Ethicist stands her ground

[Black Dog]

August:

Fourth, and critically for this thread, is someone now a Hitlerian, homophobic, racist bigot if she/he opposes gay marriage? Is opposing gay marriage now considered the same as advocating genocide?

You don't have to advocate genocide to be a homophobe or racist. Sommerville quite clearly considers gay relationships inferior to hetero ones (hence her endorsement of a seperate and inferior legal institution). That's not homohobia in a Fred Phelps sense, but its homophobia nonetheless.

Wrong. A child is better off having a mother and father, instead of two mothers or two fathers. A mother and father each bring unique characteristics and experiences that cannot be gained from two women and two men. It's common sense. It's also nature. I can't believe this is even debated.

I think a child is better off with loving and attentive parents regardless of their gender.

[Guest Warwick Green]

The ideal situation for children is to be raised with a mother and father. Don't blame me, blame nature.

Ideal or not, children can be brought up successfully in environments other than by two adults one of whom is a male and the other female.

[Black Dog]

Thread needs to be retitiled to "Ethicist misses the boat".

In conclusion: A choice must be made. Either marriage represents the inherently procreative relationship between two people, in which case it cannot include same sex couples, or it represents just an intimate, committed relationship between two adults, when it can include opposite-sex and same-sex partners.

To have marriage represent only a commitment between two people is a major departure from its original and primary purpose in relation to children and a radical change in its nature.

That ship has sailed.

[lost&outofcontrol]

Wrong. A child is better off having a mother and father, instead of two mothers or two fathers. A mother and father each bring unique characteristics and experiences that cannot be gained from two women and two men. It's common sense. It's also nature. I can't believe this is even debated.

Wow, I never though I'd see this level of ignorance on these boards. In this day an age where just about anything can be looked up on the internet, you would think that people would do their research before posting comments like yours.

Studies from 1981 to 1994, including 260 children reared by either heterosexual mothers or same-sex mothers after divorce, found no differences in intelligence, type or prevalence of psychiatric disorders, self-esteem, well-being, peer relationships, couple relationships, or parental stress.

Beliefs that gay and lesbian adults are not fit parents likewise have no empirical foundation (Cramer, 1986; Falk, 1989; Gibbs, 1988; Patterson, 1996). Lesbian and heterosexual women have not been found to differ markedly either in their overall mental health or in their approaches to child rearing (Kweskin & Cook, 1982; Lyons, 1983; Miller, Jacobsen, & Bigner, 1981; Mucklow & Phelan, 1979; Pagelow, 1980; Rand, Graham, & Rawlings, 1982; Thompson, McCandless, & Strickland, 1971), nor have lesbians' romantic and sexual relationships with other women been found to detract from their ability to care for their children (Pagelow, 1980). Recent evidence suggests that lesbian couples who are parenting together tend to divide household and family labor relatively evenly (Hand, 1991; Patterson, 1995a) and to report

satisfaction with their couple relationships (Koepke, Hare, & Moran, 1992; Patterson, 1995a). Research on gay fathers has similarly found no reason to believe them unfit as parents (Barret & Robinson, 1990; Bigner and Bozett, 1990; Bozett, 1980, 1989).

link

[lost&outofcontrol]

I don't know this woman from Adam, but I take it that she is someone with a particular intellectual reputation in Canada. I don't know if she is a homophobe, but for someone deemed to be an intellectual to have taken a position that is internally illogical, I can only conclude that her position is based on something other than reason.

So your position is that anyone who opposes homosexual marriage is unfit to be in any kind of responsible position in academia? Presumably they're unfit to be doctors, lawyers or politicians too. In fact, shouldn't their children be taken from them and raised by the state? Should there be "reducation camps" for people who are dumb enough to disagree with your political views?

Of course it's not his position, where did you get this from?! You see only what you want to see apparently. All he said was that her position is illogical based on her views towards civil unions. I'm blown away by how you could have inferred from his comments that he thinks people who oppose homosexual marriage are unfit to hold positions in academia.

[Chakote]

What's wrong with permitting a civil union? Although there is really no apparent fundamental distinction from SSM, how many gays do you think are going to get married in a church? Anyone that is against SSM for religious and traditional reasons can surely see the validity of allowing them to pursue their desired lifestyle under the guise of a different relationship as defined "in the books". But then again, this doesn't really touch on the parenting issue, does it...

[Liam]

...how many gays do you think are going to get married in a church?...

Actually, my best friends (a gay couple) were married in a Unitarian Universalist church. But I think you are right that the percent of gay couples who would opt for a religious ceremony is probably smaller than in the straight community. Even if the Catholic church would allow me to marry within its church -- which it never will and which is something I would never even bother to pursue -- I would probably prefer a ceremony on the beach.

[Shady]

I think a child is better off with loving and attentive parents regardless of their gender

Obviously a child is better of with loving parents. That's not the issue. A child is even better off with loving parents who are a mother and father.

Ideal or not, children can be brought up successfully in environments other than by two adults one of whom is a male and the other female.

Absolutely. Children can be brought up successfully in environments other then by a mother and father. But we're talking about what's the BEST situation. And by far, the BEST situation, is for a child to be brought up with a loving mother and a loving father, versus a loving mother and loving mother, or loving father and loving father.

What's wrong with permitting a civil union?

Nothing. I fully support Civil Unions.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Battle to reverse gay marriage to start with Parliament Hill rally

OTTAWA - The ground war to reverse same-sex marriage legislation starts in earnest today when an estimated 200 Christians and two backbench Conservative MPs rally on Parliament Hill in an effort to win over the several dozen politicians who have yet to state their position on the controversial issue....

The website belonging to Man and Woman Union speaks of the ability of gays and lesbians to "convert back" to heterosexuality and warns that the family tree "dies" in a same-sex relationship.

"I just don't understand what people don't get," Booth said. "If God says don't do it, you don't do it. For us it's a no-brainer. It's not a grey area, it's black and white ... What they're doing is sinful in the eyes of the Lord. Don't get mad at us, we're the messengers."...

Two Ontario Conservative MPs, Gary Goodyear and Harold Albrecht, are scheduled to address today's demonstration....

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national...058&k=77868&p=2

[Slavik44]

It is interesting that the primary reason many people, not all but many, oppose homosexuality is because homosexuality is considered a sin in the bible and goes agaisnt the word of God.

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death

However, how many people today in Canada follow this verse? In most western societies were are not so blindly absurd as to go around killing people in the name of some religous text, in fact now-a-days we declare such people as un-compatible for life in western society, we often label these people as terrorists or psychos.

At present we live in a society where we attempt to erase certain parts of such verses because they do not neccesarily fit with our vision of western society or a compassionate God. Instead more or less we are now left with a verse that says.

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination

I however see no reason to stop there, we have cut, copied, and pasted the bible to death, most of us don't live by a quater of the rules laid out in the book let alone all of them as God requires,

Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

--------------------------

Some in the Christian community would make the arguement that marriage is supposed to be representative of the relationship between God and the Church, The church is the bride of Christ. Based on this they would suggest that Homosexuals cannot get married because very clearly, homosexuality is an abomination to God and it defiles his picture of marriage, it defiles Gods plan.

However we must then make an important point. Our State recognizes muslim's as being married not civil Unioned, the state does not recognize that marriage any differently then a Christian Marriage. However, muslims are commiting an abomination before God, and they also defile God's marriage plan, and they are not a part of Gods Church according to the bible, the same applies to many religions in the world today. The state has long recognized marriages that are an abomiation to the Christian God, that state has long married people who are not a part of Gods Marriage plan, the state has defiled God's marriage plan for a long time.

-----------------------

Of course the religous claim that Homosexual's cannot get married is further compounded by the biblical definition of who a homosexual is.

For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.

The bible goes so far as to suggest that if you think about commiting one sin you have commited them all. The religous folks then must ask themselves if they have commited one sin? The bible again is clear on this.

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God

The fact is in a modern, western, and secular society such as Canada, there is no reason to prevent Gay's from being married. Any reason offered up by the Christian right should be seen for what it is, hipocrisy. A sinner is seen as a sinner no matter what sin they commit, an abomination is an abomination no matter what the abomination is, and unless you are a very fundementalist Christian, your marriage most likely also defiles Gods Marriage plan. Should we now make your marriage void? Should we void the marriage of all those who have sinned? Perhaps it would be a better plan, then to continue this archaic discrimination which we have in place at this present time.

------------------------

As well I do not believe we can define marriage as an institute for procreation. Clearly people make babies outside of marriage, and not everyone who is married can or will make babies. It is irrelivant, it is your own personal definition, what purpose you see for marriage can very well be how you define your marriage, but leave it at that. Your marriage is worth what you make it, as an individual.

I thought individualism and liberty were supposed to be the founding cornerstones of western society. Then why to this day do we continue to refuse to grant people the liberty to pursue happiness in their own way? We should stand to the principle of Liberty and a freedom that allows us to do all which injurs no one else.

Some may say it is immoral to trample on the traditional definition of marriage, but I would say it is much worse when we trample on Liberty, when we justify robbing another person of thier Liberty in the name of morals. But then how moral can you be when you rob another person of their liberty, to me that seems immoral. The morals themselves in denying a person the right to marry appear to be downright hipocritical.

Isn't it about time that the Conservatives stand strong to their promise of a smaller government, more moral, more accountable, and more in line with the principles of this country, of which liberty undoubtedly must rank the highest?

[newbie]

Using the Bible as justification for anti-homosexual behaviour just doesn't wash and never did. Try reading Leviticus and Deuteronomy to see where unruly children should be put to death, as well as adulterers, those from other faiths, those who don't listen to a Priest or judge.....and on and on. Most of us would have been put to death by now if those archaic laws were in place today.

[Slavik44]

Using the Bible as justification for anti-homosexual behaviour just doesn't wash and never did. Try reading Leviticus and Deuteronomy to see where unruly children should be put to death, as well as adulterers, those from other faiths, those who don't listen to a Priest or judge.....and on and on. Most of us would have been put to death by now if those archaic laws were in place today.

It is an unfortunate fact that the bible tends to be both the foundation and the weapon of choice for those opposing hompsexuality and gay marriage.

[Guest Warwick Green]

CBC radio has reported that Ryerson has indicated if it had been more aware of Somerville's opinions, it might not have offered her the degree. Two observations: sloppy work by a university in checking background and an indication that if you don't worship at the Great God of Political Correctness you are not worthy of an honorary degree. There is nothing offensive about Somerville's views other than it doesn't conform to what the Left wants us to think. Somerville, to her credit, has said that she will accept the degree.

Also from the CBC: it appears that the fatwa issued by Ayatollah al-Sistani, urging Muslims to obey the laws of the country in which they live is not his only comment on social issues. Six months ago he issued another fatwa stating that all homosexuals should be put to death.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Using the Bible as justification for anti-homosexual behaviour just doesn't wash and never did. Try reading Leviticus and Deuteronomy to see where unruly children should be put to death, as well as adulterers, those from other faiths, those who don't listen to a Priest or judge.....and on and on. Most of us would have been put to death by now if those archaic laws were in place today.

It is an unfortunate fact that the bible tends to be both the foundation and the weapon of choice for those opposing hompsexuality and gay marriage.

Only by the religious right. Quoting the bible to support an issue exposes you to a multitude of other biblical quotes at variance with modern society.

[Chakote]

It is your own personal definition, what purpose you see for marriage can very well be how you define your marriage, but leave it at that. Your marriage is worth what you make it, as an individual.

I thought individualism and liberty were supposed to be the founding cornerstones of western society. Then why to this day do we continue to refuse to grant people the liberty to pursue happiness in their own way? We should stand to the principle of Liberty and a freedom that allows us to do all which injurs no one else.

Exactly. We live in a multicultured, multiethnic society where all unharmful forms of belief (religious or otherwise) are accepted and tolerated. We then proceed to impose the views of one religion (the fact that it is Christianity is irrelevant) onto the rest of our country's citizens. I don't believe it makes sense to say "We are a Christian Nation, therefore SSM will not be permitted, but feel free to carry your Kirpan to school, feel free to lecture at your mosque each day, and remember that we live in a free democratic nation, where all forms of unhurtful lifestyle are graciously tolerated." If we (on a formal/judiciary level) will not legally accept any other definition of marriage than as described by the Christian texts, then why do we even allow those of other faiths to legally marry? A muslim or hindu woman and man obviously do not see themselves involved in a marriage as defined by Christianity, just because they happen to live in a (barely) majority Christian nation... It doesn't make sense to impose this one particular factor of Christian faith on the multicultured citizens of this country, without going all the way and making Church compulsory, punishable by fine, etc. Heck, why do some provinces now allow Sunday shopping? Before this even goes to vote, there are many people that should be forced to face up to this hypocrisy, but even in this beautiful nation of ours, they will never be held accountable.

[Black Dog]

Absolutely. Children can be brought up successfully in environments other then by a mother and father. But we're talking about what's the BEST situation. And by far, the BEST situation, is for a child to be brought up with a loving mother and a loving father, versus a loving mother and loving mother, or loving father and loving father.

So why aren't we debating banning divorce?

[Charles Anthony]

And by far, the BEST situation, is for a child to be brought up with a loving mother and a loving father,

So why aren't we debating banning divorce?

Good come-back!

This "best for the child" reasoning is sooooo laughable. It is only brought up as a priority when it is convenient.

[Slavik44]

Why is it that we bring up best for the child???? Do we know what that is? Do we provide that?

Look around we have murderers getting married, Alcoholics getting married, abusive parents, hell Osama bin laden has been married. You know what? I would rather have had Osama's children raised by a gay nudist colony. Frankly, I think it is absurd that we say Gay parents are not what is best for children, so we shouldn't allow them to be married. Especially considering the fact that so many other downright evil people have been married. Why is it that we require perfection from a group of people that go against the social norm but accept imperfection and creulty from people as long as they go along with what the church says? Is that truly best for society?

You know what the ideal situation for children to be brought up in is? It is an environment of love. I am almost offended when someone goes as far to suggest that the best situation is for a child to be raised by their biological parents, because no matter how you slice it, such a statement demeans the role that adopted parents and gurdians play in our society, it suggest that their love is not good enough.

If you believe that Children need a male or Female influence in their lives then I can tell you what to do. Stop raising a fuss over Gay relationships and put your time to better use, http://www.bigbrothersbigsisters.ca/en/Hom...isterMonth.aspx

Maybe it isn't as much fun as bitching and complaining, maybe it is. But if you honestly believe that both a male and female influence are neccasary in the upbringing of children, then what you should do is stop shunning certian groups from society and raise a helping hand.

Our society is full of different families that take different forms, but every family will have a way to provide children with both male and female influences. Wether it is through relatives, friends, or teachers and other administrative figures the role can be filled. And if such a family lacts an ability then I would encourage you to do something productive about it, ostracizing such families is far from the most productive method.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Our society is full of different families that take different forms, but every family will have a way to provide children with both male and female influences. Wether it is through relatives, friends, or teachers and other administrative figures the role can be filled. And if such a family lacts an ability then I would encourage you to do something productive about it, ostracizing such families is far from the most productive method.

I doubt that the waitress at the local coffee shop can take over the role of a female authority figure in the family.

People talk of the "ideal" situation. Ideally, there would be no crime, no violence, no poverty and no greenhouse gas emissions.

The ideal family as portrayed by some was a myth. But more and more the two parent male-female family is becoming less and less the norm. Rather than getting into some misty-eyed nostaligia for "Leave it to Beaver" let's recognize the reality of single parent families and gay parents and determine how these situations can function best.

[scribblet]

If UWO can give Henry Morgantaler an honorary degree I see nothing wrong with Somerville getting one.

Ethicist Margaret Somerville has received five honorary degrees and dozens of fellowships and awards in her 40-year academic career.

.

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...3b-3d96437cd680

Ryerson should not back down, Morgentaler's degree is a good comparison, and example of a double standard from activists.

These left wing activists profess to be tolerant but it is evidently tolerance of only views with which they agree. The attempts to shut down freedom of speech and opposing views is quite transparent, but accusations of racism and 'homophobia' always work these days.

[Guest Warwick Green]

If UWO can give Henry Morgantaler an honorary degree I see nothing wrong with Somerville getting one.

Ethicist Margaret Somerville has received five honorary degrees and dozens of fellowships and awards in her 40-year academic career.

.

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...3b-3d96437cd680

Ryerson should not back down, Morgentaler's degree is a good comparison, and example of a double standard from activists.

These left wing activists profess to be tolerant but it is evidently tolerance of only views with which they agree. The attempts to shut down freedom of speech and opposing views is quite transparent, but accusations of racism and 'homophobia' always work these days.

They discredit themselves but identifying someone who supports civil unions as a a "homophobe". The battle to retain SSM is about to begin in earnest. If they go to Ottawa and keep throwing the "H" word around at anyone who disagrees with them they will lose support for their efforts to retain gay marriage.

[Argus]

They discredit themselves but identifying someone who supports civil unions as a a "homophobe". The battle to retain SSM is about to begin in earnest. If they go to Ottawa and keep throwing the "H" word around at anyone who disagrees with them they will lose support for their efforts to retain gay marriage.

I would say the greater problem with respect for rights at the university and academic level is the almost total lack of respect for the right to freedom of speech and opinion among left wingers. I find that far more disturbing than this woman being opposed to SSM. I would say that no one who has such a virulent distaste and such fundamental opposition to freedom of speech and opinions should even be a teacher of any kind.

I wouldn't want my kids taught by such a narrow minded person.

[Guest Warwick Green]

They discredit themselves but identifying someone who supports civil unions as a a "homophobe". The battle to retain SSM is about to begin in earnest. If they go to Ottawa and keep throwing the "H" word around at anyone who disagrees with them they will lose support for their efforts to retain gay marriage.

I would say the greater problem with respect for rights at the university and academic level is the almost total lack of respect for the right to freedom of speech and opinion among left wingers. I find that far more disturbing than this woman being opposed to SSM. I would say that no one who has such a virulent distaste and such fundamental opposition to freedom of speech and opinions should even be a teacher of any kind.

I wouldn't want my kids taught by such a narrow minded person.

Those whose views are based on ideology - however generated - rarely value free speech or views different from their own.

[Black Dog]

They discredit themselves but identifying someone who supports civil unions as a a "homophobe". The battle to retain SSM is about to begin in earnest. If they go to Ottawa and keep throwing the "H" word around at anyone who disagrees with them they will lose support for their efforts to retain gay marriage.

But she is a homophobe. As I stated earlier, she clearly believes homosexuals are (as they say in academia) an "other" undeserving of participating in the same social institutions or enjoying the same status as heterosexuals. That's pretty damn homophobic to me. Homophobia, like rascism or sexism, mainifests itself in many different ways.

[Guest Warwick Green]

They discredit themselves but identifying someone who supports civil unions as a a "homophobe". The battle to retain SSM is about to begin in earnest. If they go to Ottawa and keep throwing the "H" word around at anyone who disagrees with them they will lose support for their efforts to retain gay marriage.

But she is a homophobe. As I stated earlier, she clearly believes homosexuals are (as they say in academia) an "other" undeserving of participating in the same social institutions or enjoying the same status as heterosexuals. That's pretty damn homophobic to me. Homophobia, like rascism or sexism, mainifests itself in many different ways.

There is no automatic right for gays to marriage entitlement. It's a matter of public policy to be determined by Parliament. Just because you are oppsed to extending the definition of marriage doesn't make one homophobic. Homophobia means "dislike or hatred of gays" and recently was exemplified by Larry Spencer who was kicked out of the Canadian Alliance for advocating that gays should be put in prison.