Ethicist stands her ground

[Riverwind]

Just because you are oppsed to extending the definition of marriage doesn't make one homophobic.

There is no rational reason to oppose extending marriage to same sex couples. The so called reasons offered by opponents are generally irrelevant or contradictory. The leads many to conclude that the real motivation for opposing SSM is homophobia.

[Oddman]

Just because you are oppsed to extending the definition of marriage doesn't make one homophobic.

There is no rational reason to oppose extending marriage to same sex couples. The so called reasons offered by opponents are generally irrelevant or contradictory. The leads many to conclude that the real motivation for opposing SSM is homophobia.

Let's be real here - for the most part, those who live in places like Saskatchewan, Alberta and the richer areas of Ontario would be the ones who do not support SSM.

So if you live in Alberta right now, why would you care about the people near Church and Wellesley in Toronto?

This debate makes my head hurt - and whoever it is that stated that when they cite the messages in the Bible (their name escapes me) that they are "only expressing what the truth is", I think you need to get off your religiously-centric horse and join a debate where your blind faith to a book doesn't always get pulled out of your back pocket like an ace.

[sharkman]

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.

A phobia is a fear, as I'm sure you know. Homophobe is like calling one a chicken. It's the most overused insult going, and does not add to the discourse. Usually, when someone has differences with the way I view things, I recognize it for what it is, a disagreement.

In this debate in Canada, I can see that the left will once again try to whip up the fear factor by throwing phobia around. It didn't work last election, and I think Canadians are intelligent enough to recognize when they are being manipulated.

[gc1765]

A phobia is a fear, as I'm sure you know. Homophobe is like calling one a chicken. It's the most overused insult going, and does not add to the discourse. Usually, when someone has differences with the way I view things, I recognize it for what it is, a disagreement.

In this debate in Canada, I can see that the left will once again try to whip up the fear factor by throwing phobia around. It didn't work last election, and I think Canadians are intelligent enough to recognize when they are being manipulated.

The suffix Phobia can also mean to dislike. Look up the definition of "Hydrophobic". Oil is not afraid of water. I think Canadians are intelligent enough to recognize that words can have more than one meaning.

[Guest Warwick Green]

A phobia is a fear, as I'm sure you know. Homophobe is like calling one a chicken. It's the most overused insult going, and does not add to the discourse. Usually, when someone has differences with the way I view things, I recognize it for what it is, a disagreement.

In this debate in Canada, I can see that the left will once again try to whip up the fear factor by throwing phobia around. It didn't work last election, and I think Canadians are intelligent enough to recognize when they are being manipulated.

The suffix Phobia can also mean to dislike. Look up the definition of "Hydrophobic". Oil is not afraid of water. I think Canadians are intelligent enough to recognize that words can have more than one meaning.

I agree. One definition of homophobia I saw was "Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men: Behavior based on such a feeling". That definition is subject to interpretation but I don't think it covers someone (myself) who generally supports gay rights but has misgivings about same-sex 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.

But she is a homophobe.

Drivel.

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.

Half or thereabouts, of the people in this country are opposed to homosexual marriage. You don't get to smugly dismiss their opinion, their belief, as illegitimate. You don't get to say that people who hold an opinion which differs from your own have no rights to speak that opinion, or that people who hold that opinion must somehow be shunned as unworthy of society. That's a fascist sentiment and is far more dangerous than people who don't like homosexuals.

[betsy]

So black and white. How about a child raised with a father constanly beating his wife and/or other children? Are you telling me you'd accept that over a child raised under a relationship with 2 loving parents of the same gender? Think outside the box once in awhile.

Why, do you think battering or any other types of domestic violence do not happen to gay or lesbian relationships?

"Until fairly recently, violence in lesbian relationships has been a taboo subject and one best kept "behind closed doors." Only in the recent past have women begun to name and discuss their abusive relationships. One reason is that, until recently, abuse has been hidden. However, additional factors have made it more difficult for lesbians to discuss abuse in their relationships."

http://www.womensweb.ca/violence/dv/lesbian.php

"How domestic violence in lesbian, bi and gay relationships is the same as in heterosexual relationships"

http://msu.edu/~cdaadmin/lesbian,_bi,_and_gays.htm

[newbie]

So black and white. How about a child raised with a father constanly beating his wife and/or other children? Are you telling me you'd accept that over a child raised under a relationship with 2 loving parents of the same gender? Think outside the box once in awhile.

Why, do you think battering or any other types of domestic violence do not happen to gay or lesbian relationships?

"Until fairly recently, violence in lesbian relationships has been a taboo subject and one best kept "behind closed doors." Only in the recent past have women begun to name and discuss their abusive relationships. One reason is that, until recently, abuse has been hidden. However, additional factors have made it more difficult for lesbians to discuss abuse in their relationships."

http://www.womensweb.ca/violence/dv/lesbian.php

"How domestic violence in lesbian, bi and gay relationships is the same as in heterosexual relationships"

http://msu.edu/~cdaadmin/lesbian,_bi,_and_gays.htm

Where did I say any kind of violence is okay? I was talking about loving relationships.

[Liam]

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

...including those whose views are based on conservative ideology? *LOL

I actually disagree with this assertion because most of the world's views are based on some kind of ideology, yet I think most people are open to hear opposing ideas. I would agree if you said that those who are dogmatic about a particular ideology rarely value free speech or views that differ from their own. (I am moderate to liberal and most of my views come out of that ideology, yet I enjoy listening to conservative talk radio and have had their arguments change my opinions on some issues.)

[Liam]

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...

I think that is ridiculous for Ryerson to take that position and I am glad to see that she went through the ceremony and got the degree, despite some professors' turning their back on her. That's shameful, IMO. A university is supposed to be an environment that fosters examination of all the issues in the universe (hence the name), not just issues we agree with. Likewise, I think it would be a disgrace for professors at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University to turn their backs on the head of GLAAD or HRC (though I don't expect them to ever honor someone who disagrees with them on this issue, so we'll probably never know).

I disagree with Somerville's position, but that doesn't mean she should be wholly dismissed as a crackpot or a homophobe or that she should be shunned. But as I have said before, I think her position on opposition to SSM but in favor of CUs is not logical. I would expect someone of such intellectual distinction to be able to advance a reason beyond citing traditional values. Tradition is perhaps the weakest argument of any. If "tradition" was the ultimate trump card in shutting off intellectual debate, we would be still blindly denying the findings of Copernicus and Galileo. I have hope that someone with an intellect such as Somerville's will be open to further scientific and sociological data which may prove a currently held position to be without merit.

[Guest Warwick Green]

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

...including those whose views are based on conservative ideology? *LOL

I actually disagree with this assertion because most of the world's views are based on some kind of ideology, yet I think most people are open to hear opposing ideas. I would agree if you said that those who are dogmatic about a particular ideology rarely value free speech or views that differ from their own. (I am moderate to liberal and most of my views come out of that ideology, yet I enjoy listening to conservative talk radio and have had their arguments change my opinions on some issues.)

It's the dogmatists who get all the publicity though. If you listen to spokespersons for the religious right you would believe that all social conservatives want homosexuilty banned and abortions outlawed - but in reality socons are by no means that single-minded.

I don't make any distinction as to right or left. In answer to the question, "Who would you rather be stuck on a desert island with, Svend Robinson or Margaret Somerville?" the answer is, "Neither of them".

[Guest Warwick Green]

Nobody will ever know the truth.

Loney says camp closing because of his homosexuality

CBC News

Former hostage James Loney is accusing an Ontario Catholic camp he once worked for of closing its doors because of his homosexuality.

James Loney alleged that a youth camp closed its doors in an act of discrimination.

The closure of the Ontario Catholic Youth Leadership Camp by the Knights of Columbus Ontario State Council, which finances the camp, was an act of discrimination, Loney told a news conference Tuesday.

Loney said he and his supporters struggled with the decision to go public with the allegations, but finally decided to come forward.

http://www.cbc.ca/toronto/story/to-loney20060620.html

[betsy]

Isn't Knights Of Columbus a Christian organization?

What's wrong if they did pulled funding from the camp based on concern for being accused of promoting a different lifestyle? That is putting it mildly....I guess they are concerned too about being branded "bigots"....for as a Christian group, why should they fund something that is considered a sin and forbidden in our faith?

Talk about freedom of religion!

This is one example why no matter how much the government reassures us that SSM will not be imposed on religious groups...I say, Baloney to that! No matter what, gay activists are going to erode anything and everything that do not accept their lifestyles as "normal".

Christian groups are putty in the hands of any liberal-minded activist!

[Guest Warwick Green]

What's wrong if they did pulled funding from the camp based on concern for being accused of promoting a different lifestyle? That is putting it mildly....I guess they are concerned too about being branded "bigots"....for as a Christian group, why should they fund something that is considered a sin and forbidden in our faith?

If the KofC came out and said that there were shutting the camp down because it was being used to promote homosexuality (something that is contrary to Roman Catholic doctrine) I think that would be legitimate. However, they have gone all fuzzy, deny the link to Loney's sexual orientation, and talk about shutting it down to review "its mission, vision and administration". There was a time when the RC Church stood up and was counted. Now they hide behind PR flacks.

[Melanie_]

Loney claims the council's chairman said during a phone call on March 31, 2006, that concerns had been raised that the camp was promoting a homosexual lifestyle, and made specific reference to Loney. Shortly after, the camp closed.

Concerns may have been expressed, but that hardly seems like a valid reason to shut down. Having an employee who is gay doesn't mean it is promoting a gay lifestyle or funding something they consider to be a sin. I expect there will be reasons behind shutting it down other than simply having a gay employee.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Loney claims the council's chairman said during a phone call on March 31, 2006, that concerns had been raised that the camp was promoting a homosexual lifestyle, and made specific reference to Loney. Shortly after, the camp closed.

Concerns may have been expressed, but that hardly seems like a valid reason to shut down. Having an employee who is gay doesn't mean it is promoting a gay lifestyle or funding something they consider to be a sin. I expect there will be reasons behind shutting it down other than simply having a gay employee.

I'm not sure the KofC would knowingly appoint a gay counsellor. This is an easier way of slipping out from under than firing Loney which would cause a public outcry.

[betsy]

Loney claims the council's chairman said during a phone call on March 31, 2006, that concerns had been raised that the camp was promoting a homosexual lifestyle, and made specific reference to Loney. Shortly after, the camp closed.

Concerns may have been expressed, but that hardly seems like a valid reason to shut down. Having an employee who is gay doesn't mean it is promoting a gay lifestyle or funding something they consider to be a sin. I expect there will be reasons behind shutting it down other than simply having a gay employee.

I agree that it does not necessarily mean promoting it....but this employee (and his sexual orientation) had become very high profile. And this is a Christian camp. Not to mention there has been some gay issues or related issues dogging Christendom (from pedophilia to SSM), so the timing has something to do with it too.

Further more, the camp is catering to children...who are bound to be asking questions...awkward questions that could raise conflicts and confusions. I see the point there.

And maybe closing down is much simpler than firing him.

[Charles Anthony]

This is an easier way of slipping out from under than firing Loney which would cause a public outcry.

I believe you are most likely correct.

Nevertheless, I believe they should have that right. They are not a public institution. They are not a public school and they are not a government service.

[Argus]

Nobody will ever know the truth.

Loney says camp closing because of his homosexuality

CBC News

Former hostage James Loney is accusing an Ontario Catholic camp he once worked for of closing its doors because of his homosexuality.

James Loney alleged that a youth camp closed its doors in an act of discrimination.

The closure of the Ontario Catholic Youth Leadership Camp by the Knights of Columbus Ontario State Council, which finances the camp, was an act of discrimination, Loney told a news conference Tuesday.

Loney said he and his supporters struggled with the decision to go public with the allegations, but finally decided to come forward.

http://www.cbc.ca/toronto/story/to-loney20060620.html

Lonie is a nut job anyway. Why is this flake being taken seriously over anything at all?

[Black Dog]

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.

Homophobia can be far more passive than expressing outright disgust or bigotry. It's no different from rascism, which manifests itself in a myriad different, often subtle, ways. Somerville's views make no sense unless viewed through the lens of someone who believes homosexuals, by virtue only of their sexual orientation, are not entitled to the same status and privileges as heterosexuals.

Half or thereabouts, of the people in this country are opposed to homosexual marriage. You don't get to smugly dismiss their opinion, their belief, as illegitimate.

Why not? At different times in history, majorities deemed women, blacks, Chinese etc as unworthy of enjoying the same rights of the dominant white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant population. The popularity of a belief is not a sign of its moral correctness.

You don't get to say that people who hold an opinion which differs from your own have no rights to speak that opinion, or that people who hold that opinion must somehow be shunned as unworthy of society. That's a fascist sentiment and is far more dangerous than people who don't like homosexuals

Strawman. I never said homophobes should be silenced. Only that they should be recognized as such.

[Guest Warwick Green]

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.

Homophobia can be far more passive than expressing outright disgust or bigotry. It's no different from rascism, which manifests itself in a myriad different, often subtle, ways. Somerville's views make no sense unless viewed through the lens of someone who believes homosexuals, by virtue only of their sexual orientation, are not entitled to the same status and privileges as heterosexuals.

Someone who believes gays are entitled to equal benefits, both in the workplace and from social programs, who believes that gays should be covered by human rights legislation and believes in civil unions not marriage for gays may well stand accused of believing that gays "are not entitled to the same status and privileges as heterosexuals".

But that doesn't make them a homophobe. Homophobes are people who want to strip gays of any legal protections.

Homophobes are people like Fred Henry who said, "Since homosexuality, adultery, prostitution and pornography undermine the foundations of the family, the basis of society, then the state must use its coercive power to proscribe or curtail them in the interests of the common good"

http://www.cbc.ca/edmonton/story/ed-human-...op20050331.html

Homophobes are people like Cardinal Pell

Cardinal Pell applauds civil unions defeat

The Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell, has weighed into the debate over the ACT's attempt to introduce a civil unions law.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1665819.htm

These people are homophobes, not Margaret Somerville.

[Guest Warwick Green]

This is an easier way of slipping out from under than firing Loney which would cause a public outcry.

I believe you are most likely correct.

Nevertheless, I believe they should have that right. They are not a public institution. They are not a public school and they are not a government service.

I agree. But it shows moral cowardice if they are not prepared to tell the truth as to why they closed the camp.

[Charles Anthony]

I agree. But it shows moral cowardice if they are not prepared to tell the truth as to why they closed the camp.

No. I disagree.

If they told the truth (we are together presuming it is because of Loney being gay), we agree they would receive a backlash from the public -- a battle they can not win. They are cornered with respect to PR -- they are damned if they do and damned if they do not. That backlash is not fair because they do not have to be accountable to the public.

It is the backlash against the private club that is the injustice and cowardice.

[Black Dog]

Someone who believes gays are entitled to equal benefits, both in the workplace and from social programs, who believes that gays should be covered by human rights legislation and believes in civil unions not marriage for gays may well stand accused of believing that gays "are not entitled to the same status and privileges as heterosexuals".

But that doesn't make them a homophobe. Homophobes are people who want to strip gays of any legal protections.

So I suppose a racist is only someone who wants to string the n***ers up? Give me a break. The subtle homophobia expressed by people like Sommerville, or anyone else who says things like "I beleive in equal rights for gays but..." is even more insidious. Extremist crackpots like Henry can be marginalized or dismissed. But because views like Sommerville's are couched in terms that appear reasonable and are far from the fire-breathing, "God hates fags" rhetoric of the nutjobs out there, they are far more likely to be considered and adopted, with the end result being the continued marginalization of homosexuals.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Someone who believes gays are entitled to equal benefits, both in the workplace and from social programs, who believes that gays should be covered by human rights legislation and believes in civil unions not marriage for gays may well stand accused of believing that gays "are not entitled to the same status and privileges as heterosexuals".

But that doesn't make them a homophobe. Homophobes are people who want to strip gays of any legal protections.

So I suppose a racist is only someone who wants to string the n***ers up? Give me a break. The subtle homophobia expressed by people like Sommerville, or anyone else who says things like "I beleive in equal rights for gays but..." is even more insidious. Extremist crackpots like Henry can be marginalized or dismissed. But because views like Sommerville's are couched in terms that appear reasonable and are far from the fire-breathing, "God hates fags" rhetoric of the nutjobs out there, they are far more likely to be considered and adopted, with the end result being the continued marginalization of homosexuals.

So you can't have legitimate differences of opinion any more? So long as you are not in complete agreement with the gay agenda you are a homophobe. And I guess she is also an anti-semite since she is also opposed to cicumcision.

BTW, I am a homophobe too it appears since I have reservations about SSM.