named Ben-Ammi and he was the Patriarch of the Ammonites. Most importantly, Lot was considered a righteous man in the eyes of the Lord. So much so, that God himself sent his angels to rescue him."

The way I read this story is that God saved Lot, a man he believed to be righteous, and Lot was both a polygamist and incestual. You don't send your own angels to save a man whose practices you oppose.

 
At 9:23 AM, Blogger Rink Rat said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 9:30 AM, Blogger Rink Rat said...

Lot was saved from being destroyed with the rest because he did not yeild to the loose values and prevelant homosexual nature of the rest of Sodom. The angles were sent to destroy the city that held homosexuality in high esteem. Lot, although drunk at the time of being seduced by his daughters in order to preserve their family line, was considered righteous and rescued BEFORE that event. We don't know about after.

 
At 9:40 AM, Blogger Rink Rat said...

But then such is the half-baked logic used by a Liberal to attempt to justify a lower moral standard.

 
At 12:10 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

Hey, I was just quoting what Michael said. Read his article on the front page - it is pretty clear what he is trying to say.

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

Where were we? What was the subject before we found out that Michael in an incest supporter?

A pat on the back for the Dodo-brain for employing his intelluctual prowess, as he wore Michael down into his shameful admission.

Great poor form Dodson! Scads of posts devoted to arguing with William. Desperate and cornered, out comes a post devoted to an ad hominem attack on the moderator of a conservative blog, that you are still insisting upon.

Dodson dropped his whole argument/debate, in favour of....changing the subject.

So what Dodson? You think we're gonna lynch him now?

Follow you to Dodo-land?

What was that all about?

Grow up.

Frank.

 
At 2:27 PM, Blogger Rink Rat said...

I guess we could change the point being made by the original post from the absurd slippery slope we're on when it came to rationalizing sexual behavior, to suggesting Michael is in favour of incestuous relationships, but that would just be spin and deception.

 
At 2:40 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

I certainly was not attacking Michael. All I did was point out that his post seemed to be highlighting that the bible endorsed incest. William accused me of being an incest supporter and I pointed out what Michael wrote. I'm not sure how that is changing the subject.

And I certainly was not desperate and cornered. If you follow the flow of comments, I posted two comments further expounding on what my point of view was. William has yet to respond (as is his M.O.)

And accusing me of ad hominem attacks and then calling me Dodo-Brain...well....I'll just leave it at that Frank.

 
At 3:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dodo-brain.

The restraints are off.

You want respect? Then give it.

You say you were accused of being an incest supporter?

Didn't you admit as much in your recent diary entry in Dodo-land?

"The really important thing this argument has taught me is that I would in fact support the right of an adult incestuous couple to marry if they so asked. Just as I would adult polygamous relationships...."

That's you.

And what's more you?

Construeing an accusation that relates to a publically admitted belief by you.

You dare cry accusation?

How do you take yourself seriously?

Is it the medication?

Frank.

 
At 3:32 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

"You say you were accused of being an incest supporter?

Didn't you admit as much in your recent diary entry in Dodo-land?

"The really important thing this argument has taught me is that I would in fact support the right of an adult incestuous couple to marry if they so asked. Just as I would adult polygamous relationships....""

Well if you read the whole entry, rather than take two sentences out of it, you would see that I am not an incest supporter but I do support the rights of people within a democracy. If an incestuous couple wanted to challenge the marriage laws I would support them in that. I would also support them if they won that right (however, I did point out that I doubt that is unlikely). There is a big difference in being an incest supporter and the supporter of people's rights within a free society. As I pointed out, Chomsky defended the free speech rights of a holocaust denier, but he did not agree with what he said.

I really do hope that you can appreciate the difference between the two.

 
At 3:51 PM, Blogger Michael said...

Rink Rat gets it right when he explains some of the facts in the Lot story that I carefully omitted.

The bible does not support incest. However, the bible also does not support homosexuality. The point I was trying to make in my article is that in spite of the opposition the bible has to both sins, there is more in the book to support incest than there is to support homosexuality. And yet, the media gushes over anyone of faith willing to advance the gay agenda, and at the same time, the morally relative liberals oppose incest.

You cannot support SSM with the logic and arguments that the liberals used to redefine marriage and continue to prevent incestuous couples from having the same right to marriage. The Charter has to be applied equally.

I do want to commend Dodo for the post he made on his blog. At least he has learned to be consistant on the issues of SSM, incest and polygamy. Opponants to SSM have rightly pointed out that extending marriage to gays will lead to extending marriage to people engaging in incest and polygamy. The evolution of Dodos thinking during these debates is a rapid progression of how it will unfold.

But, everytime anyone used the slippery slope argument they were shouted down with all the usual...you are filled with hate, etc... type of comments by liberals. But, the left will evolve from their current thinking that says, "the slippery slope argument is rediculous, it will never happen," to "Well yes, they should have the same rights. I support equality."

Liberals will evolve exactly the same way that Dodo evolved, because liberals cannot stand to be viewed as intolerant.

 
At 3:59 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

I should also point out Michael that I felt the comparison was odious. I do not in any way support your notion that ssm will lead to incestuous marriages. I just want to make that very clear.

"As I often do, I am currently on another blog arguing with my right wing friend William over the merits of same sex marriage. When I posted my article from Briarpatch on this blog recently, William's response was to comment that he and his daughter wanted the support of the same sex marriage supporters in his bid to legalize incestuous marriage. At the time I took the bait and said sure, I supported his right but William took the charade further and created another blog to try and point out what he believes is the hypocrisy of the left wing. He says that if you support same sex marriage, you must support incestuous marriage. His reasoning? Because incestuous couples share the same qualities of same sex couples. There are two of them, they are in a loving adult relationship and what they are doing doesn't harm anyone. What he discounts is the fact that homosexuality and incest are two very different behaviors. There is no literature stating that incest is a normal, natural and healthy lifestyle such as there is with homosexuality. There is no public support for incestuous marriage and no court decisions stating that it is discriminatory to not allow incestuous marriages. This comparison is revealing because it shows you what certain people think of homosexuality - they believe it is like incest. That's why the comparison works for them. If you believe that homosexuality is normal then you can't make the comparison between it and incest - but it is easy to make the comparison between heterosexuality and homosexuality."

 
At 4:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dodson

I read your whole passage. You end up straddling the fence by the end of it all, by holding your nose at the thought on an incestual marriage....yet supporting it.

Real big of you.

Your manifesto says it all.

It justifies changing your tune on all matters, while thumbing at the thought of slippery slopes....and also referred to as Pandora's Box, from times gone by.

And no...ancient Greeks did not raise homosexuality to the level of marriage, despite an acceptance of it.

Frank.

 
At 5:27 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

I think I've discovered one of the differences between you and me Frank. I am willing to accept behaviours that I disagree with because I believe in freedom and a system of rights. You on the other hand only believe in freedom and rights if those freedoms and right coincide with your beliefs. That is not freedom Frank.

And no, I wasn't straddling the fence. It's just in your black and white world I was. Too bad the world isn't that way.

"It justifies changing your tune on all matters, while thumbing at the thought of slippery slopes....and also referred to as Pandora's Box, from times gone by."

No, I believe in looking at each case on its merits. What is the point of making up your mind before you know all the facts? That is what children do.

 
At 5:50 PM, Blogger Michael said...

"The really important thing that this argument has taught me is that I would in fact support the right of an adult incestuous couple to marry if they so asked. Just as I would adult polygamous relationships. If we believe in freedom and equality, we need to do so universally. We cannot tell the right wing not to use their morality as the benchmark and then do so with our own." - Peter Dodson (The Dodo-brain)

 
At 6:04 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

Boy, it is really unlike a conservative to take two sentences out of a whole piece. I know how hard it is to read the whole thing.

 
At 6:36 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dodson

You're quite a piece of work.

You're acceptance of incestual marriage is a hypocrisy within a paragraph.

You have no clue what I consider freedom, and it certainly doesn't come from liberally appointed judgements, via our unelected courts.

Real freedom stems from majority rights. Liberal democractic doctrine is a communal perversion of the original intent of democracy.

I doubt my world is black and white.....but life and death is. There is black and white intertwined in our lives. Only a fool couldn't see that.

Children, Peter?....they're the one's that change their story as often as you.

To me you've rendered yourself, an aptly named....Dodo-brain.

Our countless debates have lead me to this cerebrally generated evolutionary conclusion.

Frank.

 
At 8:59 AM, Blogger Rink Rat said...

Isn't it ironic that through Michael's use of sarcasm to point out the double standard in the Liberals new legal definition of civil union, we have just managed to argue the case for recognizing incestuous relationships, and indeed all imaginable unions that were originally described as ludicrous, into the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

 
At 9:34 AM, Blogger Dodos said...

No you didn't. You just proved that you all see incest as equal to homosexuality.

 
At 9:59 AM, Blogger Rink Rat said...

It isn't?

 
At 11:32 AM, Blogger Dodos said...

Well, if that isn't the most revealing comment of all this. At least you are being honest.

 
At 11:39 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dodson.

Actually Dodo, its equal under the law. Wait for the challenge.

But now is not the time....the masses have yet to be pacified over SSM.

Are your lecture halls as empty as your diary site? Why won't your victim's visit it?

Not getting through, are you?

Frank.

 
At 11:58 AM, Blogger Dodos said...

"Actually Dodo, its equal under the law. Wait for the challenge"

OK. I'll wait. Could be awhile though - got anything to drink?

"Are your lecture halls as empty as your diary site? Why won't your victim's visit it?"

Ouch. Another biting attack from Frank the Tank. I would love it if you used some new material next time - I think this is about the 15th time you have used this criticism (although you did make reference to my lecture hall - bravo Frank!).

"Not getting through, are you?"

Not to close minded people like you I'm not, but I've gotten through to many people in Saskatchewan about the real important issues we face such as those between First Nations and non-First Nations. I can pass on my references if you like. But I appreciate your concern.

 
At 2:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dodo.

Clearly the term "closed minded" is highly debatable.

And yes Dodo-brain, I do feel that the abject lack of interest for your diary-blog, is very telling.

One might think you had friends or similarily minded folks like yourself, supporting your cause.

You don't.

And if you have guilt over the way you treated Indians as a child. (That's right.....INDIANS, 1st Nation talk is bunk. They didn't hold a deed to NA, as a matter of fact....DNA has proven the earliest settler to be of European origin...and the Mayans and Olmecs before them, have evidenced the 'white man', with their art....which dates back thousands of years......) Then deal with your guilt, as it belongs to you.

Congrats Dodo! Out of nowhere....the 1st-Nations card.

well played lad....

Either way, you just named another group of potential supporters.....that aren't reading your tears.

I'm waiting for your next obtuse convulsion.

Tank.

 
At 5:27 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

I have no guilt over how I treated First Nations people because I understand where my actions come from. My job isn't about spreading guilt it is about trying to get people to understand the effect of our history on First Nations people. It is obvious that First Nations people live in more poverty and have more dysfunction, the question is why. Either you believe that they are genetically and racially inferior or you need another place to look. I prefer to look at the problems as ones resulting from history - our history.

I don't understand this idea of spreading guilt. Our ancestors undertook these actions and we need to be informed about them. If you feel guilty, then so be it. But these events and policies are very well documented. We cannot ignore them simply because some people fear they are being guilted into doing something.

"INDIANS, 1st Nation talk is bunk. They didn't hold a deed to NA"

Well the term Indian was used because Columbus was an idiot and thought he was in India. And no, they didn't hold a deed as Europeans did at the time, but they still held title to the land. Our courts dealt with this issue a long time ago. In fact, when Europeans first came over there was much debate over this fact with many Europeans siding with the First Nations. Just because we chose to ignore the international law of the time (the doctrine of discovery for example) does not mean that First Nations did not have title to the land.

"DNA has proven the earliest settler to be of European origin...and the Mayans and Olmecs before them, have evidenced the 'white man', with their art....which dates back thousands of years......"

Do you mind citing this for me? And so what if they did have European DNA? The people living in the Americas at the time of contact had been doing so for over 10,000 years (and this is the low estimate) and not as Europeans. They were distinct peoples with title to the land.

 
At 9:46 PM, Blogger SoN oF DaD said...

Dodos is attempting to backtrack from what he said earlier.

When I pressed him on supporting incest marriage he tried to weasil out of the question by saying, "I would support their right to pursue the case."

"No, no, no!" I exclaimed. Supporting someone's 'right' to 'pursue' something is not the same as supporting what they are trying to attain."

"These are two mutually consenting adults, they're in love, and, most importantly, they wouldn't be hurting you, in that you would not want to marry one of your children ... So, do you support their right to incest marriage?"

"Yes," said Dodos.

Later, in a posting with Frank, Dodos tried to backtrack by saying he would support their right to pursue their legal case.

"OK. I'll wait [to see if they're successful in the future]," said Dodos, "Could be awhile though - got anything to drink?

Nice try!

As well, the issue here isn't whether they will be successful, it's to see if SSM supporters will eventually support their cuase, so as not to appear inconsistent and hypocritical.

Frank said it all when he said that Liberals will eventually yield to this demand because one thing they hate more than anything is to be labeled "intolerant."

 
At 9:50 PM, Blogger SoN oF DaD said...

Bottom line...

Dodos is an incest marriage supporter. As a result, he'll be judged accordingly.

 
At 10:01 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

Wee Willie Winkie.

"As well, the issue here isn't whether they will be successful, it's to see if SSM supporters will eventually support their cuase, so as not to appear inconsistent and hypocritical."

It's only hypocritical if you see incest the same as you see homosexuality. I do not. As well, I said that I would support their effort to get incestuous marriage legalized because I believe in freedom and a rights based society. If they won it I would also support them. To truly believe in freedom, you have to accept the things you like as well as you don't like.

"Dodos is an incest marriage supporter."

No, I am supporter of their right to challenge the marriage laws as is their right in a free society. I do not have to agree with what they do in order to support their right. That is called freedom, something you do not believe in.

"As a result, he'll be judged accordingly."

By who? God? Sorry William, I don't believe in God.

 
At 10:21 PM, Blogger Michael said...

"Frank said it all when he said that Liberals will eventually yield to this demand because one thing they hate more than anything is to be labeled intolerant."

Ahem. That was your friendly neighborhood moderator that pointed that out. :)

 
At 10:21 PM, Blogger SoN oF DaD said...

"Wee Willie Winkie."

I would accuse you of using insults, but I won't because I have been just as deragotory to you.

Admitting to this is all part of my consistency.

You on the other hand always accuse others of using deragatory language and then you use it yourself.

More Dodos inconsistency. lol

 
At 10:23 PM, Blogger SoN oF DaD said...

""Frank said it all when he said that Liberals will eventually yield to this demand because one thing they hate more than anything is to be labeled intolerant."

Oh, sorry about that, Mike.

I remember seeing it posted in a flurry of quick replies and thought it was Frank who said that.

 
At 10:24 PM, Blogger Michael said...

np, wink. :)

 
At 10:34 PM, Blogger SoN oF DaD said...

NICE TRY DODOS

Here is the specific exchange from Sunday

"If an adult father and son want to try and change the marriage laws I would not oppose them and I would support their right to challenge those laws." - Dodos

"I would not oppose an adult incestual couple desire to marry and would support their right to challenge the laws that make it illegal" - Dodos


No, no, no!

Supporting ones 'right to challenge' is not the same as agreeing or disagreeing with that right being granted, should it be.

Do you or do you not support marriage status for 'adult' incestuous couples? Yes or no?

And remember, these are adults and such a change to the defintion would not impact you in that you would not marrry one of your 'adult' children.

So yes or no? Should they be given the right to marry if they are mutually consenting adults?

.
"So yes or no? Should they be given the right to marry if they are mutually consenting adults?" - SoN oF DaD

Yes.

------

DODOS supports incest marriage, not JUST their right to challenge the laws.

In spite of this, he now tries to backtrack by suggesting he ONLY meant supporting their 'right to challenge' the laws.


Nice try, Dodos!

 
At 11:23 PM, Blogger Michael said...

I like the one about how he supports homosexuality, because there is literature saying that it is natural. There is no literature on teh other stuff, but there is on homosexuality. It is all about the literature. lol

If thEre ain'T n0 pamFleTs tHeN it dIn't HapPan & itS n0t TrUe CauZe alL teH stUfF iN paMflEts iS trUe!

 
At 11:30 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

Your right William, I misspoke before but I have now clarified my position. I hope we can move on from that. I know that in your eyes you will see this as a sign of weakness, but there is nothing I can do about that. Saying that, I believe that I have said what I need too on this topic. I have maintained my belief in a free society and exposed you and others on this board for believing that homosexuality is equal to incest (with one of your having the guts to admit it), demeaning to others who do not share your opinion (as you overtly said that those that do not agree with are either freaks or hypocrites), and only believing in freedom when it suits your purposes.

And Wee Willie Winkie is no insult, it is simply a play on words and in no way was meant to be deragatory, just as Frank the Tank was not meant (nor taken I believe) as an insult.

 
At 11:39 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

"I like the one about how he supports homosexuality, because there is literature saying that it is natural. There is no literature on teh other stuff, but there is on homosexuality. It is all about the literature. lol"

Why must you continue to pick out single points to summarize a broad argument Michael? I believe homosexuality is natural because I know homosexuals and have read much literature (in peer reviewed journals) on its history and its place in society. There is no question in my mind that homosexuality is a natural part of the human experience (as well as the experience of many other species). I was simply pointing out that no such literature exists for incest that states the same thing. If you think my entire argument rests on that, well, I really can't help you then.

And you spelt "the" wrong. I know how much you hate that.

 
At 11:48 PM, Blogger SoN oF DaD said...

Your right William, I misspoke before but I have now clarified my position.

He ... "misspoke." lol

Ah, no. lol

It was clear because I cleared the confusion by stating that I wasn't talking about supporting one's "right to challenge" the laws, but to actually support what they're trying to change.

To that you offered an unqualified YES

He is against incest marriage, he is for it, now he's against it again.

More Dodos inconsistency. lol

 
At 11:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dodos is the only one being consistent here.

Art Vandelay,
New York City

 
At 11:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dodos is the only one being consistent here.

Art Vandelay,
New York City

 
At 12:53 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dodson

You sure go on about the big Native problems we face. It had nothing to do with anything, yet you dump the card anyway.

Then you go on about Marco Polo and his being stupid....as you see it. You really oughta do something as stupidly significant as Marco.

The stuff you choose to focus on....wow.

The Native sommunity though, is greatly concerned about any challenges to their erroneous claim....as 1st Nations People.

To begin with, you claim they had title...because of a 10,000 yr. (debatable) existence in the America's.

I suggest it was incumbent upon them to successfully defend their "title", as any other culture/race in previous history.

Go figure....it was a time many, many moon's before the UN.

But what is of greater interest is of some huge contraversies brewing over skeletal finds in NA. Alaska has one....as does Washington State. There is other scant evidence of long-legged, red-head peoples in the south-west.

Other evidence is in the art and writings of the Olmecs, which are over 10,000 yrs old. These people well pre-dated the Aztecs and the Mayans.

Read Dodson read!....And do some of your own research, instead of giving out assignments, asking for links....as if none exist. Spend some time on what you read in here. At least you know I've read a great deal of your diary site....despite my distaste for it.

You reference almost nothing about what you barf-up in here.

Learn about Kennewick Man, and then beyond that. I'll give you one link. The rest of this and related debates, are yours to discover. Your Native buddies have fought this tooth and nail.

KENNEWICK MAN

www.washington.edu/burkemuseum/kman/kman_home.htm

My error on the DNA about this fellow. Yet leading experts agree this is not a Native American.

It took yrs of court battles to wrest these remains from the Natives....in order to prove, what is largely accepted.

The remains aren't Native American.

and this...the tip of the iceberg.

We sure have digressed at your command....Dodson. Although I see you've kept busy, with your newly formulated affintiy for incestual marriage.

Frank

 
At 12:56 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Art.

Nice pic.

Frank.

 
At 12:59 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dodo.

Si-te-cah.....that is the name given to this red-headed people, by the Natives in the area.

Frank.

 
At 9:47 AM, Blogger Dodos said...

I am no expert in this field Frank as I have focused my studies mainly on First Nations- European relations and issues related to Treaties.

What I can say on this issue however is at the time of contact, Indigenous peoples had title to the land. Europeans knew it and changed the defintion of occupation in order to get around the accpeted law of the time. I will point you to an article called "Old World Law and New World Political Realities" by Olive Patricia Dickason as a starting point for this history and the debate. Our courts have even ruled that yes, First Nations did have title at the time of contact hence the reason for the Federal Land Claims Process. The idea of whether or not First Nations were the only people here in the 10 - 15,000 years before contact is irrelevant because they were the only people here when Europeans came over and hence had title to the land. The law is quite clear on this, as is our government.

As for Columbus, well, I am sure that somebody would have discovered the Americas. In fact, I think the 10 million people already living here were pretty aware that it did in fact exist. You know I went to Europe a few years back and kept telling everyone how great it was to discover a new continent and then started claiming the land for Dodosville. If you go to Big Ben, you'll see my countries flag.

 
At 9:49 AM, Blogger Dodos said...

And just for the record, I'm done with the incest/ssm debate. I've said what I have to say and we are just going around in circles now. I understand your position but I am not so sure you understand mine. That's fine. But that is the great thing about a free society.

 
At 12:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dodo.

Free Society?

I don't think so, as many will agree. But it seems free to you because it jives with your personal beliefs.

Might that sound familiar?

You prove it's all about personal belief.

Yours over mine.

Free to you, tyranny to me.

And regarding your Native issues, rarely has a race done so well in defeat. Not all Natives fit the stereotype that you fight against. Many have broken free of the negative "woe is us" mentality of their forefathers, and have become productive and or affluent contributors to this country.

Others live in the past, not understanding the opportunity they have today, being based on the mercy bestowed upon their ancestors.

And mercy it was, considering the typical warlike answer that would have otherwise been their fate.

With perks like free university education and tax free status, this self-bereaved lot could have done a lot more for itself.

Frank.

 
At 2:20 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

Oh thank you Frank, you walked right in.

"And regarding your Native issues, rarely has a race done so well in defeat."

Defeat? How so? Who defeated them and by what means?

"Not all Natives fit the stereotype that you fight against."

I agree totally. But unfortunatley, many more First Nations live in poverty than those that do not.

"Many have broken free of the negative "woe is us" mentality of their forefathers, and have become productive and or affluent contributors to this country."

Woe is us? How would you react if you were taken to Residential Schools far from your home and forced to abandon everything you knew? What about those that did well in Residential Schools and then were not allowed into the mainstream economy by a racist society and then forced to sit on reserves that had zero economic value. You don't think that these people wanted better for themselves and their family? That was why the Treaties were negotiated, but the Crown did little to live up to their end of the bargain for 80 to 90 years. This caused dysfunction and many still suffer from the generational effects. I can point you too The Dispossed by Geoffrey York, or my favorite, Flowers on my Grave by Ruth Teichroib about this subject. Or take a look at any of Prof. Jim Miller's work on Residential Schools.

"Others live in the past, not understanding the opportunity they have today, being based on the mercy bestowed upon their ancestors."

I guess it depends on how you look at it. If you see pre-contact First Nations life as Thomas Hobbes did, then yes, you could see "civilization" as a benefit. But his view of their world as "nasty, brutish and short" has been debunked by most reputable anthropologists. In fact, at the time of contact, First Nations people had much better health than their European counterparts and probably had a higher quality of life. Read Mark Nathan Cohen's Health and the Rise of Civilization for a starting point on this.

"And mercy it was, considering the typical warlike answer that would have otherwise been their fate."

Are you suggesting that Canada would have waged war on First Nations if Treaties would not have been negotiated and First Nations had not peacefully taken up reserves? And please don't bring up the 1885 Resistance. Less than 5% of the Plains First Nations took part in that event, and the more prominent leaders such as Big Bear and Poundmaker did much to prevent more violence and then were punished by the government. 1885 was not a First Nations uprising, but a Metis one as they were once again being beat down by an unjust government. Take a look at Blair Stoinechild and Bill Waiser's book Loyal till Death for more on this.

"With perks like free university education and tax free status, this self-bereaved lot could have done a lot more for itself"

While there is some truth in what you say, it is grossly exagerated. First Nations have only certain tax exemptions - they pay GST, PST, Income Tax, Property tax and all other taxes when they work or purchase something off-reserve. The GST, PST and Income Tax exemption only comes into play when they work or purchase something on reserve. Considering over 50% of the First Nations population lives in urban centers, and considering rural reserves are not a hotbed of economic activity, most First Nations do pay taxes just as you and I do. And I should point out, that these limited tax exemptions are not Treaty rights but from the Indian Act since before Confederation.

http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/pr/info/info113_e.html

As for free university education, yes it is true that some First Nations get band funding in order to get university education, but ask any First Nations person in Saskatchewan how hard it is to get band funding. Most of the First Nations people I went to school with went on student loans (like me) because the waiting list is so long. Bands get a lump sum of funding from the federal government for all edudcational needs, including reserve schools. The left over is given to post secondary students. On the prairies this is per the Treaties. And when you think about it, considering the Treaty rights of non-Aboriginals, what First Nations get is peanuts.

 
At 3:31 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dodo.

I walked into nothing.

These people you defend lost their land.

Got it?

I owe them nothing.

My parents came here with a suitcase, twenty-bucks....and zero English skills.

You wouldn't know it today....and it was all accomplished Sans-any help from the federal Gov't.

No hand outs.

No expectations, other than that what comes from within. They didn't moan that their homeland had been bombed into the stone-age after WWII.

I know you're bound to tel me that this different....sure, but how different?

One difference is that my folks were devoid of socialist thinking, they were self motivated...and had expectations of themselves, not the State.

Mentality does matter.

One self-made Native I knew out west, was proud that he broke free of the negativity. He was successful and white collar....with a family. He was born on a reserve. He had interesting things to say about the 'mentality' that prevailed his People.

This fellow was more like my folks.

Just because you are a white apologist for the Natives, it doesn't make you an expert in this field. Your expertise here is narrow, and one-sided.

Frank.

 
At 3:43 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

Way to debate the issues I presented Frank. You really got me on this one.

"These people you defend lost their land."

How so? I would love to hear your explanation on this.

"My parents came here with a suitcase, twenty-bucks....and zero English skills.

You wouldn't know it today....and it was all accomplished Sans-any help from the federal Gov't.

No hand outs."

I don't doubt that your parents, like my grandparents, worked their tails off in this country and made something of themselves. But they had that opportunity because of the rights given to non-Aboriginal peoples through the Treaties. With no land it means little how hard you work. In return for this, First Nations were given little, except broken promises, and they suffered as a result.

"One self-made Native I knew out west, was proud that he broke free of the negativity. He was successful and white collar....with a family. He was born on a reserve. He had interesting things to say about the 'mentality' that prevailed his People"

I know many First Nations like that too, but the question I ask them, as well as yourself, is where does this mentality come from? First Nations people were self-sufficent prior to contact and have since lost that ability to a large degree. Why is that?

"Just because you are a white apologist for the Natives, it doesn't make you an expert in this field. Your expertise here is narrow, and one-sided."

A white apologist? What is that anyways? All I do is point out to people that the history they think they know is false for the most part, put together by ethnocentric and racist historians looking to justify their place at the top of the food chain. And I know that I am no expert, but I have spent many years studying and lecturing on this subject. What are your credentials?

 
At 4:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dodo.

Look around you and wake up.

They lost their land.

It's called reality today.

But......

Out comes the credential card.

What credentials have you got Dodo....Ward Churchill's?

That was typically elitist of you.

I'm well educated....that's all you get to know.

And your rationalization of immigrant success in this country, being tied to the loss of their lands by treaty....is deeply circular.

Yes...if we never colonized NA, the Natives would have gone to their fate...and of course our immigrant forebearers would not have gleaned the opportunity.

So what?

We are where we are today.

Todays Natives are survivors.

My white collared Native acquantance had it right. The more of his type....will be for the betterment of his People.

That's what he told me.

I agree, as my life is better....thanks to my parents.

And what were their credentials for success?

No english....new country.
$20/suitcase......and youth.

priceless

Frank

 
At 4:46 PM, Blogger Dodos said...

You might be well educated Frank, but like William you show a real inability to answer questions. I think it's funny that I do all the answering around here while you guys tell me how wrong I am and then fail yourselves to answer any questions posed to you. Why is that? In my last two posts, I asked you several questions which you fail to answer. Interesting.

'What credentials have you got Dodo....Ward Churchill's?

That was typically elitist of you. "

Yes, the only author I have ever read is Ward Churchill. And Howard Adamms. You found me out. I managed to get through 6 years of University by only reading two authors. Oh and I read Thomas Flanagan once and then gouged my own eyes out.

I should also point out that you told me I was no expert. I was simply responding to your attack. You're a smart guy, you should be able to figure that out. How that makes me an elitist, I have no idea.

"And what were their credentials for success?

No english....new country.
$20/suitcase......and youth."

And Treaty rights. Don't forget their Treaty rights.

Well that's it for me. You obviously do not want to engage in this debate because you aren't responding to my questions. Have fun with your stereotypes Frank and your false view of history. I am sure it will serve you well.

 
At 5:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dodo-brain.

Explain this to your diary-site.

"Here! Let me help you out the door..."(heave-ho, with a thundering crash!)

Ta-ta.

Frank.

 
At 10:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

>i>"...like William you show a real inability to answer questions. I think it's funny that I do all the answering around here...">/i>

This from a guy who was against incest marriage, supported it, and now, perhaps realizing how SICK it makes him look, tries to backtrack.

I agree. I'm done debating you on this issue.

You're an INCEST MARRIAGE SUPPORTER and we'll just leave that.

And I second what Frank said ... nice pic, Art.

You kinda resemble George Costanza from Seinfeld. And like him, Dodson has a lot of similar traits.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home