Harper and Gay Rights

[knn]

eureka -- The federal government has the jurisdiction to legislate what marriage is...

Hmmm. I thought that's what the government's bill is all about! Just doing their job.

[The Terrible Sweal]

And what stops other forms of discrimination being discovered in the future?

There is no end of people who feel that society treats them unfairly.

Nothing stops the identification of additional heads of discrimination. It was written to allow for that quite deliberately.

But that doesn't mean that our society will or must indulge claims which are frivolous or inappropriate.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Marriage has a specific meaning and that meaning must be altered to include "Gay" marriage. Remebr that the word "gay" itself is no longer usable in its formerly accepted sense because of its appropriation for a similar purpose.

Marriage has a number of 'specific meanings'.

In it's specifically civil/legal/governmental context it means whatever the appropriate civil/legal/governmental authority says it means.

[knn]

RB Posted: Feb 3 2005, 09:23 PM

Correct me but I don't belive the words "sexual orientation" is mentioned anywhere in the Charter

Yes, you are wrong. Sexual orientation was deemed a prohibited ground for discrimination under the Charter, as confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Egan decision of 1995.”

[I Miss Trudeau]

If the wording is so clear, why did it take 20 years for anybody to notice that sexual orientation was covered?

Kind of curious here actually. Does anyone know if people had gone to court for this before the recent string of cases? Whats the history on this?

[Trial-and-Error]

Just by the by, under "civil union" or "marriage"--whichever way it goes in the HC--will one partner be able to have the contract annulled if the union is not consumated?

Perhaps the idea of consumation will be removed entirely to make way for non-sexual partnerships?

Of course. Why should other "couples" who love one another in a non-sexual way not be entitled to the same benefits as heterosexual and gay married couples? What would distinguish such a "couple" from the married ones? The sex act?! Is this what all this fol de rol is all about?

Plain common sense is no longer with us. I hear gays saying that they want to be treated like married couples cuz they want the world to know they love their partner and marriage is a way to make this public proclamation. Horse feathers! Sign up for a civil union, celebrate with gay abandon, get your benefits, and carry on with life.

And to all couples, hetero and homosexuals - Kissing and mauling one another in public is repugnant. Such activity is not a spectator sport. If I see one more male or female couple kissing on the tv news (talking about gay marriage), I think I will upchuck my cookies. In your face is not where it's at. What I'm thinking is that that's the agenda of many gays--make it so open that before you know it homosexuality is seen as a normal lifestyle to choose.

Those who condone marriage between a man and a man and a woman and a woman are being politically correct but socially irresponsible. While I believe that homosexuals are for the most part born that way, I also tend to believe that it could become an acquired "taste." I would not want to raise youngsters to believe that it is normal for men to marry men and women to marry women. It is NOT normal. It is an ANOMOLY. But it is also NOT an anomoly to be ridiculed or criticized but simply taken for what it is.

My kids are all grown up now and when we discuss the issue, I find that we are divided along generational lines. Seems many of us oldsters are traditionalists whilst the "kids" don't give a whit. We all agree on equal benefits; we disagree on nomenclature. They're forgiven

While there may be some among you who would label me homophobic, you would be wrong.

Still I must retain my position, fix the bloody law--get the nomenclature right. Men do not MARRY men and women do not MARRY women. Period!

[RB]

knn Posted on Feb 3 2005, 10:41 PM

RB Posted: Feb 3 2005, 09:23 PM

Correct me but I don't belive the words "sexual orientation" is mentioned anywhere in the Charter

Yes, you are wrong. Sexual orientation was deemed a prohibited ground for discrimination under the Charter, as confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Egan decision of 1995.”

ok there is statue law and common law (make by judges)

Statues are made via public bill, private bill or private member bill.

Common law are judge made laws and set precedence and also residual law that applies where no statues covers the issue.

Judges make these laws based on facts, relevant law and reason (case law). The judges use Stare Decisis for predictability and consistency OR they usually look into their Latin dictionaries and pull out some Latin words to fit into their reasoning and explanation.

But, decisions of higher courts are binding on lower courts it does not mean that the constitution changes.

There was no statues to cover Sexual Orientation so a precedent is set in your example of "Egan decision of 1995" and will be used as a basis on how decisions are made in the future.

Now, The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a special statue passed in 1982 when the constitution repatriated.

It sets out broad range of rights and freedoms including equality rights. As part of Canada’s constitution it is the “supreme law”.

This means it can override any legislation or government action taken by the government that is inconsistent with its principles.

You were quoting s.15 equality rights – there is no words there that says "Sexual Orientation"

If you were arguing s.1 infringement of rights or s.33 notwithstanding clause as a basis for violation I can understand and plus you also have a better chance to have favorable results

[PocketRocket]

Okay. We've all gotten far too serious. Time to lighten things up a bit.

i dont lie!

How do I know I can believe you???

Because YOU voted for them.

Welcome to MapleLeafWeb, Pioneer. I can see it's going to be fun having you around.

Well not for long. I see a big boot being directed at Pioneer by Greg in his short future. This type of trash we don't need. I haven't reported him but...

C'mon CAESAR, be a sport. He may make rude, crude, close-minded and nasty posts, but the flipside is that his posts are just SOOOO easy to pick apart, or just fun to mess with. Allow me to demonstrate.....

i never voted for the liberals!my family has been here for more than 35 years so we vote conservative!

In other words, "my grandpappy voted conservative, my pappy voted conservative, and, by gum, I vote conservative". Very enlightened.

This reminds me of a joke I heard a while back.

A little Canadian girl goes to school in the USA. One day her teacher says "Everyone who is a proud American, raise your hand".

When our little heroin does NOT raise hers, teacher asks why she isn't proud to be an American.

"Well" says the little girl, "My daddy is Canadian, and my mommy is Canadian, so that makes me Canadian, too".

Teacher says "If your daddy was a moron, and your mother was an idiot, then what would that make you???".

The girl replies "American".

There you go CAESAR. It's great to have someone like PIONEER on board. Without folks like him, these forums would be so much less fun.

Donna Summer? No. Judy Garland maybe. Now that's really gay.  Kinda like the Bruce Springsteen of the str8 set.

You guys are both missing the boat. If we're talking Radical Gay listening material, then it's gotta be Liza Minelli.

Life is, after all, a cabaret, old chum.

  I'm with Eureka.  This is a forum for political discussion not a spelling bee. 

Ah doant cee nuthing rong with trang to halp peepul out in larning to spel beter. In fakt, ah think evry poste with no spellling misteaks shoud get a gold star for a pryze.

Lecturing people on typos and spelling is not only petty it's supercilious. 

Or some would say just super-silly. But hey, if it's done in the right way, it can provide great humour (Canadian spelling, you'll notice) value.

Seriously, August or IMR or anyone opposed.. Why are you opposed? 

Well, no good reason, really. But hey, mah pappy married a gurl, and mah grandpappy married a gurl, and mah great-grandpappy married a gurl, and they wouldn't'a stood for none o' this gay crap, so ah ain't, either.

What effect will it have on you personally?

Well, mah pappy, and mah grandpappy, and mah great-grandpappy will get really cantankerous if it passes.

In fact, mah grandpappy gets cantankerous when ANYTHING passes, like that kidney-stone he passed that time....

[PocketRocket]

TRIAL-AND-ERROR: I am still in a fun mood (too early, and too much caffiene), so please do not take any of the jabs in this post as serious insults. While addressing a couple serious issues, I had a bit of fun and cracked a few jokes. Bad jokes, but jokes all the same.

No offense intended.

  Plain common sense is no longer with us. 

Newsflash: it never was.

"Common Sense" The greatest oxymoron of our time.

I hear gays saying that they want to be treated like married couples cuz they want the world to know they love their partner and marriage is a way to make this public proclamation.  Horse feathers!  Sign up for a civil union, celebrate with gay abandon, get your benefits, and carry on with life.

So your problem is strictly with the use of the word "marry".

Search the origins of the word. In its original usage, it simply means "to join together". As in "The two pieces of wood were married by a screw". Come to think of it, a good screw is not a reason to get married, but it certainly helps.

  And to all couples, hetero and homosexuals - Kissing and mauling one another in public is repugnant.  Such activity is not a spectator sport. 

Damn. And I just bought some popcorn.

Actually, sex IS a spectator sport. There's a billion-dollar porn industry out there to prove it.

And if it's good on film, how much better live???

But hey, if it bugs you that much, look in the other direction. That's why the good Lord gave us moveable necks, so we can look the other way (or turn the other cheek).

But this kind of reminds me of my paternal grandmother, a notoriously strict Catholic. Back in the early 60's, CBC would occasionally show ballet on tv. She would sit there bitching and moaning about how "disgusting" it was when the male dancers wore tights, because you could "see everything".

But she wouldn't change the channel. Wiping the drool from her chin was a nearly full-time job during these shows.

People that complain about how "repugnant" something is to look at are usually the ones who are the last to actually look away

If I see one more male or female couple kissing on the tv news (talking about gay marriage), I think I will upchuck my cookies.  In your face is not where it's at.

See that thing in your right hand??? It's called a "remote control".

You can use it to change channel and thus find a program that does not repulse you.

If you have satellite tv, you can find Sesame Street almost any time of day.

What I'm thinking is that that's the agenda of many gays--make it so open that before you know it homosexuality is seen as a normal lifestyle to choose. 

Here we go. Paranoia and conspiracy theories. Dammit, close that closet door, there's a draught of fresh air getting in here.

Those who condone marriage between a man and a man and a woman and a woman are being politically correct but socially irresponsible.  While I believe that homosexuals are for the most part born that way, I also tend to believe that it could become an acquired "taste."  I would not want to raise youngsters to believe that it is normal for men to marry men and women to marry women.  It is NOT normal.  It is an ANOMOLY.  But it is also NOT an anomoly to be ridiculed or criticized but simply taken for what it is.

In the previous quote, you accuse gays of having an agenda.

But here, you clearly state that your own agenda is to establish and perpetuate the idea that homosexuality is "abnormal".

Dwarfism is not normal, but that does not mean that midgets (sorry, "little people") should be singled out as undesireable.

Cutting pieces of your penis off is not normal, but circumcision is still practised all over the world.

Poking holes in you body is not normal, but I bet your wife wears earrings.

Jabbing sharp objects into your flesh is not normal. Do you have any tattoos???

Scraping layers of skin off your body with a piece of metal is not normal, but I am assuming that you shave.

Homosexuality is here. It has always been here. It will always be here. And, it is already out in the open.

It's too late to put the genie back in the bottle (or in this case, the closet), although said genie may find some fun uses for the cork

My kids are all grown up now and when we discuss the issue, I find that we are divided along generational lines.  Seems many of us oldsters are traditionalists whilst the "kids" don't give a whit.  We all agree on equal benefits; we disagree on nomenclature.  They're forgiven 

Tell your kids I applaud their ability to keep an open mind in the face of adversity.

BTW, you're forgiven too. Everyone is, after all, entitled to their own stupid opinion. (And mine is generally stupider than most )

While there may be some among you who would label me homophobic, you would be wrong. 

I don't believe you are afraid of gay people. It's just happily-married gay couples that strike terror into your heart. And rightly so. They are, after all, out to rule the world.

I can see them now. Armies of jack-booted, limp-wristed men carrying tastefully-decorated assault-rifles, wearing pale-pink uniforms with nice mauve helmets, and patent-leather black belts to add that wee touch of "butch" to the ensemble. The Nazi Gays running rampant across Europe. Dancing their way to Moscow. Skipping merrily along in a bizarre ballet of conquest.

Columns upon columns of fuscia-painted mobile artillery.

Look out, here come the Pink Panzers !!!!!

Still I must retain my position, fix the bloody law--get the nomenclature right.  Men do not MARRY men and women do not MARRY women.  Period! 

Interesting. I know a few gay couples who are already married, and legally so.

I'll let them know that they never actually got married and it was all just a good dream.

[Black Dog]

It is perfectly reasonable to include sexual orientation as a ground; but is it reasonable to say that there is discrimination in its application to marriage?

Marriage has a specific meaning and that meaning must be altered to include "Gay" marriage.

You haven't demonstrated how the gender of the participants is essential for marriage to be amrriage. Basically, your argument is "if marriage is only between a man and a woman, then marriage is only between a man and a woman."

Plain common sense is no longer with us. I hear gays saying that they want to be treated like married couples cuz they want the world to know they love their partner and marriage is a way to make this public proclamation. Horse feathers! Sign up for a civil union, celebrate with gay abandon, get your benefits, and carry on with life.

There's no such thing as civil unions, not can there be.

"Horse feathers" indeed.

And to all couples, hetero and homosexuals - Kissing and mauling one another in public is repugnant. Such activity is not a spectator sport. If I see one more male or female couple kissing on the tv news (talking about gay marriage), I think I will upchuck my cookies. In your face is not where it's at. What I'm thinking is that that's the agenda of many gays--make it so open that before you know it homosexuality is seen as a normal lifestyle to choose

Thankfully, we don't live under the Taliban, but in a free society where all kinds of activities (some of which can be considered repugnant) are permitted so long as they do not interfere or harm anyone else. Gay marriag eis a great example of that: it doesn't affect you, so why do you care?

[The Terrible Sweal]

[My kids are all grown up now and when we discuss the issue, I find that we are divided along generational lines. Seems many of us oldsters are traditionalists whilst the "kids" don't give a whit. We all agree on equal benefits; we disagree on nomenclature. ...

While there may be some among you who would label me homophobic, you would be wrong.

If you agree that homosexuals should have the same rights 'in all but name', then I think you need to explain:

(1) what difference you think the name itself makes; and then

(2) why you think its proper to retain that difference, despite your asserted acceptance of the principle of equality.

Failing such explanation, perhaps you need to acknowledge that there is in fact some element of anti-homosexual bias in your position.

[willy]

In marriage we have husbands and wives.

Are men and women not equal because they have different titles? This is just a descriptive of a difference. There is no value associated to the terms they are equal in status.

Having two men committing for a life time and receiving benefits is different. If it was not different they would be marring women, which is the prevailing marriage choice. This does not make it worse or unequal but only different.

Normal only describes the choice or lifestyle of the majority. What we should be concerned about is that traditional family units have eroded over the last 40 years. There are tangible benefits to having nuclear families, raising kids. Divorce and common law relationships should concern us more than this issue of same sex relationships.

Why not just recognize that gays and lesbians deserve the right to have a committed contractual relationships but it should not be termed marriage as that already has a definition that includes husband and wife.

[knn]

RB -- If you were arguing s.1 infringement of rights...

Yes, I am quoting Section 15(1) - - Canadian Charter of Rights Decisions Digest. I'm not arguing about the original wording of the Charter, merely stating the resulting intrepretation of that section over time and what it stands for. Nit piking over these facts is not going to add any further clarity to the issue.

[knn]

willy Posted: Feb 4 2005, 01:17 PM

Why not just recognize that gays and lesbians deserve the right to have a committed contractual relationships but it should not be termed marriage as that already has a definition that includes husband and wife.

The reason being, as the supreme court stated:

1) "The opposite-sex requirement for marriage excludes same-sex couples, denying them access to the social institution of marriage and the value and worth of their unions that is bestowed by marriage."

2) "Same-sex couples can and do live in long-term, caring, loving and conjugal relationships – including those involving the rearing of children. Denying same-sex couples the choice of having their unions legally recognized as marriages perpetuates the view that they are not capable of forming intimate relationships of economic interdependence and thus same-sex relationships are not worthy of the same respect and recognition as opposite-sex relationships."

[August1991]

My kids are all grown up now and when we discuss the issue, I find that we are divided along generational lines. Seems many of us oldsters are traditionalists whilst the "kids" don't give a whit. We all agree on equal benefits; we disagree on nomenclature. They're forgiven

It does seem to be a generational thing. Older people favour the traditional use of the word "marriage" and younger people care little about how the word is used.

[Trial-and-Error]

Good grief, pocket, are you sure it was caffeine you were high on when you took all those pot shots at me last night? The only arrows that ever hit me are those nasties containing some element of truth. Not surprisingly I came away from your post totally unscathed. You see--and I'm only quoting what my friends say--"Lulubelle, you're such a sweetie, so far above the fray." And I don't at all disagree.

[Trial-and-Error]

[My kids are all grown up now and when we discuss the issue, I find that we are divided along generational lines.  Seems many of us oldsters are traditionalists whilst the "kids" don't give a whit.  We all agree on equal benefits; we disagree on nomenclature. ...

While there may be some among you who would label me homophobic, you would be wrong. 

If you agree that homosexuals should have the same rights 'in all but name', then I think you need to explain:

(1) what difference you think the name itself makes; and then

(2) why you think its proper to retain that difference, despite your asserted acceptance of the principle of equality.

Failing such explanation, perhaps you need to acknowledge that there is in fact some element of anti-homosexual bias in your position.

1) I've already answered that. I am a traditionalist who believes that marriage is between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others (or words to that effect)--and should remain so. It's that simple--no hiddren agendas--no moralizing. All definitions by definition define the parameters of a word. I have no desire to see the definition expanded to include same sexes.

2) The sexes are neither equal nor unequal--they're different and marriage to me shall remain forever the union of male and female.

Do I feel so strongly that I would actively oppose marriage for gay couples? No, I'll suck it up, but to repeat what I've said before, in my eyes gays will never be married.

Homophoebic? Not even close.

[The Terrible Sweal]

[My kids are all grown up now and when we discuss the issue, I find that we are divided along generational lines.  Seems many of us oldsters are traditionalists whilst the "kids" don't give a whit.  We all agree on equal benefits; we disagree on nomenclature. ...

While there may be some among you who would label me homophobic, you would be wrong. 

If you agree that homosexuals should have the same rights 'in all but name', then I think you need to explain:

(1) what difference you think the name itself makes; and then

(2) why you think its proper to retain that difference, despite your asserted acceptance of the principle of equality.

Failing such explanation, perhaps you need to acknowledge that there is in fact some element of anti-homosexual bias in your position.

1) I've already answered that. I am a traditionalist who believes that marriage is between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others (or words to that effect)--and should remain so. It's that simple--no hiddren agendas--no moralizing. All definitions by definition define the parameters of a word. I have no desire to see the definition expanded to include same sexes.

So your only reason is that you're opposed to change?

Interesting.

[Shakeyhands]

I wonder if you point about ages is really correct August

It does seem to be a generational thing. Older people favour the traditional use of the word "marriage" and younger people care little about how the word is used.

My 90 year old father and 70 year old mother both seem to agree that excluding Gay couples from a recognized Marriage is an infringment on their rights. In various discussions with older people, they seem to take a ' its not hurting me, yet it is hurting them' attitude.

I wonder if those lines might not more likely be along regional lines? You can't agrue that in Quebec and Ontario that the prevailing attitude is toward acceptance of the issue. Can you?

[Trial-and-Error]

Terrible Sweal - I'm pleased to learn that you find my response interesting. That's good. Yes, there are some things that don't require changing. Just because you and others believe that the definition of marriage should expand to include same sex couples doesn't mean that others should have to agree. Keep in mind, that you can legislate rights for minorities in which case I'm on side, but you cannot legislate how some people feel about their traditions. That's all I was saying. Some things, sweal, are just that simple.

[Guest eureka]

I am having a very hard time understanding how the proponents can not see that now men and women will be excluded from the social institution of marriage.

If the definition is changed to include another group then, logically, marriage as it was ceases to exist and becomes something different.

Could that mean that all those married couples can now considered themselves as divorced since the institution they are legally bound to is no more. Or must they re-"marry" to enjoy membership in the new club?

[Black Dog]

If the definition is changed to include another group then, logically, marriage as it was ceases to exist and becomes something different.

Could that mean that all those married couples can now considered themselves as divorced since the institution they are legally bound to is no more. Or must they re-"marry" to enjoy membership in the new club?

You're a funny one, eureka. On the one hand you boldly state that "there is no substance to the arguments" for same sex marriage, convieniently ignoring the Mack-truck sized logical flaws of your own argument. And now you're just flailing about wildly.

I'll correct your factual errors, even though I know it won't make a dent: you'll just steam roll through, getting more and more hysterical and youir arguments more outrageous as you go (at this rate, by the time I come back next week, you'll have probably progressed to arguing that same sex marriage means putting hetero couples in homosexual reeducation camps.)

The definition of marriage is not being changed to exlude anyone. Existing marriages will not be affected.

According to the SSM bill introduced this week:

Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others.

You still haven't explained the fundamental logical fallacy behind your belief that marriage is, by definition, between a man and a woman.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Terrible Sweal - I'm pleased to learn that you find my response interesting. That's good. Yes, there are some things that don't require changing. Just because you and others believe that the definition of marriage should expand to include same sex couples doesn't mean that others should have to agree. Keep in mind, that you can legislate rights for minorities in which case I'm on side, but you cannot legislate how some people feel about their traditions. That's all I was saying. Some things, sweal, are just that simple.

So are you an all-around conservative, opposed to any and all change? Or do you apply some selectivity to allow for some things to change?

BTW, of course, no-one is proposing to legislate how anyone should feel about anything.

[PocketRocket]

Good grief, pocket, are you sure it was caffeine you were high on when you took all those pot shots at me last night?  The only arrows that ever hit me are those nasties containing some element of truth.  Not surprisingly I came away from your post totally unscathed.  You see--and I'm only quoting what my friends say--"Lulubelle, you're such a sweetie, so far above the fray."  And I don't at all disagree. 

Actually, it was this morning, and yes, it was just caffeine, although I am not averse to the occasional joint.

But thanks for asking.

Glad to see you took it all in the spirit intended.

One thing is for sure, this debate is not changing anyone's mind on the matter, hence my descent into playful potshots and bad attempts at humour.

I will continue to follow this and other threads and continue with the silliness whenever I deem it appropriate.

[PocketRocket]

Uh-oh, here I go again....

  I am having a very hard time understanding how the proponents can not see that now men and women will be excluded from the social institution of marriage.

Now that's just ludicrous. It's the silliest bit of grasping-at-straws I've ever read.

Have you seen the movie "Shrek"????

Two ogres got married and are currently in the process of trying to live happily ever after, despite the best attempts to the contrary of the fairy godmother.

"What", you gasp to yourself, "Ogres can get married now??? I thought ogres do NOT live happily ever after !!!"

But hey, guess what??? It hasn't affected anyone else's marriage.

If the definition is changed to include another group....

Definition. I have said in this and other threads, in this and other websites, to all of you wonderful folk who cite definitions.....

read up on the origin of the words "marry" and "marriage".

Read. Research. Find origin of word. Go. Now. Do this thing. Not modern meaning. Origin.

You will find, if you bother to look, that "marry" in its original context, simply means "To join together".

"Marriage" is "A joining together of..."

The "definition" has evolved over time to be used almost, but not quite, exclusively as the joining together of two people.

In our popular culture, it is usually two people of opposite sexes.

....then, logically, marriage as it was ceases to exist and becomes something different.

Several answers to this. First, things ALWAYS change. Change is the only constant in the universe. Whatever you look at today, will be something different tomorrow, even if only in the way it is perceived.

Second, marriage has already changed, many MANY times.

Third, how can you seriously sit there and say making the use of the word "marriage" more inclusive in our society will cause what we consider to be "traditional" marriages to cease to exist??? That's like saying giving women the vote caused men to lose the vote.

But I agree that it becomes something different in one regard only, it becomes all-inclusive, and thereby, it could be argued, more legitimate.

Could that mean that all those married couples can now considered themselves as divorced since the institution they are legally bound to is no more. Or must they re-"marry" to enjoy membership in the new club?

Well gee whiz, what a great question.

When the curling club in your town decided to let women start playing, did that mean the male members of the club were suddenly no longer members???

When women were given the right to vote, was it taken away from men???

When you were big enough to wear long pants, did that mean you were no longer allowed to wear shorts???

If you're sitting in a bar and a couple gays walk in, does the bartender suddenly refuse to serve you???

Let's take it a bit further. In "traditional" marriages, Dad brings home the bacon, "Mom" stays home and cooks and cleans and changes diapers. When married women started getting out in the workforce did that "illegitimize" marriage??? It certainly "changed" marriage, or at least many marriages.

Fear of change. That seems to be a major catalyst in the anti-SSM argument.

Well sorry, campers, change happens. Always. Get used to it. If SSM is denied this time around, they'll keep pushing.

Eventually it'll be passed, whether it happens in months, years, or decades.

And a year or two after it's passed, when all the anti-SSM folks wake up and say "Hey, that wasn't so bad, and my spouse is still my spouse, and I don't feel any differently about him/her", then it'll all seem silly in hindsight.

And we'll all stop hearing about it and worrying about it.

EUREKA: you're a pretty smart cookie, as I told you in another thread. But your assertations in this post were, with all due respects, asinine, hence my asinine replies.

If you're going to argue a point, at least argue it honestly, ie: you are against SSM simply because you have an emotional issue with it, as is the case with just about everyone who is against it. Please don't try to apply logic when there is no logical argument to be applied. For the anti-SSM crowd, this is an emotional issue, and nothing more. And to make it all the more stupid, it's an emotional attachment to the PERCEIVED meaning of a single word. And, to make it even MORE stupid, no one seems to be willing to acknowledge to origin of the word.