Time's Embarassment

[Craig Read]

One needs to know only 2 facts about the sad state of Socialist/Internationalist/Appeasement Canada:

1. the effective fighting force of the tax office is 3:1 over the military.

2. Time Canada decides that Gay Marriage and coupling shoved down the public's throat through extra-legal processes and liberal posturing 'defines' what it means to be Canadian. Ergo the first gay married couple is man and man of the year!

How sick and sad that the major news event and personalities in 'Liberalism gone amok North' and the elevation of deviancy not only graces Time Canada's cover as newsmaker of the year but is now touted as a national 'value' ?

Since when did being gay define Canada and whose values are being defined ?

In the US, the grownups decide that the rather foolish title of person of the year [do we really need to have this ?] is the Unknown soldier and the military.

Not a deviant couple flouting social conservative opinion and demanding that deviancy be protected by the Charter of Rights.

What a country.

[Lost in Manitoba]

The first Gay Marriage and the Unknown Soldier have something in common though, Craig. It's called freedom. The Unknown Soldier, fighting against oppression, fighting for freedom, for the ideal of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.... Exactly what gay people want.

[Hugo]

It's also exactly what gay people have, and have had for years. What gays are fighting for now is privilege and special treatment, and in a free and egalitarian society they shouldn't get it.

This "award" from Time Canada is just a leftist sop. Do you seriously think nobody in Canada has done something more worthy of the title? That there are no scientists or doctors who have made great strides in the treatment of disease and saved lives or no firefighters who have rescued people from burning buildings at great risk to themselves?

That springs to mind because my father-in-law is a firefighter and was exposed to a highly toxic substance at a chemical plant fire this year, and despite the fact that he knew that said substance had been spilt in huge quantities he went ahead and did his job anyway. He gave medical aid, along with a colleague, to an injured employee despite the near certainty that the amount of this toxic substance covering the patient would kill him too. He was hospitalised immediately following the incident and the doctors there informed him that he would die within 24 hours due to chemical exposure.

Miraculously, he survived - but do you seriously believe, Lost, that a couple of homosexuals who got married deserve a "man of the year" award more than my father-in-law, who was laying down his life to try and save a total stranger?

[maplesyrup]

Let's not lose track here about what they are being recognized for:

Tme Canada's magazine Newsmaker, of the year for 2003, is what it is for.

It's news because it is controversial.

I'm glad your father-in-law survived.

Merry Christmas.

[Craig Read]

This award just reinforces my view that Canada is an adolescent puerile nation.

The reason for these two to win the award is their effect on Canada's 'social liberalism'. The story is presented in good Canadian fashion - positive spin [so caring are we], moral [after all gays are people too], justice [Charter of Rights upheld], anti-American [those bastards award their military the same honour], nurturing [kinder, compassionate society], and progressive [see we are #1 the world's first to recognise such social liberalism].

Ridiculous.

Does Canada really believe that a fraudalent, anti-democratic,anti-parliamentary,extra legal process, in which deviancy for no other reason than to engage in enshrining minority rights differences is worthy of being made news of the year ? If so why is the story only ONE SIDED.

Where is the negative attributions to such a colossal failure of common sense ?

[Lost in Manitoba]

privilege and special treatment

Good God, next thing you know women will try to gain the vote and people of colour will want to own property 'ghasp'! Your argument is ridiculous.

I do love the story of you father in law though. Yeah he is a hero and definitely deserves recognition as such. Is such heroism, though, and courage along the same lines as say, Nelson Mandela? or the women's sufferage league? Your father in law was doing his job, a career choice to be the guy to run into burning buildings and risk life and limb to save the life of another. The fight for equality or against injustice, is a massive thing that is beyond the individual person. It may prove to change the lives of everybody in this society from that moment foward. It can shape society itself and the attitudes and prejudices, beliefs and misconceptions, of every member of that society. Your father in law improved the life of one person, by saving them. The gay marriage may improve the lives of many many more.

[Hugo]

Your argument is ridiculous.

Not at all. As I've already proven in other threads, gays had all the same rights as straights, including marriage rights. Their latest gambit is to gain privilege.

For instance, they want the tax breaks and recognition of marriage and next-of-kin, however, those things exist because the law recognises that in a traditional marriage there exists an income gap between man and woman because of the raising of children. Homosexuals don't have that gap, but they still want the benefits designed to fill it - basically, they want to have their cake and eat it.

Marriage allows you, as a man, to marry a woman, of marriageable age, who is not closely related to you, not already married etc. Those criteria apply to everyone. If you want to marry a man - tough. This discriminates against homosexuals in exactly the same way as it discriminates against those who want to marry 6-year-olds, those who want to marry 7 women, those who want to marry their dog, or even those who want to marry themselves (Michael Coren wrote a great column on this, using exactly the same arguments that gay rights groups use to justify marrying himself). It even discriminates against those extremely ugly and uncharismatic loners who can't find anyone who can stand their company.

Now, that's all I'm going to say. We already had these arguments as to the social implications of gay marriage and you didn't have anything to rebut with, ultimately, so there is no point rehashing the whole thing in order that you be proven wrong again.

Your father in law improved the life of one person, by saving them. The gay marriage may improve the lives of many many more.

You think improving a life is the same as saving it, that marrying two gays is the same as saving someone's life? Pay attention, Lost, this is a ridiculous argument.

[Craig Read]

Hugo, good points, and what makes me laugh reading Time Canada's explanation is the 'goodness' and 'morality' behind their pathetic choice.

Q:Since when has the media become the cheerleader for social liberalism and the destruction of the family ?

A:When defining Canadian values includes all things not American; includes post modern rhetoric and feel good emotionalism.

I can't imagine the wimps in our society creating a world out of the wilderness circa 1800 or fighting wars of freedom.

They would cry that it was against their human rights to work hard or sacrifice their lives, or even gasp to sweat.

The social implications of Time's choice is odious and obvious. The social costs are profound. Already Dimwit McGuinty is going to pay out $100 million retroactive on social payments to a deviant minority. As Hugo stated:

For instance, they want the tax breaks and recognition of marriage and next-of-kin, however, those things exist because the law recognises that in a traditional marriage there exists an income gap between man and woman because of the raising of children. Homosexuals don't have that gap, but they still want the benefits designed to fill it - basically, they want to have their cake and eat it.

Exactly - it is another money grab.

So when does the madness stop ? When every single 'minority' with an axe to grind gets paid off ? Is then the true sum and calculus of social liberalism ? Equal bribes for all ?

[Brainiac]

Time Canada decides that Gay Marriage and coupling shoved down the public's throat through extra-legal processes and liberal posturing 'defines' what it means to be Canadian.  Ergo the first gay married couple is man and man of the year!

Who cares. Time is a lousy magazine anyways. That person of the year stuff is just a way to sell, or I guess in your case not sell, magazines. Is the person of the year suppose to define Canada? I thought it was just the big news makers of the year.

[Alliance Fanatic]

Well, homosexuality is not the same as civil rights in the 60's. People are born black, they have no choice in it, and you should never be judged by physical characteristics, but by the content of your character, and your actions. On the other hand, homosexuality is a SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, homosexuality is no different than pedophilia, beastiality, incest, etc. They are all different sexual behaviors which were considered immoral until now.

Social Liberalism, is a code word, for a moral sewer. What has socially liberal, progressive policies done for Canada.

- 30% of pregnancies end up in abortions, 100,000 unborn babies die off each year

- a large outbreak of STD's in large cities such as Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal

- Gang violence on the increase in this country

- Police officer's being attacked more often by criminal's

- Students as young as 12, learning about how to have safe anal sex

- safe drug sites, for drug users, while this may help extend their lives, those people are still living in a sewer.

- 50% of marriages ending in divorce

This is not a compassionate society, a compassionate society would not accept homosexuality as a alternative lifestyle, due to the fact that it has negative affects on a person's personal life, and their physical life [the average life expectancy for gays is 42]. However a compassionate society would not abolish, or do away with gays, a compassionate society would help them get out of that lifestyle.

On abortion, no compassionate society would support killing the unborn. Children should be cherished in this society. Instead of getting teenage, unwed, girls to go to the abortion clinic, we as a society should help them raise their children, and help them in anyway possible.

We as a society should not decriminilize drugs. The fact is that drugs infact hurt a person, It is my belief that if we decriminilize all drugs, that we will basically say that we as a society support drug use, we should keep it outlawed, and should jail those people who would sell crystal meth, to kids in grade school.

Canada should re-instate a tax credit, which should be at around $3,000 for every child a family has, this would help with a childs educations, and this would also allow the mother time off work to help take care of the children.

[Craig Read]

AF, I would agree that Gay sex and marriage is deviancy and informs a broken society. Further to your points I would add that the Gay lobby and its legal trained friends, as well as a compliant and ignorant media usually rave equating black rights and civil rights movements with Gay rights. This is incorrect, misleading and is done on purpose by vested interests and the Gay lobby - in short it is an immoral and misconstrued comparison.

My issue against Time and the Cdn media is the one sided - rah rah rah - nature of their coverage and how it 'defines being Canadian' [according to Time Cda's editor].

This is nauseating.

This highly organized gay lobby continues to press forward in Canada by attacking any institution, both public and private, that tends to resist their encroachment by adopting discriminatory membership policies. In the recent past, these have included the armed forces, the Boy Scouts and of course various religious denominations.

To achieve this goal, and under the banner of civil rights, gay advocates use: litigation leading to judicial fiat, liberal theology, legislative activism, medical revisionism, economic pressure and a mob of literati that tout the gay lifestyle in newspaper columns and movies, on radio talk shows, and with TV sitcoms and august PBS and cable network documentaries.

Now in Canada Gay Marriage has come to pass.

For thousands of years, and in most cultures, marriage has traditionally been defined as the union of one man and one woman, although some cultures have endorsed multi-partner unions. This tradition is now under assault by gays, primarily on the basis of both anti-discrimination and portability imbued by the CoR.

Today, whether the religiously motivated same-sex marriage is desirable or an abomination no longer has a bearing in the debate, since secularists fight tooth and nail to keep private beliefs from informing public policy, unless, of course, the matter is put to a national referendum.

That leaves only one arena in which to do battle: Should the government continue to legitimize marriage as a secular institution? If marriage can be redefined to include same-sex or even multi-party unions, are government’s interests still served?

I think not.

Government policy is always based on the child-rearing model, since stable families promote the continuance of an orderly society.

Astute defenders of traditional marriage, like Stanley Kurtz, have noted that it is the unique sexual dynamic between men and women that domesticates men — from their youthful wild ways to supporting their mates as wives and mothers.

Robert Bork put his finger on the problem when he noticed that the forces of radical individualism and egalitarianism often cooperate to thumb their noses at authority and traditional morality. Together, they deny the possibility that any one culture or moral view can be superior to another, and the result is what we are facing now — cultural and moral chaos, unfortunately both prominent and destructive features of our time.

This is social liberalism - so touted by Time Canada and the Gay Parade crowd - a patchwork quilt of equivocating moral nothingness.

[KrustyKidd]

Time is a lousy magazine anyways. That person of the year stuff is just a way to sell

Really. It's crud. They proved it when they made Gulianni man of the year 2000. Like how did he change my life? Not one iota. Osama on the other hand changed every person's life on the entire planet. Today the US spends so much effort in War and Peace, in Iraq and homeland Defense because of OBL. Guliani? Who?:

Time once again, proves why I buy Newsweek.

[udawg]

What gays are fighting for now is privilege and special treatment, and in a free and egalitarian society they shouldn't get it.

Do you seriously think nobody in Canada has done something more worthy of the title?

I agree with Hugo. If the Man of the Year award is going to go to a group, it should not be a special-interest group like gays or feminists or whatever. If you want to give the award to one gay man, for standing up for his rights, in the face of oppression and persecution, like Martin Luther King Jr., I won't argue. But I don't see what the gay community, as a community, has done for anyone, or accomplished for themselves.

[udawg]

As I've already proven in other threads, gays had all the same rights as straights, including marriage rights. Their latest gambit is to gain privilege.

This is starting to sound like a debate on Native rights.

I don't want to get into the legal or moral definition of marriage, or the choice/'born-with-it' arguments, and I (as a heterosexual) am in favour of gay rights.... but not gay privilege.

Because if gays get extra privileges, and minority ethnic groups get privileges, and the French get privileges, and women get privileges, then I want extra privileges as a straight, white, no-deviancies, run-of-the-mill, unremarkable, English-speaking man.

[KrustyKidd]

iI'm a lone woman mounter that has an allergy to wearing rolls of bathroom towel on my head. I'm not able to comprehend more than one official language past rudementry phrases and my system goes into convulsions when subjected to canibis pollution.

I do feel that Time has done the correct thing in that it's political correctness has become more important than reporting what is affecting the Continent and World. True to form, it caters to it's target audience, Homos, Dykes, Oppressed Welfare Recipients, Leftist Radicals and all those who are sending this Nation into Socialism through a vote buying Liberal Party scam. When I am in my dentist's office waiting it provides a nice, light, totally unrealistic change to the hard nose journalism of, say .... Canadian Gardening Magazine. Being a bum boy for the Liberals and Democrats. Time continually proves that the cancelled subscription has saved me countless hours of fantasy reporting, reading and allowed me hundreds of dollars that I spend on various other NEWS magazines both here and abroad in my travells. They Rock Not!

[Craig Read]

Social Liberalism will destroy Canada's relationship with the US and isolate us internationally - unless you really believe that the puffcakes running France care a whit about Canada. [btw. just so you know, France is bankrupt].

Time Magazine illustrates the point which is why i posted this topic. Time USA decided that the Person of the Year was the American Soldier calling the soldiers "the bright, sharp instrument of a blunt policy" who are executing "American idealism in all its arrogant generosity," . I am not sure what this ambiguous language means but I suppose Time hates the war but agrees that the men and women fighting it are the story of the year.

The NY Times and Time Magazine also remarked, on "the unprecedented acceleration of social liberalism in Canada," a change Time attributed to structural changes in Canadian society, now "more urban and more multicultural."

I have no idea why being urban means ergo being socially liberal. Historically this has not been the case. Canada has been urbanising since 1900 and only recently in the last 20 years has the rotten idol of social liberalism been deemed worthy of worship. This is a point worth debating and discussing. Myself i view social liberalism as an imposed value system to differentiate us from the Americans. Urban cultures are not predisposed to liberalism and neither is the elevation of values that digress from historical roots and the creation of wealthy, moral civilisations.