Defending the indefensible

[August1991]

I am convinced the present permisiveness will lead to a court judgement legalizing multiple mariages within a few years,

We have that now, de facto.

Gays and lesbians, as well as straights, were entitled to "civil unions" before which in fact is just the freedom to contract.

What is asked for now is the word "marriage". This is an argument about whether we should say "couch" or "chesterfield", that's it!

As to your other points Argus, the notion of "family" varies by culture and in history. We, in the "West", have thankfully increased the importance of the individual and in particular, the individual's freedom to choose. We are less the son of our father and more an independent person.

Whether the word gays can use the word "marriage" or not strikes me as insignificant in these broader changes.

[takeanumber]

Alright, first thing first:

When Takeanumber is away,

the Argusaurus will play:

The young are so uh... uh... dramatic. Bravo! Thank God there's people like you to stand up to those evil conservatives and stop them from taking all your freedom away! And destroying Canada! And putting babies in concentration camps! And eating puppies! And ... and... and bringing back the new coke! Ahhh! Their evil will never ends! Thanks be to God for clever people like you who can see through them!!

Tsk Tsk.

The Argusaur is right about the breakdown of marriage.

What I do understand though is why the Argusaur will complain that not enough people are getting married, and instead doing the common law thing, which weakens the institution of families...

and then he turns around and says homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry.

The reason why he's against extending marriage to homosexuals is because he hates homosexuals.

It's as simple as that.

He might not come out and say it, but the fact is, he can't come up with a single legit reason why letting Marc and Jerry get married, and adopt a kid (instead of maybe getting a family friend to pop 2 out for them) is such a bad thing.

So, I'm forced to conclude that the opposition to the strengthening of marriage by inclusion of homosexual couples is predicated on good old fashion hatred.

It's the lowest common denominator.

When Cons imply "what's next, multiple marriages, marriage to dogs?", it's very demeaning to homosexuals, because they're likening homosexuals to polygamists and to animals.

It's very dehumanizing. But yet, that's what people who hate homosexuals do.

And sure, they'll feign and say "every time we say something bad about homosexuals or something good about marriage, we're called haters"

Which, as I've read, is what segregationists used to say:

"We don't hate black people, we just believe in the traditional definition of marriage between a white man and white woman or a black man and black woman. Why is it that whenever we want to talk about marriage, we're accused of being bigots?"

And it's the same way with homosexuals.

Cons will often use marriage as an extention of their general assault against homosexuals.

And guess what?

The general level of education has been raised in Canada so that the ignorance and stupidity that Conservative breeds upon is no longer ripe. The old Cons will eventually lose this war. A strong majority under 30 support same sex marriage.

We just have to wait for the Argusaur to get consigned to the wrong side of history, along with the segregationists.

If you have anything intelligent to reply to this post, write Paul Duffy. I'm sure he'd be happy to hear from you.

[August1991]

I can't see how denying matrimonial rights to gays can be seen as anything other than treating gays as second-class citizens

Sorry Bionic, I can't help myself. This has been bothering me. Shouldn't that be patrimonial rights for gays? And I guess, matrimonial rights for lesbians. Whatever.

"We don't hate black people, we just believe in the traditional definition of marriage between a white man and white woman or a black man and black woman. Why is it that whenever we want to talk about marriage, we're accused of being bigots?"

That comparison is misleading if not wrong. There were specific laws forbidding blacks and whites having sex together (the term was miscegenation, a word as common in 19th century America as fundamentalist is now). There were no laws forbidding white/black marriage - the idea was absurd.

I think most Canadians now accept Trudeau's dictum of bedrooms and the State. Sex ain't the point. Few if any object to two consenting adults shacking up and doing whatever the hell they want to do. Most Canadians even accept that two adults can sign a contract of mutual liability, giving rights to survivor benefits.

None of this is the problem. Instead, it's something extremely silly.

For some weird reason, the traditionalists want to keep the word "marriage". I say, they want it? Let 'em have it.

This is style, not substance.

[takeanumber]

It's the same thing, August, and you know it.

There is no just, valid arguement against allowing same sex marriage just as there was no just, valid arguement allowing inter-racial marriage.

You're just using the issue of same sex marriage as a front to attack homosexuals in general.

It's akin to using 'right of religion' to attack C-250 as a method for attacking homosexuals. You know the arguement isn't valid because the legislation explicitely protects religion. (If you've bothered to read the act, that is. If you're just buying the Alliance line, then you really are ignorant.)

Then you gripe about judicial activism. C-250 took 15 years to pass, by the LEGISLATURE, and you're against it. NOT a court. A Legislature. It's Legislature made law, passed with support of 4/5 parties, everybody was satisfied, except the anti-homosexuals in the Alliance benches.

Go through line by line and attack the arguement August.

[caesar]

Re; the abortion issue. No one forces anyone who does not believe in abortion to have such a procedure. For those who feel an abortion is the only answer that should be their choice. Pro choice does not force their ideas on others. Anti abortion backers do.

Remember: we do not want to regress to the time when people had to rish their lives with illegal unsanitary abortions. Nor do we want more girls to hide their condition then kill or abandon their child to die.

[Argus]

You can be quite dramatic yourself Argus, and funny.  But in this case I think I will put takeanumber's post up on my wall.  Canada is defined by it's values and freedoms, no one will remember or care about tax rates or transfer payments levels 10 years from now.

Values and freedoms? That's why I'm voting Conservative, a party which actually has some values and cares about freedoms. I don't think the NDP is especially commited to anything but its own quaint ideology - certainly not to freedom, and the Liberals, well, they care about how much money they can haul away in big sacks without anyone noticing.

[Argus]

If you have anything intelligent to reply to this post, write Paul Duffy.  I'm sure he'd be happy to hear from you.

Well if I have anything intelligent to say I surely won't direct it your way, laddy. It'd just confuse you.

[takeanumber]

Well if I have anything intelligent to say I surely won't direct it your way, laddy. It'd just confuse you. 

Smart reply.

Another personal insult from the Argus.

Thanks.

You just keep on proving my point.

[Argus]

Well if I have anything intelligent to say I surely won't direct it your way, laddy. It'd just confuse you. 

Smart reply.

Another personal insult from the Argus.

Yeah, well, you know us fag hating Nazi loving holocaust deniers. We're just plain mean.

[takeanumber]

Yeah, well, you know us fag hating Nazi loving holocaust deniers. We're just plain mean.

If that's how you think of yourself.

[caesar]

And just what values and freedoms are the Conservatives offering that you think are so great. Just what are they offering?

[Reverend Blair]

I hate to burst the Conservative bubble, but the NDP has done far more in the House of Commons to protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians in the last few years than the Alliance/Conservatives have.

The Canadian Patriot Act(s)? NDP opposed it, Conservatives said it didn't go far enough.

Maher Arar? Stephen Harper liked the idea of him being deported to a country known to torture prisoners. The NDP opposed his deportation and fought for his repatriation.

The internal passport? NDP oppose, Alliance/Conservatives want as much information kept as possible.

Equal rights for gays? NDP support, Alliance Conservatives oppose.

Canadian Census by Lockheed-Martin? NDP oppose, Alliance/Conservatives mute.

Proportional representation? NDP support, Alliance/Conservatives mute of late.