So, how should I vote on same-sex marriage?
The theme of democracy runs amok through this blog. Some people like my attempts to poll people, have Town Halls and solicit online comments to get a feel for the public mind. Others believe I’m an idiot for asking, since my job is to represent the people, not pander to them. Some believe strong leaders like PMSH are the best way to move a country forward, and their party discipline should rule. Others see such leaders are control freaks who don’t trust MPs, let alone the voters.
In the last few days, as we faced an unexpected issue and a surprise vote – on the Quebecois nation – the question of an MP’s loyalty was a burning one. All Conservative, NDP and Bloc members voted as their parties instructed. Fifteen Liberals did not. And I voted my conscience, which was fortunately bolstered by every morsel of constituent opinion I could get.
Now, of course, there will be considerable pressure on me to repeat my consultative process and vote the way a majority of citizens instruct me when it comes to SSM. And, consult I will. I have two Town Halls slated for this weekend, the 19th one since January in Milton tomorrow night, and the 20th in Burlington Saturday afternoon. At both I anticipate we will discuss this issue, and vote on it. I will listen and watch carefully.
But I already know how I will vote, and this will not be changed by the keen and effective lobbying that I anticipate will mushroom over the next week. Why? Simply because SSM was a key election issue in Halton. We talked about it at the all-candidates’ debates. We published our positions in the local newspapers. We did cable TV shows on it. We all answered endless email enquiries, and each candidate was the subject of voter pressure.
In other words, my position on this issue was a factor in how people voted – and for some of them, a major determinant. I arrived at my position after a huge amount of thought and consulting with a goodly number of people. After the election, I opened up debate again in my riding, convening a Faith Summit this past summer attended by 28 community religious leaders, to ensure their voices were heard and to reflect again on the validity of my opinion. In that meeting I heard wildly conflicting views.
As an MP, I now receive four or five letters urging me to vote to re-open gay marriage for review and possible rejection, for every one in support of the status quo. I attribute this to the vigour and conviction of many people of faith, and to the laissez-faire, non-activist attitude of most voters. Men seem far more bent out of shape about SSM than do women, according to my letters and emails. Young people hardly care, while many older folks violently support traditional marriage.
And in terms of lobbying. Charles McVety and Defend Marriage Canada and all its related and like-minded groups win hands-down over the few organized groups defending gay marriage. McVety, of course, will never give up – but don’t get me started.
At the end of it all – which I guess will be in about one week – I’ll be asked to vote yea or nay. But in advance of that vote, for the reasons stated above, I will not be running an online poll or attempting to use data to change any of my colleagues’ minds. In this case, my best course as a responsible politician is to stick with the position I campaigned on. I have done that with every other issue presented to the voters at that time, and won’t be changing now.
By the way, the question is expected to be on a motion asking if the current law allowing same-sex marriage should be amended or repealed. My vote will be, no.
196 comments ↓
“By the way, the question is expected to be on a motion asking if the current law allowing same-sex marriage should be amended or repealed. My vote will be, no.”
OK
Thank you for taking a stand on this one and being so definitive. Say no and stick to it if that is the position you were elected on.
I think it represents the majority opinion in Halton and, hey! for a change you may actually be voting with the MAJORITY in the House of Commons if I understand the optics and politics of this dissive issue correctly. (which I may not but that’s why we have this discussion right?)
Thanks
Good work
In regards to same sex marriage, I always asked myself this question–How will this change my life? The answer–it doesn’t. Let’s leave others to live their lives as they so choose.
The Supreme Court ruled in favour of same sex marriage.
This was already put to bed. The CPC should just move on.
It occurs to me that ssm is just this generations politically correct way of repeating discriminatory history. We’re not a unique generation above bigotry and racism. Our parents did it, our parents parents did it. They even locked people who were different up in internment camps or made them a segregated nation, or treated them as property. Each generation has their thing, womens sufferage, the wwii internments and head tax, the civil rights movement, and now… gay marriage.
I just hope that we can learn from past mistakes so we don’t have to pay this group reparations too.
It’s simply a fact that gays are discriminated against. Just look at the legal age of consent for homosexual sex versus heterosexual sex.
Gay marriage — or the ‘traditional definition of marriage’ is just a politically correct way of achieving the same discriminatory goals.
I just hope that we as a society will finally progress to the point where discrimination as a matter of law can be laid to rest.
But, if its not the gays, the it will be the teenagers, or the muslims, or the sheiks or whatever. There’ll always be some identifiable group to discriminate against. I just wonder how long it’s going to take untill we collectively get the message that discrimination in any form is simply not acceptable.
$0.02
Good.
I hope you are not in the minority on this one.
Totally agree and support your decision to vote NO.
We must move on
something totally unrelated but important to share and discuss
From a document outlining Natural Resources Canada strategic priorities and budget allocations for the next three years.? Shows some interesting figures…
-The Departmental priority of “Advanced resource efficiency and conservation” has an overall budget reduction of $245 million/yr
-Eliminates the Opportunities fund that supports projects to reduce green house gas emissions;
-Eliminates the project budget for energy efficiency programs in buildings?
-Reduces the project budget for energy efficiency in homes from 50 million/yr to 2.9 million/yr for 2007/8 ;
-Reduces the project budget for transportation and alternative transportation fuels from 50.5 million/yr to 5.4.
-An overall reduction in NRCan staff of 302 jobs;
Ok…as if that weren’t bad enough, i looked a little deeper and found this..
-Increased budget for low-level radioactive waste management from 8.7 million/yr to 38.6 million/yr by 2008/9
-Canadian Hazards Information Services (you know the service that researches, understands and yes responds to the occurrence of hazards such as earthquakes, tsunamis and geomagnetic storms) has its budget eliminated by 2008/9.
Indeed: vote NO. Let’s move on. I’ve listened to many anti-SSM arguments and they left me totally unconvinced. Moreover, I find the anti-SSM people suffering from a case of very selective outrage.
D’Arcy phoned our home on Monday night. He talked to my wife; I guess he wanted to see if he could count on our support for the Conservative nomination in Halton. My wife made it pretty clear that she joined the Conservative Party because of Garth.
He hasn’t talked to me yet. I would have told him that he had 100% of my support if he wanted to go for the nomination. What I wouldn’t have told him is that I would do so because I am absolutely certain he is unelectable in this riding, and that is the type of candidate I want for the Conservative Party in Halton. (Actually on second thought, I probably would tell him. He’d probably be happy to get the vote, anyway.)
As said by others, the Supreme Court has ruled. The ssm issue is dead. Time to move on. Trudeau was right on one thing: the government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. (Other than that he was wrong on everything.)
That’s how I would vote too (No).
My position on the issue is that it is not my place to decide how others shouldl live their lives. I have a right to whatever religious beliefs I may have, but I do not have a right to impose those beliefs on others. It’s a question of fundamental human rights.
I did not vote for you because of your stand on this issue. I voted for you in spite of your stand.I liked some of the other things you stood for and held my nose on this one. The last M.P. that represented this riding went against his party to vote against this legislation because he said that’s what his constituents wanted. So, sir, you are telling me that the riding has changed it’s collective mind or you are not talking to the same people.OR there is another reason you can give. I’d like to hear it.
100% agreed… let’s move on already. Canada, a nation with a worldwide reputation for promoting peace on this Earth, is embroiled in a deadly conflict in distant Afghanistan. Why not have a nationwide debate on our involvement in the “war on terror” instead of all these big ticket smokescreen issues? It isn’t even a matter of who got us in there (the Liberals) but what we should be doing about it now. In my opinion, it is far more vital to discuss the war than rehash the SSM debate all over again. Come on already.
All the promise harper made was to allow a free vote on the issue rather than a whipped vote like the Libs pushed through. With all the people bitching about how Harper pushed through the Quebec issue you’d think that a truely free vote on an issue that a majority of Canadians opposed would be a good thing. But I could be wrong…
Garth,
It’s clear your mind is made up. But
realize that by voting yes to gay marriage you are also voting yes to:
1) adoption by homosexual couples of children becoming a “right”
2) teaching of homosexuality in schools as early as kindergarten
3) devaluation of the concept of “husband” and “wife”
4) a wedge in society that will not go away
The government would have been far better off offering civil unions for homosexual couples as has been done in many many countries. (A civil union was good enough for Elton John in the UK).
By opting to extend marriage to homosexual couples we have essentially yanked out another chunk of the foundation of the traditional married mother and father (much to the huge delight of the homosexual lobby).
To be quiet honest there are days where I wonder what on earth even keeps that foundation going any more.
It must be said too: not all those who feel this way are part of the so-called “religious right”.
The entire gay-marriage matter is a very sad indictment on how quick we are as adults to put our own selfish interests ahead of those of children.
Ross, the Supreme Court did ** NOT ** rule in favour of same-sex marriage.
I am always astounded by how uniformed people are of the facts surrounding the gay-marriage issue.
“There’ll always be some identifiable group to discriminate against. I just wonder how long it’s going to take until we collectively get the message that discrimination in any form is simply not acceptable.” –Kevin On.
This is exactly what I have been trying to say on the Quebecois issue.
In the blog entry just previous to this one, I made a comment in which I proved conclusively that the Quebecois have seen themselves as a nation within Canada ever since Confederation, with June 24 (St. Jean Baptiste Day) being their national holiday.
I also demonstrated that we owe our Canadian National Anthem to the French who originated it, and introduced it on the Quebecois National Holiday on June 24, 1880. They clearly saw themselves as a nation within the Canadian identity.
We, in fact, adopted basically the same as their national anthem as ours 100 years later on July 1, 1980.
Now we have people saying that the Parliament of Canada just made the Quebecois into a nation just two days ago. To the Quebecois who have seen themselves as a nation within Canada all along since Confederation, what does this say to them?
It says that you must assimilate into a monolithic, homogeneous Canadian identity, or be absorbed into our identity without being able to be yourself as you perceive it, a Quebecois nationality within Canada.
Since they have already been celebrating their own National Holiday on June 24, are those loud voices being raised who tell them that they cannot be a unique nation within Canada in a sociological sense not guilty of telling the French that they cannot be who they believe that they already are?
How is this different from people who tell homosexuals that you cannot be what you believe you are, simply because the dominant outside culture is going to impose their values, their culture, and their way of life upon you?
O consistency, thou art a rare jewel!
On the marriage vote of June 28, 2005, the NDP caucus was whipped.
The Liberal Cabinet was whipped, while the other caucus members had a free vote.
With the Conservatives, the entire caucus was able to vote freely.
Garth, which of these three approaches is the preferred one as far as you are concerned with the upcoming vote?
Finally before hitting the sack, I have to say Garth that much as I like you, you are sometimes a bit of a hypocrite.
It seems you only want to run polls when you know they will agree with your view.
I challenge you to run the following poll on your web site:
Assuming the government revisited the same-sex marriage issue, what do you think it should do:
Offer a form of civil union for same-sex couples as is done in the UK, France, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany and other countries, while preserving the traditional definition of marriage
OR
Keep existing legislation which extends marriage to same-sex couples.
I dare you Garth to run that poll. It’s an honest and fair choice that was never offered to Canadians last time around.
I realize for the Con’s this was an election promise they have to keep, but it was a stupid promise to begin with. The courts ruled on it, so it’s a non-issue. Get over it… some men want to have sex with other men and some women want to have sex with other women. Some of those people would like to get married, like the rest of our society is already entitled.
What is the job of an elected representative at any of the three levels of government? To follow their own view or to try to determine the wish of the majority they represent and vote accordingly?
Is there a job description we can refer to?
JJ
There seems to be a belief that only people of faith are opposed to SSM. I personally know many secular people who are also opposed. I also know many people of faith who are for SSM. I do not believe that the people I know are exceptions and, therefore, would conclude (theoretically) that opposition and support sides are pretty much spread over the population and not restricted to one particular group or the other.
Personally, I would support civil unions but not the redefinition of marriage. If, however, SSM becomes law by the consensus of the majority of Canadians, I would not object since this is democracy – laws and culture based on majority decision.
“In other words, my position on this issue was a factor in how people voted – and for some of them, a major determinant.”
Not just your “position” on this was a determinant, but so what the Party you represented and you had no trouble throwing that away. It’s great to pick and choose your issues isn’t it?
To PM: what I got from Garth’s post is that he wasn’t going to run a poll on re-opening the SSM issue as he has already done one by going door to door in the last campaign and talking to the people of Halton face to face.
However, should the majority of MP’s vote to re-open the issue, I think a poll of the type you are suggesting would be in order.
…just my 2 cents…
Just want to cmment on something that “PM” said …
“3) devaluation of the concept of “husband†and “wife†”
The only one that can “devalue” anyones marriage is the people involved in that marriage!
We should not let people like “PM” try and tell us that there marriage or relationships are someone else’s problem.
These arguments used to hide discrimination and hate are getting “very old” let’s move on …”live and let live”
When I went to City Hall in Toronto to get my marriage documents, (I am a man who married a woman), I talked to several same sex couples doing the same thing. Many of them were from the United States who came to Canada to get married in Toronto City Hall. The look of happiness, love and relief on their faces convinced me that allowing same sex marriage is the right thing to do. It is none of my business if these people wish to “get married”.
Good, Garth. Vote NO.
And PM, I always hate that “good enough” argument against equality. I mean really, wasn’t the back of the bus “good enough” for the blacks? Didn’t it get them to their stop at the same time as the whites in the front of the bus? It’s good enough, right??
No. Only equality is good enough in Canada. That’s what we stand for.
And whether you agree with SSM or not, there are WAY more important things that our government should be dealing with. I’m incensed that we are spending another minute opening this up. I’d much rather see debate on tougher punishment for pedophiles and criminals, tightening up the youth justice act, reducing taxes, greener policies, property rights, etc.
Besides, the courts did rule that to prevent it was against the charter of rights and freedoms and any repeal will be struck down again. Again, more wasted resources.
Vote NO and move on.
As a resident of Halton I would like my views represented during the impending vote on same sex marriage. I oppose same sex marriage and believe in the traditional definition of marriage between a man and a woman.
Danny
It always amazes me how those who are in favour of SSM are unwilling to give Canadians the option of voting on civil unions for same-sex couples
The reason we have marriage for same-sex couples, as opposed to civil unions, is that the previous government was so consumed with its own self-righteousness that it thought it could do whatever it wanted.
I personally will never accept the idea of married same-sex couples. Never. And I will teach my children not to accept it either because it is absurd.
I will however happily accept civil unions for same-sex couples. (As is done even in liberal-leaning countries such as France). And I will happily teach my children to respect such unions as well.
And no, I’m not religious, not a right-wing nut, not unstable, not against fairness for all, just someone who sees what a stupid path the government has taken on this highly important issue.
Personally, I would support civil unions but not the redefinition of marriage.
So, what is the difference between “Civil Union” and “Marriage” at the end of the day? I say it is just semantics.
The homosexual community has co-opted the word queer, which used to mean strange. They have also co-opted the word gay, which used to connote happiness.
If the argument is over the use of the word “marriage”, how juvenile is that? If a “Civil Union” has the same effect in law as a “Marriage”, how ridiculous is it to waste all this time and effort over mere words?
I can’t see how you can support one over the other.
If, on the other hand, you are against homosexual unions of any kind, then say so. However, you better be prepared for the fallout from that statement.
There are larger problems than semantics that need to be addressed. Please, do not reopen this issue. Move on.
It’s the way two people express love, the way two souls wish to be legally recognised as one… does gender play an issue here?? I think not.
As for teaching kindergarteners about homosexuality, they’re certainly not going to be pushing it on them. And God forbid your children learn to be more open minded than you – GASP! The world is moving forward, this is progressive. I hope in 10 years no one will bat an eye seeing a same sex couple adopt.
Equal rights for ALL.
As a resident of Halton I would like my views represented during the impending vote on same sex marriage. I oppose discrimination and believe in the equality of all Canadians.
Vote No.
Garth,
Good for you.
I read, well browsed, over the rhetoric of the posters here, and have heard the one’s against the SSM law we currently have by due process of our Supreme Court repeat like parrots unsubstantiated fears based on perception, not reality.
The issues are simple.
1. Are the people involved citizens of Canada? Yes
2. Are their rights and freedoms protected by the Charter? Yes
3. Does the Charter discriminate or should it be allowed to based on religious beliefs? NO!
4. Does allowing them to decide how their collective assets and properties will be divided or transferred affect me? No
5. Do they pose any threat to me, my family, or community? No!
6. Are there sufficient laws in place to protect the public against potential abuse? Yes!
Bottom line, the Supreme Court ruled correctly, and those wanting to impose their religious beliefs on others need to give their heads a shake and ask…How they would feel if the non-believers imposed their will on them saying that marriage was against natural law.
Stay your ground we are talking about people and their legal rights to be self-determinate. There is no imposition on religious organziations to do anything they do not want to. It is called separation of church and state, and should never be misused, or we wioll end up like some theocracies where religion and dogma destroys people’s rights and lives.
Marriage is a State issue of legal status pertaining to rights and taxation, nothing more.
Have a good day!
There is conclusive proof that ethnicity is genetic, but there is no conclusive proof that sexual orientation is genetic.
Either way, both this issue and the Quebecois nation issue are all about human identity, and have more to do with how people see themselves than they have to do with polls.
In other cases, both Quebecois and homosexuals are an identifiable human group who see themselves in a certain way. The Quebecois see themselves as having an inalienable right to nationhood within Canada just like the militant gay lobbists see themselves as having an inalienable right to marriage within Canada (which is not subject to polls or to votes because they see it as part of their humanity and therefore an inherent right).
The only difference is that Garth no doubt has gay lobbyists in his constituency that he has to be sensitive to, but he has no Quebecois in his constituency to have to pay attention to. Therefore, he can discriminate against one, but not the other.
All of the comments in this thread about respecting the rights of identiable groups apply equally to the Quebecois, and yet we have tolerated bashing their rights to see themselves as human beings in a certain way.
Garth: SSM is not marriage. It is a different beast altogether, and one that is not supported by socially conservative people, such as those that reside and vote in Halton.
If you vote NO to reopen this vote you will be conceding to the notion that your political career will be short-lived, and will be bowing to a vocal minority of this country.
But then again, you no longer represent a conservative party or even a conservative society.
Hi PM;
Spare us the SoCon manipulative “for the children” spin that gets attached to so many issues by Social Conservatives and some Neo Conservatives.
It may have worked in the 80’s in the USA, but it ain’t gonna wash in Canada.
If my child ends up straight or gay and chooses to marry, i will be at their wedding and give them my full support.
PM says”
1) adoption by homosexual couples of children becoming a “rightâ€
2) teaching of homosexuality in schools as early as kindergarten
3) devaluation of the concept of “husband†and “wifeâ€
4) a wedge in society that will not go away
PM and yet you say you support “Civil Union”. If we don’t use the word ‘marriage” to describe the union of homosexuals, all your concerns disappear?
That’s just too funny.
I have a question for you. In regard to item 3 on your list, how do you feel about divorce? The divorce rate is something like 40%. Does that devalue the concept of Husband and Wife?
Please attempt to quantify the ‘devaluation’ of “Husband and Wife”, vis a vis:
1) High Divorce Rate
2) Gay Marriage
3) Civil Union
Frankly, I don’t see how two gay people getting Married or Unioned, affects my marriage in any way. I have been happily married for almost 28 years, and there is nothing that can devalue it for me.
This issue is the main reason why I didn’t vote for you (actually, your former party) in the last election.
While I don’t believe that we should be teaching ‘alternative lifestyles’ in schools, what’s wrong with live and let live? Marriage is an issue between 2 people. Let’s just leave it up to them to decide individually.
It is a complete waste of my tax money to be re-opening this issue that has already been decided, and means very little to most people. It’s needlessly divisive and distracts from the real issues that our leadership needs to lead on.
The government does absolutely nothing about the peaking of oil production. The government does little to address climate change. These are big issues. SSM is not.
I only hope that the PM isn’t beringing the triple whip for this one too. Vote no, then move on to the real issues.
“Marriage is a State issue of legal status pertaining to rights and taxation, nothing more.” –Bill Muskoka.
Again, it is all about definitions. I would agree with your definition completely, but you are talking about civil unions, not marriages, which is more than a contract, but a covenant, which involves a spiritual bonding based on the created order for the preservation of the human race.
Marriage (like nationhood) existed long before Canada was even an entity, and therefore the Canadian government cannot create or re-invent those institutions, but only recognize them for what they are.
Human rights are universal, and if this is true, then according to definitions based on the Canadian Charter, European nations like Britain and France are in violation of human rights for granting civil unions instead of marriage.
They have looked at this also, and give homosexuals exactly what you say, a “legal status pertaining to rights and taxation, nothing more.” But they don’t define that as “marriage.”
The effect of Same Sex Marriage is long term and not obvious to see. It’s the development of Sex Revolution that swept throughout Western society from 1960s. If this direction won’t be changed, 50 years from now, there will be:
- No legal sanction marriage for man and woman.
- Sex become social norm like handshake.
- Polygamy, incest will no longer be banned.
I was listening to WAMU radio in the states yesterday where Andrew Koppleman was speaking about the two different issues with SSM: the normative definition and the administrative definition.
Canada has already shown strength where other countries have not, allowing SSM to be valued as equal to OSM under both sets of defitions!
Here’s hoping Harper’s motion in December is met with a resounding round of NOs.
If not, Belinda may have to buy another giant Sponge Bob…
My rule to help me make tough decisions like ssm is,lean toward the side with the least hate filled, alienating position that promotes compasion, understanding and progessive thinking. Apply my logic to Iraq for instance. Not a perfect soloution, but a better one. The semantics of ssm wil never hurt my children,never! They are too smart. Now global warmming… stick to the most serious issues.
Thanks
We live in a constantly evolving and changing world, and Nature dictates that those that do not evolve and adapt face extintion. Vote No and move on!
The counter-argument to Ed Brooks: if it is a case of mere words which mean the same thing in the legal sense, then why is the term “civil union” being rejected and “marriage” being demanded?
Coming out of the closet as a virtual Turner constituent from Ottawa Centre:
SSM is an aberration that violates biological fact in the pursuit of individual desires.
It turns individual deviations from natural law into a legal right, making an ass of the law. Anyone care to try this with gravity, or a desire not to die?
It ignores unknown personal and societal consequences for the immediate satisfaction of purported individual “rights.”
It is the result of an assault by a vocal minority on the norms of the dumb majority carried out under the guise of motherhood human rights, the triumph of activism over fact and reason.
That is what my conscience and life experience force me to profess. I may be wrong, but have yet to see the error of my ways. And I do not follow any religious doctrine.
By all means vote your conscience, Garth, but another straw vote among your national readers would have been interesting.
Men seem far more bent out of shape about SSM than do women, according to my letters and emails. Young people hardly care, while many older folks violently support traditional marriage.
Violently? What do they do, use baseball bats? Quite an adjective.
Now I know that this isn’t one of your pet issues as I don’t see an online poll on this. I was wondering, why the laissez-faire attitude on this but not on a motion that had not teeth (although wrong in my opinion)? Surely this has way more impact on our country.
Hey Bill, the Supreme court of Canada didn’t make a ruling on this the last time. Before that, they ruled that normal marriage was and is the only type of marriage. As well, where do you see sexual orientation in the Charter? That’s great that they don’t pose a threat to you, but how about others or is the greater good not a value of yours? Where does it say that marriage is a right?
I point out a few names here in Canada but trust me there are more:
Scott Brockie
The Knights of Columbus
Chris Kempling
Thank You Garth for doing what you said you would do when you were elected.
Vote No, and like others have said move on from this issue.
Oh and Garth, if you’re already attributing this to good organization and apathy on the other side, why bother have your townhalls since you have clearly stated you are voting no? What purpose does this serve? Are you going to control who attends the townhall or is it because those people who have attended them in the past and voted no, will be attending again? Yes, I am questioning your motives.
I haven’t seen one logical argument to allow homosexual marriage. They do seem hung up on calling anyone opposed a bigot though. That doesn’t help.
On Ken Telfer’s comments…”something totally unrelated but important to share and discuss…”
Is it unrelated? Karl Rove skillfully masterminded the outcomes of the swing states by placing a state initative question on the ballot banning ssm in 2004 and it appeared again in some states in 2006. It insured folks opposed to ssm, who would also support the Republican candidates, turned out to vote.
The ssm issue is taking attention away from the more important environmental challenges facing everyone…people favouring trad marriage, gay marriage, and the many combinations of relationships we see in Canada today.
I’m also curious as to these people who say, “Move on”. Where were you when Parliament overwhelmingly passed the motion to keep marriage as 1 man and 1 woman? Were you telling the homosexuals to move on? I think not and this is what I find so hypocritical. So many people hide behind the “Move on” line when they actually supported changing the definition in the first place and were willing to keep on trying til they get the result they wanted.
Garth – thanks for exposing your hypocrisy to all the world to see.
You say that you are there, in Parliament Hill, to represent us, Halton voters, but, when the majority of Halton voters wants you to vote in a way that you might not agree with, you are very fast to tell us to sut up and suck it up.
Since you talk so much about democracy and also lecture us on what it means, why aren’t you advocating a referendum to put the SSM issue at rest for good?
I know, you’ll say that it was already ddcided by the previous parliament and we do not want to open it, however, didn’t a previous parliament decide on it also and the previous parliament re-open an issue alraedy decided by an earlier one? If it was re-opened once it can be re-opened again.
I am sticking with the position I put forth to Halton voters in the last election, when SSM was a vital part of the campaign. That was a true referendum. — Garth
Garth, I think your position on SSM is a principled one and, as a constituent, you have my 100% support for your “No†vote in the House. This is the same thing I told Darcy Keene when he called my home Monday night.
Bill, If you think that’s all that this is about you’d better give your head a good shake and maybe you could see the agenda that is moving inexorably forward.
thanks for letting us know how you are going to vote
lets move on
peace
Roger Armbruster,
“I would agree with your definition completely, but you are talking about civil unions, not marriages, which is more than a contract, but a covenant, which involves a spiritual bonding based on the created order for the preservation of the human race.”
Sir, I will attempt to get the point made only one more time. This is about secular law under the State, not about spirituality. that is called separation of Church and State and it will not be tampered with because of your, mine, or anyone elses religious belief system.
Maybe you should move to a theocratic society like somewhere in the Middle East where Sharia law will damn well tell you what you will believe and take away your democratic rights.
Likewise, you are free to believe what you want in our great country, but keep it inside your home, your church, and yourself or are you a hypocrite? Jesus was not fond of such people, not fond at all!
No one is forcing churches to perform SSM and have no intention of doing so.
All marriage licenses issued are from the State therefore forming a ‘marriage’ not some other semantic term like civil union which is nothing more than a authorized member of the government administering an oath to those joining their lives.
I am so sick of hearing this BS. Get it straight. If the State wants to license marriages, oversee property rights in divorces, and subjugate parents to the law, then it is solely a secular matter under the Charter. Got it?
Good for you Garth. And not just because I happy to agree with your choice.
Niemöller is particular instructive. If I don’t speak out now for the rights of homosexuals who will be around to stand up and protect my rights.
Comparing Harper to the Nazis is bit to broad and fun a target to be taken seriously but whenever you talk about one set of rights for one group of people and another for another group of people you begin to sound like a Nazi. Anyone who believes that we shouldn’t give homosexuals the same the majority enjoys is being driven by something entirely foreign to reason.
Thank you Garth
…for that detailed answer to my question. Although it is hard for me to comprehend (and I’m surprised) that your election platform (as a conservative) actually supported SSM, I am definitely on your side.
Society should stay out of a couples business (regardless of the gender combination), just as much as religious believes should stay out of politics.
ttyl
Tobi
I can only laugh when people think that this issue will “go away”. It won’t, and the reason it won’t is because the previous government failed to choose an appropriate compromise.
Contentious issues always fester unless a compromise position is chosen.
In the case of same-sex couples, the compromise position was civil unions, like so many countries have done.
Instead Martin hammered through gay marriage, using the very same undemocratic methods that Turner proclaims to despise, and now Turner and others are going to support it.
Imagine if the pro-abortion lobby said that the only acceptable abortion policy is one which permits abortions up until the day before labour starts? Would that fly? Never, and everyone knows it.
So abortion legislation is a compromise between those who want it, and those who don’t. Sure, it doesn’t make the debate go away entirely, but nor does it drive a wedge through society.
Bill C38, as it currently stands, is a wedge in society, and it won’t go away until a future government and associated MPs have the courage to fix it.
I’m sorry Garth isn’t one of them because he says all the right things usually. Glad my MP is.
Sorry to hog the mic.
PM: Please explain why you think homosexuals should not be able to get married and call it marriage? I’m an atheist so please don’t retreat to God or the bible as an explanation (they are after all, as fictional to me as Allah, Jehovah, Vishnu and Zeus are to you).
As an exercise, once your done, replace homosexual with the word ‘negro’ and see if you think your argument is worth the time it took to type it. You’ll find it isn’t.
“I am sticking with the position I put forth to Halton voters in the last election, when SSM was a vital part of the campaign. That was a true referendum. — Garth”
In the same “referendum”, you promissed us, the Halton voters that you will support the CPC platform and program and be an integral and constructive part of the CPC caucus. You DID NOT DO that.
I do support every CPC policy worthy of it and remain an effective MP ready to serve you. — Garth
First off, I am in favour of letting sleeping dogs lie (ie. no change to the existing laws), however I would like to expand a bit on what the Supreme Court of Canada said.
What they did was strike down the current definition of marriage due to the fact that many other parts of legislation infer certain exclusive rights and priviledges on married and common-law couples based on the opposite-sex definition. The court found that those rights and priviledges should not be restricted to opposite-sex couples and therefore struck down that part of the law.
The court went out of their way to not say that marriage should be extended to same sex couples, rather they stated that the rights and priviledges granted to married and common law couples should be extended to same-sex couples.
They referred how to do that back to parliment — parliment could have chosen to change the common law definition, create a new “union”, or extend marriage to SSM couples. Parliment, specifically the Liberals, choose to simply change the definition of marriage.
This was not their only choice. The court made that clear. But it was their choice.
So please, don’t defend the Liberals by saying the court forced them. It was their choice.
I personally was indifferent to the nomenculture used (be it “marriage” or “union” or “common law union” or whathaveyou). I *am* happy that the government, at last, took a stand and did not just let the court decision lie as they could (and have in the past).
Now that it’s done, let’s just let it go away. Please.
I am sticking with the position I put forth to Halton voters in the last election, when SSM was a vital part of the campaign. That was a true referendum. — Garth
Dave from Campbellville stated that the last MP, a Liberal, voted to maintain traditional marriage based on the constituents. So, as Dave said, “So, sir, you are telling me that the riding has changed it’s collective mind or you are not talking to the same people. OR there is another reason you can give.”
Remember that you did not win 50% of the vote, therefore you cannot presume that your point of view is shared by 50% + 1.
In the last election ALL candidates in Halton supported SSM. Get your facts straight. — Garth
Why can’t same-sex couples come up with a name for their union. Why should they hijack a name that, for thousands of years, was used to define the union between a man and a woman. While I have no problem with same-sax unions getting all the rights the heterosexual unions get (I have reservations about adoption), I resist tyey use the word marriage. Why are these people so affraid to have a name of their own for their union, to celebrate and cherish?
We never called coloured peole white or women men to be able to grant them all the rights they they rightfully deserve as human beings? Why should that be any different? And what’s wrong with heterosexual couples wanting to have a distinct name for their union?
These are questions that SSM advocates always avoid to answer because they can not.
Garth,
I see the Pontifex Maximus crowd still think we are living in the 16th century!
We are NOT! If the Catholic Church wants to play politics then we should be taxing them and all other religious organizations who cross the line to meddle in our secular laws and rights.
At that point they are no longer religious organizations, but political organizations. They can’t have it both ways!
Scott Brockie, the charter defines all individuals as being equal, and then in addition, specifically defines cases that are unmistakeable. The list in Section 15(1) is not a limit on this clause but a list of examples.
Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
This is not a list of, if its not on here its ok to discriminate, its a mechanism to point out and clarify some of the more common equality comparitors and the intent of the charter.
In the case H v M [1999] the SCoC ruled that same sex couples had equal rights as other couples under this section of the charter and that their discrimination could not be saved by Section 1.
So yes, freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation IS a Canadian right, and don’t you forget that. Just as it is the right of every Canadian to be free from discrimination based on what political party they subscribe to… or… etc.
PM,
2) teaching of homosexuality in schools as early as kindergarten
What is wrong with this; or are you card-carrying member of the book burning burgade trying to get rid of books like ‘And tango makes three’ from our schools.
I would hope [ and I am not a member of the homosexual community ] that all children were taught that there were different types of people in the world who chose to live their lives differently than their parents and that these people are equally deserving of their respect and are not to be feared.
Equality is a Canadian value, that is shared by the majority but unfortunately not by all. There always were, are now and always will be racists and biggots in our society; I just wish they’d stop getting elected.
– Georgia on my mind.
Sean P. Hogan,
Oh yeah, the Knights of Columbus are…?
No possible bias there from your friendly Vatican!
AD – I am not a proponent of Garth or his style but I think you overlooked something important. Prior to being elected, Garth did state that he was opposed to re-opening the debate and that he is not opposed to SSM.
I do not agree with his stance but he was clear prior to the election.
I cannot say with any certainty if Halton voted for Garth or for the CPC but I would surmise that it was a combination of the two.
Garth was clear with his intentions and he was elected. So, unless some sort of tidal wave of disagreement arises in his constituency, there is no reason why he should change how he votes on this particular issue.
I am happy that you are going to vote ‘No’. To me that is the only possible answer unless a person thinks that love between two same sex partners is completely different than love between hetrosexual partner.
Otherwise we would need to start a petition for the creation of a nation for all gay people within Canada…
The counter-argument to Ed Brooks: if it is a case of mere words which mean the same thing in the legal sense, then why is the term “civil union†being rejected and “marriage†being demanded?
This is not a counter-argument Winnipegboy. It is the semantic argument of the other side. It is still about the defintion of the word just argued from the opposite perspective.
Anyone who is arguing, from either point of view, over Marriage vs Civil Union, is essentially arguing over the “label”, not the underlying circumstance.
This is why the argument, from that perspective, is so bloody juvenile. If you fundamentally oppose a homosexual union of any kind, that is a different and more (politically) dangerous argument.
Bill, If you think that’s all that this is about you’d better give your head a good shake and maybe you could see the agenda that is moving inexorably forward.
It’s amazing to me how often I see people babbling about the evils of the “Gay Agenda”, and when you actually talk to a few gay people, you quickly realize that there is NO SUCH THING.
Beyond a desire to be treated as social equals (eg. no legalized discrimination), there is no “agenda”. Surely, equality in law is a goal that all human beings legitimately seek.
Bill Muskoka, your own argument backfires on you!
I agree with the separation and separate roles of the church and state. The only problem for you is this: marriage is a religious term, not a secular one. That is why 95% of all marriages have a religious ceremony.
So the state should not be sticking its head into the affairs of the church, but should stick to secular, civil matters, and call it a civil union, not a marriage.
Furthermore, sir, marriage has existed from time immemorial, long before Canada ever existed, and for the government of Canada to think that it can redefine or change an institution that it did not create, or that it did not invent, is extremely arrogant and short-sighted.
Furthermore, if this has suddenly (as of the year 2005, suddenly become an human right because of an Act of Parliament), then you are saying that the state is the author and source of human rights.
The difficulty of your position, sir, is that whatever the state gives, the state can take away. Whatever one Parliament legislates and defines, just as surely another Parliament can de-legislate and redefine.
The thing about human rights is that because they are part of the natural order of things which pre-exist all state legislation, that human rights are inalienable and inherent.
Your sense of human rights cannot be “inalienable” because you pretend that they can be given by the state. And whatever the state gives is changeable, and can easily be taken away.
Have ya got it? I know that ya don’t dig it, but have ya got it?
For those who want to actually read the RULING of the Supreme Court, here it is!
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2004/2004scc79/2004scc79.html
“Question 3
Absent unique circumstances with respect to which the Court will not speculate, the guarantee of religious freedom in s. 2(a) of the Charter is broad enough to protect religious officials from being compelled by the state to perform civil or religious same-sex marriages that are contrary to their religious beliefs.”
And so religious rights are protected. End of debate!
Oh, and the KEY WORDING!
“Section 1 of the proposed legislation is consistent with the Charter. The purpose of s. 1 is to extend the right to civil marriage to same-sex couples ‘
The term is included in all other law relating to domestic relations, or p[erhaps we should spend billions re-writing those laws to appease a few who cannot let people live and let live in peace?
I’ll support SSM, if it means we can rid of Gay Pride parades, or at least move them to the cold months.
It was delt with before, and it should stay as it is. Why does Harper feel he needs to waste more tax money and time on re-opening this? Because he wasn’t happy of the outcome, aparently…. well that’s how thing went down and he should suck it up.
If to people want to acknowlege that the wish to spend the rest of their life with another person, be whatever sex, by marriage, then more power to them…. they’re not hurting my ability to get married in the future, so who cares.
About the religious out there who feel it’s supose to be a bonding between a man and a woman….. it is…. it just depends on who is going to be the man in the relationship and who’s going to be the woman.
It’s been already clarified that homosexual people have the feeling that they are a woman trapped in a man’s body, or vise versa…. sure there’s all kinds of other spectrums for this, but let’s just keep it to this for now….
So either way, when they get married, weither it’s two girls or two guys, it’s still two humans, who have their own specific sexual orientation…. so even if it was two of the same sex getting married, they already fill the obligated old term “Between Man and Woman.”
^ Since their Gender would be Male or Female with a Female or Male mindset, then you have a bond between a Male/Female and a Male/Female, or a Male/Female and a Female/Male…. whichever way you look at it… it just doesn’t matter.
You’re getting married in both body and mind as well as soul (If you beleave in that part) so if you got the body of a female and a mind of a male, then you got everything covered….. so who cares?
Hey Harper…. while your at it with your discrimitive ways, why not re-open the laws for Interacial marriages too?
Get your closed mind out of the hole and get with the times.
“We live in a constantly evolving and changing world, and Nature dictates that those that do not evolve and adapt face extintion. Vote No and move on!”
–Blain Le Roy
I don’t know if you realize just how dangerous your position is. The whole notion that society is evolving progressively is based on social evolution or Social Darwinism that has long been disproven and debunked ever since the days of Herbert Spencer.
Social evolution is a different kettle of fish altogether from biological evolution, and there is no scientific evidence for it.
Social evolution means that previous more traditional societies and cultures were not as advanced as we are.
We have advanced technologically, true, but this has nothing to do with whether we have advanced in our understanding of what it means to be a human being, and to value human life right from conception.
Social evolution leads to the elitism in which some humans see themselves as better and more advanced than those of previous societies, and they impose themselves in a way that violates those who hold to traditional values.
Social evolution is totally opposed to democracy and democratic values.
What our “social evolution” has produced, sir, is a condition in Canada where our birth rate is soon to be superceded by the death rate, and we are going to have to look to those more traditional societies who have a higher birth rate to even survive.
Making marriages that produce children on a par and equality with marriages that cannot produce children is in no way a part of the solution.
If children do not matter, why, praytell, do children who are cut off from their biological roots always want to know who their real parents are, and, if possible, to reconnect?
Every time there is a generational disconnect, there is an emotional wound inflicted upon children, and they pay a big price, and if that wound is not dealt with and healed, the pain and sense of disconnect will be even more severe in the next generation.
You say that “those who do not change and adapt face extinction.” I agree that we face extinction if we do not do something about the birth rate in this country, but your whole argument backfires.
This matter was settled by a vote of 216 to 55 on June 9, 1999. I agree, it is time to move on.
Also, marriages between two people have been going on centuries before Christianity and other religions were around….
Since there are so many religions out there and so many ways to interperate one thing from another, which religion has the right to dictate how marriages should be conducted accross the country?
None of them…. it should be between the two people in question on how they wish to be together.
There are people who are married by a judge… in fact, that’s how my parents were married… so if a religion objects to marrying same sex, then the goverment should still be allowed to conduct the marriage, and thereby, the religion in question should have no say.
Religion and State should remain seperate, so if the goverment wants to marry same sexes, then so be it, and if the religions don’t then so be it…. at least there is still freedom on this matter and people who are in question, still have options.
“And so religious rights are protected. End of debate!”
You people don’t want a debate, because your arguments don’t stand up to the light that generational disconnect produces dysfunction in our society, but you don’t want to go there, and look at what this means to the next generation.
You don’t have to be a religious person at all to see that, and many do. Yet this phony argument is used to suggest, “End of debate.”
“End of debate” is just another way fo trying to shut people up, just like we are accusing our political caucus leaders of doing.
We are supposed to be all about speaking up, and defending our fews, rather than keeping silent and “ending debate” just because you disagree.
I really hope you do vote against this Conservative motion, because it is discriminatory (and makes absolutely no sense), plain and simple. Some issues are above opinion polls, and this is one one of them. This is about recognizing the shared humanity in all of us, and all of the fear-mongering that was thrown at the issue prior to the legalization of same-sex marriage has not come to pass. The family hasn’t fallen apart. (There are legitimate concerns to be raised about the state of the family structure today, but gays have nothing to do with it.) The religious rights of those opposed to same-sex marriage have been protected.
If there’d been a poll in the middle of the last century to see if people thought blacks deserved the right to go to the same schools as whites, or to marry whites, I’d dare say you would have gotten a majority of responders saying no in several parts of the United States and Canada. Would that have then made it okay to continue to deny people this right? Sometimes society is not universally ready for the right thing to be done, but it needs to get done anyway. I cannot support taking away people’s rights.
The government should either allow same-sex couples equal rights to marriage, or should get out of the marriage game altogether. Honestly, I’d prefer the latter.
Roger Armbruster,
I suggest you attempt to be recognized as ‘married’ with all the property rights inluced without having a State issued Marriage License.
Likewise, if the State recognizes ‘Commonlaw Marriage’ then another view erupts.
Oh, and Roger, the State is you and I, and all the other people including Gays, Lesbians, and every other person residing in a jurisdiction.
Perhaps you do not accept that equality means that literally, but rather the elite may choose who obtains it?
Regardless, I do respect your showing of respect, even though I think you are parroting what others have used to justify the continuance of homophobic and xenophobic bias, which both come primarily from religious beliefs, contrary to the teachings of most religions. What was that? “Love one another?” “Render unto Caesar those things that are Caesar’s, and unto God those things that are God’s?”
Perhaps you would like to relive the Inquisition, of course as an Inquisitor…Right? You might find a tad bit of resistance to such tactics.
Oh, and Roger, do you actually know any Gay people? Have you ever talked with them? Do you have any clue about their lives? Guess what…they are just human beings with the same hopes as the heterosexuals, and they only want to stand equal in their rights.
Enough said for today! Read the Supreme Courts wording if you cannot grasp the point!
move on people
it’s past time for all this hatred
peace
That is why 95% of all marriages have a religious ceremony.
I’m all for making up stats, but your stats on even non-religious common-law marriage as evidenced by the latest census would disgree with you.
I’d guess the actual number of ‘religious’ marriages is probably only in the 60-70% range.
Roger,
“You people don’t want a debate, because your arguments don’t stand up to the light that generational disconnect produces dysfunction in our society, but you don’t want to go there, and look at what this means to the next generation.”
That is like saying that slavery should still be accepted because it has an historic precidence.
How about women as Chattel proterty? I bet you could argue how terrible society has become since women gained equality, the vote, are not kept locked up in the home barefoot and pregnant. Burqas are probably your best hope then you will not get tempted and sin if you look upon a woman!
How about a nice Caste system…What you are born is all you will ever be Roger. Sorry about hopes and dreams because that is just the way things are and have to stay that way! It is for your own good Roger…Now accept it.
It is your statements that have no weight, except to you.
Oh, Roger was Jesus married? Do you actually know the answer to that question? Do you know Jewish Law regarding Rabbis?
Am I the only one who notices a similarity between this Same Sex debate and the Nation of Quebec debat?
It’s all about meanings and words….. there’s a lot more important things in the world to be worrying about besides what something means….. Lord Tunder’n!
“We live in a constantly evolving and changing world, and Nature dictates that those that do not evolve and adapt face extintion. Vote No and move on!â€
–Blain Le Roy
Correct, by the laws of nature, the ones that do not reproduce are the ones that get extinct. Now, what does it take to reproduce?
Hey William, just as soon as you can explain to me why they should and please use facts rather than emotion, I know you atheists have a hard time with that.
Scott, if you preferred to let sleeping dogs lie, why would you not tell the homosexual community when they kept trying to push this through and was voted down each time except for the last time? As well, the Supreme Court of Canada did no such thing, you’re thinking of the Supreme Court of Ontario and they did that after the SCOC confirmed marriage is one man and one woman.
Garth, if we go by your logic, then you should have voted yes to that notion of Quebecois being a nation as the liberals and NDP supported that motion, therefore, your riding would support that motion as a majority. But anyways, you should really do a survey here as you have done already with the nation issue. As well, you didn’t address the comment by your constituent which is the key to my previous post to you. You avoided answering his post and then mine referring to his post.
Kevin, Scott was told in no uncertain terms by the Human Rights Commission that he could be a Christian at home and/or at church but that’s about it. They seem to have forgotten about freedom of religion. I wonder if they would tell a homosexual to be that at home and not in public? The Charter does not mention homosexuals, or sexual orientation, do the search, it was read in by activist judges.
Bill, what bias are you referring? Everyone has a bias so what’s the problem? Remember my point was about people who are hurt by this, and just because you aren’t doesn’t mean that others aren’t, because they have and more will come. That’s not the country I would call Canada.
Grog, no agenda? Read equalmarriage and Egale. Please, if you’re going to comment, at least be informed.
I put it to you:
1. How can two “fathers” provide the emotional comfort and support to a young babe in arms who has been attached to his or her mother in the womb, and needs to see that emotional bonding unsevered into life outside of the womb, finding comfort from mother’s breasts and arms, especially in those earliest years of infancy?
How can two mothers affirm an adolescent male or female at puberty into their own unique, separate identity, separate from mother, and freed from mother’s apron strings to individuate into their own unique self?
Mothering is about bonding and safety, and fathering is about individuation and finding the world a safe place separate from mother.
The two roles are equal, but in complementarity, and are necessary for the emotional and psychological development and maturing of children from conception to the point where they can take responsibility for their own decisions.
Bill said, “The term is included in all other law relating to domestic relations, or p[erhaps we should spend billions re-writing those laws to appease a few who cannot let people live and let live in peace?
I wish the homosexual community would live and let live in peace, but, they aren’t and won’t do that. Hence the parades they demand, not ask, demand so they can flaunt themselves to the rest of us. Yes, live and let live in peace.
‘Also, marriages between two people have been going on centuries before Christianity and other religions were around….’
Of course, this only proves that marriage goes back to the created order of things, and not a state-contrived order of things.
Until this generation, while homosexuality was present in every generation, no society–pagan, Christian, or otherwise, has ever legalized same-sex marriages. It was never the norm in any society.
Shane, Gender is relevant to the definition of marriage. Race is not. You interjectecd race where it is not relevant.
Roger, well said. I don’t believe that supporters of homosexual marriage understand the complimentariness that a man and a woman have which cannot be duplicated by two people of the same sex.
Roger ~ “You say that “those who do not change and adapt face extinction.†I agree that we face extinction if we do not do something about the birth rate in this country, but your whole argument backfires.”
Why do we face extinction? There’ll be more need for workers and the sort, because the Baby Boomer Gen is starting to head into it’s final stages (Retirement)
Actually on the news a couple of days they said there are shortages in the Part-Time section of jobs, because the generation before who filled those gaps…. ie: mine…. are now heading into carrers and we’re not having as many children as we had in the past from our parents.
I hardly don’t see this as an extinction problem…. but I see in the near distance future, more immirgrants coming to countries, such as our own, to look for work, which employers seem to be needing.
Worst case? ~ Cultural Change….. but I don’t see Extinction.
Also…. I’m not planning on having any children until the rest of this world learns to calm the hell down. Why bring a kid into the world if I have to go off to war shortly after…. or worse…. the war comes to us?
Most of my generation I talk to agree we are heading into a very troubling time and things arn’t going to get any better anytime soon…..
Not only that, but with the lack of actual support for new families by the goverment and all the local programs here, where they try any loophole they can find to not help you out…. a lot are wondering why they should even bother.
Armbruster, you’re such an blithering idiot – its not even funny. Birthrates in Canada will not deplete from gay people giving each other their word – or do you seriously think a gay man would marry a woman if the government would put a stop to SSM?? Keep on dreaming! Bottom line, any individual (gay or not) deservers the same rights. Whether that individual happens to live in a SS-relationship or not they should be entitled to the benefits of a marriage contract. Anything else would be discrimination – Period!
Now, wether it’s called marriage or something else can be argued – what matters is the rights and benefits that have to be equal.
Roger ~ “The two roles are equal, but in complementarity, and are necessary for the emotional and psychological development and maturing of children from conception to the point where they can take responsibility for their own decisions.”
Ya…. so? are you saying that two of the same sex can not do this as well as a man/woman couple? How can you prove one way or another??
That’s the same mentality that was in the 60’s about women not being able to do the same job as a man.
My girlfriend and her room mate took care of the room mate’s child together for 3 of his years and he’s now about 7 and he’s doing just great with only one single parent.
With your logic, single parents can’t take care of their kids, much like same sex couple can’t….. this just doesn’t make sense and has no real proof behind it.
Roger ~ “You people don’t want a debate, because your arguments don’t stand up to the light that generational disconnect produces dysfunction in our society….”
Disfunctional? What is really functional these days?
Limitations and not allowing people to explore their lives the way they see fit is what causes Disfunction.
Addition to my last post:
Show me a time in history where people were not Disfunctional in anyway….. how about back in the 50’s when it was normal to beat the snot out of your kids and teach them about the evils of other races other then your own….. yeah… right.
Armbruster,
“The two roles are equal, but in complementarity, and are necessary for the emotional and psychological development and maturing of children from conception to the point where they can take responsibility for their own decisions. ”
OK… why dont we just make it a law that parents cannot break up and sole-parenthood is illegal… that would go hand in hand with what you’re saying.
There are perfectly balanced individuals out there that have been raised by SS-couples before. On the other hand, some “traditional” parents raise kids who end up being bullies, drug addicts, or thievs. So, bottom line the gender combination of parents/guardians a very insignificant role. On the contrary SS couples will likely put forth an extra effort in raising their children as they appreciate being finally able to do so.
Roger,
“Mothering is about bonding and safety, and fathering is about individuation and finding the world a safe place separate from mother.”
Roger, the year is 2006! There are many single family parent families. Many of those former heterosexual unions failed, and continue to fail because they refuse to change. Which would you, in your 1950’s idealism, prefer a child to have love and genuine warmth or just a biologicaly acceptable parent?
You are starting to appear to be someone who has either had a traumatic experience, or one who has never had any real world maturing experience.
Sean,
Interestingly, the Gays who participate in the Gay Parades tend to be no different than the Abortion Clinic protestors, the Religious Right Funnymentalists, etc., all wanting public attention!
I knew a Gay fellow out in Alberta, who played darts and pool at the local pub. Heck of a nice guy, never made any advances on anyone. He said ‘Every time they hold a Gay Parade they set us back 20 years!’ So, stereotyping all Gays and Lesbians by the actions of a few is not a wise thing.
Myself, I am repulsed by the open demonstration. It has never provoked me to accept the behaviour.
Those who are disposed to that way of life have every right to live it in peace. That is the point we should all remember. As long as we are not forced into their life style then what is there to fear? Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD) are the propaganda tools of the power perverts who are truly the ones to fear.
Have a good day because I cannot spend more time on this.
“Sexual orientation” is not in the same category as “women’s rights” or “slavery” for the simply reason that “sexual orientation” has never been defined. At the very least, it also includes orientations like bisexuality. Otherwise, the ‘Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgendered’ movement would not be lobbying as one group for changes to the laws on human sexuality, changes which are ongoing, and have no end in sight.
And being that sexual orientations have changed, wherein some who were homo become hetero, and some who were hetero become homo, being “gay” is not quite the same as being “Irish.”
Further, the rights of slaves for freedom were championed by people like William Wilberforce, and women’s rights in Canada were championed by Nellie McLung. What do both of those people have in common? They were both people of faith, and their faith inspired their human rights advocacy.
On this issue, however, people of faith who help the poor and suffering, including the victims of AIDS, do not have to agree that an ambiguous, undefined term like “sexual orientation” (whatever that all involves) is a human right.
Bill said,
I am so sick of hearing this BS. Get it straight. If the State wants to license marriages, oversee property rights in divorces, and subjugate parents to the law, then it is solely a secular matter under the Charter. Got it?
But bill here’s the problem — marriage was a religious institution for a few thousand years then government started regulating it (Not a seperation of church and state) The Gov’t should go back and say it will licence only civil unions and let churches look after marriage gay or straight as their church allows.
I would say that the state should be encouraging laws which encourage the preservation of the intergenerational community, without a generational disconnect.
on that basis, the rights of the Quebecois as a nation would be preserved, but the rights of just any “sexual orientation” to be seen as the eqivalent of any other sexual relationship would not be in the interests of preserving the generational community which by its very nature, requires l man + 1 woman + children.
The intergenerational community at large is both cross-gender and cross-generational, and if our society is going to be healed, those disconnects are also going to need to be reconnected instead of simply legalizing and normalizing our disconnection.
Bill said, “Interestingly, the Gays who participate in the Gay Parades tend to be no different than the Abortion Clinic protestors, the Religious Right Funnymentalists, etc., all wanting public attention!
Really? Are they standing up on floats wearing hardly anything and simulating sexual acts? Loud music?
Please, just because you are on the other side of the issue doesn’t mean you can make silly comparisons. I’ve participated in LifeChain and all we do is hold a sign up on the edge of the sidewalk and pray. We don’t talk to each other, we don’t talk to anyone.
Jaimee, birth rates have gone down in countries where homosexual marriage is legal. I would blame low birth rates on abortion. Canada has had to increase immigration because of it and yet refuses to recognize that abortion is the cause.
In my mind there are a couple of drives behind this debate.
1) To GET all the goodies the Government doles out to “married folk” you need some government recognition.
1) Marrriage for religious folk
2) Common law for folk who don’t think the gov should be regulating us
3)Civil union for those who want Gov recognition (more then common law but not religious)
2) A second drive is a desire by the gays to be acccepted (not discriminated against) – I can understand their desire, but forcing others to change a legal definition will not change peoples underlying bias. You have to do that by demonstrating things that build not destroy a society and the “Gay parades” with all the sex etc. don’t do that any more then a “straight parade” would with naked men and women doing those things.
So to really get respect the gay community needs to quit letting the kooky part of their demographic speak for them an alienate the rest of us and demonstrate that (and I think they are) good members of society.
Roger,
You sound like a broken record from some right wing think tank!
“if our society is going to be healed”
Healed? I know you don’t mean healed from xenophobic, homophobic, holy than thou types!
No Roger, just go and save the world and re-make it in your own flawed image!
Religion has given mankind so much…So much hate, war, pestilence, and sorrow.
You wonder why the churches are running near empty? Because people like you refuse to grow up. The rest of us have and you are being left in the ditch of civilization where you belong.
Instead of all your pontifical ex-cathdra statements, try thinking beyond your cubicle of self-assured fear and hate!
Bye! Post whatever tripe you wish.
Sean,
Did the police come and force you to attend and view the parade? Is there some secret organization that ties you to your chair and makes you watch the TV news showing it?
Please let me know, because I have never had such an experience. Neither have I ever wanted to attend one of their parades, or most others for that matter.
Like I said, BYE!
Gee Garth,
I don’t remember you talking about SSM when you walked up my driveway that August Sunday afternoon.
I do remember you talking about the CPC platform.
I didn’t think I’d need to record it, so I could remind you why I voted for you.
Did you ask me? — Garth
Roger: If marriage, as you state, goes back to the created order of the things and not the state-contrived order of things, why do you want the “state” to get involved in legislating the “created” order? Why do you need the state to validate your “created order” beliefs?
Are your beliefs so shaky that a state law would affect your beliefs?
Conversely , would a state mandated law that would affirm your “created order” beliefs, validate your position
Just Wondering,
“So to really get respect the gay community needs to quit letting the kooky part of their demographic speak for them an alienate the rest of us and demonstrate that (and I think they are) good members of society.”
I totally agree. Likewise, perhaps they will stop the parades when they feel they have been heard and treated fairly. Most events are protests to shock others. Stupid as they are people still do it!
My respect for the Gay community comes from the ones I have known who do help build a better society, and they are the true majority of Gays and Lesbians. Decent, hard working people who contribute much to all of society in cluding the economy, charities, the arts, etc.
The wackos, of any orientation, leave me cold and uncaring.
Any group that allows the wackos to speak for them should not expect average people to take up their cause. It takes looking beyond what the MSM covers and getting to actually know the individual.
Those who sit and judge seldom know anything or anyone in a group. They are like parrots in a pet shop…squawking away day and night repeating what they have been taught.
Have a good day! GONE!
Just Wonderting,
Oops! I missed your very accurate points. Good ones and the crux of the matter.
Unfortunately, the laws are all worded as ‘marriage’ denoting a joining of two people sharing a mutual benefit and future.
The Supreme Court used the ‘Civil Marriage’ (See the link above and read the actual Court findings)and that is of no offense to me whatsoever. It is a legal term, well written, and inclusive of all other relevant law to which the rights apply.
If I had a gripe it would be the taking away of the meaning of gay. It used to define a state of happiness, and was a good word.
Politics does that to society though, a fact one learns to accept because life is simply too short for all the stress and fighting over minor semantics.
Ah, back to my own real world of work!
Garth, please vote yes. I don’t live in your district. Or even in the same province as you, but this matter is crucial. That debate over SSM must be re-opened.
Do you know what happens to a club after gay people start going to it? Pretty soon everyone starts going to it. Gay men start getting manicures, dressing well, and coiffing their hair, next thing you know, straight men are doing the same thing. Gay men start watching a show about gay men fixinf up straight people’s lives, and now, you guessed it, everyone’s watching it.
Giving gay people the right to get married is going to cause nothing else but the revitalization of marriage. Straight people who have been avoiding it, in a desire to be hip and cool like gay people, will flock to marriage. As a single guy, there’s nothing I hate more than marriage. My friends dissapearing from my life. Little screaming children running around with their terrible screaming parents threatening them with abandonment if they don’t go to the car right away. Marriage has been and will always be the bane of my existence, and the more gay people who get married, the stronger it will get. Which is a future I don’t want to face. For the sake of singlehoodness, please vote to re-open the debate. Please vote yes.
I would blame low birth rates on abortion. Canada has had to increase immigration because of it and yet refuses to recognize that abortion is the cause.
Problem: abortion results in lower birth rate. Solution: increase immigration rates. This seems like an effective solution. Is there something wrong with immigration as a solution?
Sean P.,
Low birth rates in countries with SSM only tell us only one thing – which is that those countries are politically and socially advanced. As a result, Women no longer stay at home with kids but go out and nurture their career instead (and have no kids). This is the reality – nothing else to blame!
Bill-Muskoka: I, also, have some gay friends who are horrified and disgusted by the parades. I find them quite vulgar.
Oh my, Gay people in a parade.
Gyrating hips.
Loud music.
The sky is falling.
Instead of decrying these people parading as sinners and degenerates, perhaps focus on the straight members of our society that violently assault gay people.
Now that’s a sin.
Just a little food for thought: Immigrants increase a country’s population but don’t necessarily increase the birthrate if they adopt the behavior of our society.
Lets not drift off the topic though! We’ve concluded that there’s hardly a relationship between birth rates and SSM… Can’t let those birth rates merry SSMs.. thats soo unmoral! LOL
ttyl
Tobi
Christopher Hearns – I don’t get your point – other than you hate marriage, your friends are leaving you and all gay people are cool. Why, exactly, do you wish for Garth to re-open the debate?
I’m sorry but I want to say a couple of things that I was thinking while reading through these posts.
Marriage is man+woman+children, I know so many “married” couples that are not having children and do not want to have children. I guess we should put a stop to that!! Gay pride parades should be stopped because of the “sex and stuff.” Hell, go to a club on a given night and you’ll see just as much “sex” and with the scantily clad people. Better keep your eyes closed, you may see your daughter there with her thong showing. Close all the bars and clubs! Gay pride, in my opinion, is their celebration of life and lifestyle. I guess we should shut down Caribana in Toronto, or Santa Clause parades because they do not fit into all lives and lifestyles. Maybe we should all go back to the stone age where men bonk there women (men – who knows) over the head with their clubs and take them back to the cave and live life simply.
I wonder if the people strongly against SSM have ever been in contact with the “gay” community? I have friends that are gay and friends that are straight. I do not discriminate. I am not “gay” but I have been to gay bars to celebrate with my friends. Surprising (sarcasm), these people were part of our community – hell some were prominent members who anyone would recognize!!
I think that some of the gay people that I have met would be BETTER parents than some of the straight people that I know that have kids. I loved the comment that single parents should be illegal! Keep kids in a loveless “marriage,” now there’s a kid that is going to grow up nurtured… Are you worried that kids growing up in a SSM are going to grow up gay? If so, I would think that’s pretty narrow minded. If anything, these children would have a greater understanding of our whole community.
Thank you for letting me express my thoughts, for what they were worth…
Keep SSM the way it is. Go meet some new people, meet some people who are not like you and enrich your life!!
Cheers
You’re right, Garth. I didn’t ask you.
I was distracted by the topics you’d covered in the flyer you handed me. It did’nt seem to be among them.
You’re right, Garth. I didn’t ask you.
I was distracted by the topics you’d covered in the flyer you handed me. It did’nt seem to be among them.
Did the cat have your tongue back in August Richard? I communicated with Garth several times about SSM. He responded in a forthright and straightforward manner every time. His stand has never changed.
If it was that important to you, I am more than surprised that you didn’t ask.
Garth has certainly never avoided controversy, so I am also surprised that you are suggesting that he was trying to hide something.
In other words, hey man, if you don’t ask about the things that are important to you, that’s your fault.
So the Conservative values = no choice, religion is first (but only Christianity), and Gay people are not equal. This is the not the Canada I live in. The way that incest, abortion etc has made its way into this conversation is also ridiculous. The sooner these clowns are gone the better.
“I don’t believe that supporters of homosexual marriage understand the complimentariness that a man and a woman have which cannot be duplicated by two people of the same sex.” Yes, we don’t understand this, we’re just too stupid and ignorant to know and understand this! I always thought that people marry because they love each other. Now, I learned that people marry because of “complimentarity”. How wrong I have been!
Jeff,
You said —- Gay pride, in my opinion, is their celebration of life and lifestyle. I guess we should shut down Caribana in Toronto, or Santa Clause parades because they do not fit into all lives and lifestyles.
I ask if you had a couple of 8 year old childern would you avoid the Caribana in Toronto, or Santa Clause parade to protect them from things that should be done in private by consenting adults.
Now same question for Gay parade. And would 2 gays raising these kids take them to shch a parade — I think (hope) not
Sean. It’s really simple. For the same reason that you do.
Do you think the gov’t should be able to legislate who you are able to marry? No? I didn’t think. Neither do men who like men and women who like women. That’s the thing about equal rights, they’re equal across the board. Marriage is a civil institution, not a religious one. Only the state can legally marry and divorce you. You priest can stand above you all day and tell you and your SO that you’re married or divorced and you’re not until you get, respectively, a marriage license or divorce papers. As such, marriage is civil and it doesn’t matter what the crazy shaman with the silly hat who heads your cult says, people, regardless of their sex can be married.
It’s not equality just because you say it’s so. You have to back it up. Women get the vote. Blacks get the vote. Gay couples get married. And soon, I hope for my sisters and wife, women get equal pay for equal work. If at any point you think you should deny the same, exact rights to any minority that you would grant to yourself you’re a bigot.
My name is Jennifer I am 24 years old Born
again Christian. I am asking you, as my MP and my
voice in this upcoming vote on Marriage, to vote for
the for the traditional definition of marriage.
Between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all
others. God made Marriage, defined what it is and what
it is not. God’s word also tells us that we are to
Love everyone. I am not asking you this out of Hate
but out of Love for God and my desire to see His Word
Honored! Society is taking a down ward plunge because
it has rejected the word of God. It will only continue
unless we uphold His word and place God where He
should be, On the throne of our lives!
I ask again, would you please Vote for the traditional
definition of marriage Between one man and one woman
to the exclusion of all others!
I am praying for you.
In Christ
Jen
Dear Mr. Turner,
I am a resident of Halton, and I would like to request that you support the traditional definition of marriage (as a union between one man and one woman) when the vote comes before Parliament. I realize that the media do not support this vote, but I urge you to be a critical consumer. Just as any food, drug, or even make-up product must be thoroughly tested before it is introduced to the market, it is my hope that you do some serious research before you make your vote to change the fabric of society. Has same-sex marriage benefited the family unit in Holland, for example? I don’t want to answer that for you, because I believe it is your responsibility to clearly examine it for yourself, and for your constituency, and for your country.
It is essential that every human being is treated with dignity and respect. I also firmly believe that the traditional definition of marriage needs to be respected. These are not two mutually exclusive fundamental values. I hope that you, and the powers in Parliament, truly have the insight to recognize that equal rights does not need to mean “changing everything to match everyone,†rather it should mean “treating everyone with equal dignity and human worth regardless of differences.†The later definition is the only one that can truly stand, for it recognizes that though there will always be differences, that is not only the origin but the essence of respect.
Thank you for your time and please let me know how you voted.
Sincerely,
Miriam
“If marriage, as you state, goes back to the created order of the things and not the state-contrived order of things, why do you want the ’state’ to get involved in legislating the ‘created’ order? Why do you need the state to validate your ‘created order’ beliefs?”
You miss the point completely. I want the state to get out of trying to re-define marriage. The meaning of marriage was so obvious for millennia that we never even had to define it in any legal legisation. It was not in our government statutes. It was only defined in our common law in a precedent setting case in 1866, a year before Canada even became a nation.
It is those who want to redefine marriage who are looking to the state to intrude its own definition, something it has no business doing.
The meaning of marriage predates the Canadian state, and no govenment legislation can change what has been obvious as self-evident from time immemorial.
Jen
I in turn will pray for you. I will pray that you will stop “excluding” people and pretending to not “hate” people and hiding your serious “love the sinner, hate the sin” syndrome and pretending that you “speak for other Christians and GOD” and that you will stop being so unbelievably “condescending” and that you would “stop praying” for “hateful things” rather than “good things”
Looks like there is going to be alot of praying happening … !! Amen
(Okay, A third try…perhaps the server was bonkers for a while? If a repeat please delete)
Jen,
“God made Marriage, defined what it is and what it is not”
Really? So, tell us all how you can prove this? Is it because the King James Authorized Version, createrd by man in 1611, says so?
Perhaps it is because only Christians have a knowledge of God’s will?
Maybe its because in the 3rd Century A.D. the Roman Catholic Church and a few decided to interpret the Bible (66 books compiled under one cover at the direction of Emperor Constantine, a pagan until his death bed, said so?) literally, rather than grasp the philosophical and allegorical messages it was originally written in?
Maybe someone told you all those things to believe?
As someone who has spent a lifetime studying the origins and history, and meanings of God’s inspired Word, I am sorry to say this but You are WRONG!
Throughout history people have formed unions for a variety of reasons, mostly for political or economic gain.
Try reading these references:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
http://marriage.about.com/od/historyofmarriage/Learning_About_the_History_of_Marriage.htm
http://www.sexscrolls.net/marriage.html
A quote:
“The institution of marriage has had a long and sordid history. Not always referred to as marriage, which is a word from the 14th century French (marier) to marry, this sacred state had slipped through history under many guises and forms.”
Read ALL of them, unless you are one of those who say ‘God said it! I believe it! And that settles it!”
Believe it or not…I am actually trying to help you expand your knowledge. Then you will truly know a “peace beyond all understanding” instead of a set of man made rules!
You might also take the time to read such instruments of wisdom as http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/index.html
While you are carefully considering the truth on your journey to know God, who is the Truth, read about other religions and cultures and come to know of what you speak.
Then God will truly bless you with the greatest gift Love of fellow human beings, and understanding that rules are from man, and spirituality is from God!
You can, of course, merely have religion as your guide.
Salam
Your words below:
The effect of Same Sex Marriage is long term and not obvious to see. It’s the development of Sex Revolution that swept throughout Western society from 1960s. If this direction won’t be changed, 50 years from now, there will be:
- No legal sanction marriage for man and woman.
- Sex become social norm like handshake.
- Polygamy, incest will no longer be banned.
By Salam on 11.30.06 9:08 am
I think it is a bit of a cop-out … I mean you may not be around in 50 years … Take a chance and say that these things will all take place in 10 years!
Homosexuality has been around since the dawn of humanity … And your ok! Right!
Live and let live!!
Just Wonderin: Just wondering myself how many people who complain about their children being exposed to gay parades actually monitor their childrens tv time or internet time?
Probably none.
This site is meant to give opinions on a vote or direction not to debate religious beliefs. Respect everyone for their belief as long as it is good.
Religion always has been a tough topic.
Just respect all provided they benefit mankind as a whole.I don’t think Garth wanted to get into the type of discussion presented.
My opinion only.
There are the emotional issues and the financial issues surriunding SSM. If same sex couples can get all the financial benefits of a “partnership”, eg. naming the other as a pension beneficiary, then I would say no to SSM. However, that’s not the case since most legislation specifies only a spouse can be named. Hence SSM.
Then there’s the emotional side of it and, dare I say it the religious side of it.
Obviously, if your ultra an ultra conservative religious type, ala SH, you’re going to vote no. If your more liberal, you’re going to vote yes.
Keep religion out of the civil issue. There is a distiction between religous SSM and civil SSM. The former, under the Charter, is the individual choice of each faith denomination. The later is for politicians.
Just an example of how words get twisted and distorted to suit the purposes of people misrepresenting another.
I referred to “preserving the generational community which by its very nature, requires l man + 1 woman + children.”
So I said that the intergenerational community requries 1 man + 1 woman + children.
Picking up on this, Jeff writes, “Marriage is man + woman + children. I know so many ‘married’ couples that are not having children and do not want to have children.”
He is hitting at a straw man of his own making here. I said that preserving the intergenerational community requires the man-woman-child trichotomy.
Those male-female couples who choose not to have children are not contributing to the intergenerational community any more than same-sex couples are, and their world will never role model both a cross-gender and a cross-generational connect, which is needed if any culture or society is to have a future, because the children are the future. There needs to be an emotional and a psychological connect between the generations if they are to be healthy.
Both SSM and OSM that do not want to have children are symptoms of a society that does not have a very high priority on reproduction, or seeing the birth rate sustain our society into the future.
Oh, the answer is easy! It is immigration, of course! Do we not see what we are doing here?
We are looking for our own preservation to those traditional societies who do believe that children are important, but if people in our own society hold those same values, they are shouted down as bigots and old fashioned.
How much more advanced is a culture that cannot sustain itself that it has to rely on cultures who believe in traditional family values in order to be propped up, and have a future?
This is why many immigrants, who come to this country, are aghast at the direction that Canada has been taking, a path that has been bull-dozed by non-democratic court decisions, and by labelling those who disagree as “idiots,” “bigots,” and “homophobes.”
How about an intelligent discussion instead of ad hominem, emotional attacks instead of reason as a weapon to put down the legitimate view of others?
Abortion, couples not wanting children, and same-sex marriage–they are all part of one phenomenon–a society that does not care nearly enough about the importance about relationship that not only reproduce children, but which provide the emotional stability for children to bond with relationships unsevered, cut off and abandoned from their biological roots.
Yes, two people may love each other, but the family is not just about two adults fulfilling their personal desires. It is about thinking fo the next generation, and the type of environment we are creating for the children who are the future!
Looking past whether SSM is correct or not…
Garth, you are correct: The people who voted for you knew you as a candidate who supported SSM. They also knew you as a candidate who supported the CPC.
Many are willing to give you a chance now that you have left the CPC boat and have launched your campaign of vitriol against it. I, for one, do not see why you should try our tolerance by switching on one issue (your party affiliation) while staying self-righteously steadfast in another.
The moment you stopped being a member of the CPC, all bets were off. You can no longer vote solely on what you (and your party) espoused during elections. As an Indie, you must come to us, your constituents — and your bosses — for ratification of your vote.
On this issue in particular, you are full of it. All candidates in the last election were in favour of SSM, so the voters are in no way having their choices limited or changed by my Indie status. Second, this was a position adopted by me 100% independently of the CPC, which remains opposed to SSM, so there was no party affiliation there. Third, I stand today for what I stood for during the election, so if you truly are from Halton, dig out the Garth Turner literature and start checking off what I have promoted, fought for or accomplished. — Garth
It still amazes me that people are angry at Garth over the CPC kicking him out for keeping his word, but that’s beside the point.
On the issue of SSM, don’t reopen. I think the present state is fine. I don’t see “prove it won’t negatively effect society” as the necessary criterion – rather, prove it will, and preferably without any handwaving. Rights should’t be something you’re given, but something you have just for… being.
Truly, there are far more serious issues in this life than to worry about gays.
Allow them to get married. They are not going away, and they should not! Thus, allow them the same rights.
[...] Someone’s finally given a reason for opposing same-sex marriage that actually makes sense to me. From a comment on my MP Garth Turner’s blog: Garth, please vote yes. I don’t live in your district. Or even in the same province as you, but this matter is crucial. That debate over SSM must be re-opened. [...]
Anyone else remember the massive campaign to limit the world’s population? We were told the planet cannot handle the needs of so many humans? Look at Africa.
Why does it seem that Roger Armbruster is spouting some Vatican breeding plan?
His entire rhetoric centres around what sounds very much like Eugenics and racial purity.
Mankind has survived quite well for the last 115,000 years since Modern Man first came into being, by our latest scientific knowledge. I doubt there is a lack of reproduction here in Canada or elsewhere.
Again, the issue is about equal rights not some Grand Vatican plan to make babies.
Well science has proven that homosexuals are born with a different gene that makes them so . It is not a life style choice but one thrust upon them by nature .
So homosexulaity is not a disease,people. Pedophilia is a disease .
As far as I know they are non proseletizing they do not seek to entrap straight people into their life style .
They are due all the same priviledges and rights of all peoples .
My choiuce is obvious .
I am with Garth on this all the way .
Once this issueis put to bed McVeety will have no other issue to spout off about which suits me just fine .
Ed – my beef is not the SSM issue per se, he presented himself as part of the CPC team, selling the CPC platform and we haven’t had much teamwork since day 1. I guess back then he assumed he’d be named to cabinet.
“His entire rhetoric centres around what sounds very much like Eugenics and racial purity.” — Bill Muskoka.
Bill, it is the exact opposite. Eugenics is a psudo-science where the state seeks to control and supposedly improve the human race by the careful selection of parents.
It is nature and not the state who decides who can be biological parents. What we have with the introducton of Bill C-38, however, is that the state now defines who can be a “parent” by its own definition of parenting.
That is why in our statute books, all references to “natural” parent have now been changed into “legal” parent.
The state has no control over who becomes a “natural” parent, but it can fully control who becomes a “legal” parent.
This puts the state in control of defining institutions such as the family unit, institutions that the state did not create and has no right to control since these matters pre-exist the state and are ultra vires to the state’s authority. The state, in other words, is not god or the ultimate authority, because if it is, then whatever the state can give, the state can take away. That is a very fragile basis for human rights.
Nor do we want to empower the big brother state even more to control our lives when we see so much abuse of state-power already? Should we not want to weaken that power by empowering families to take more responsibility and put less responsibility on the state to run our lives? Which direction do we want to go–empowering families, or empowering centralized state-control?
I am not saying we need no government, but I do believe that “they govern best who govern least.” That is why the state should get the hec out of imposing itself on institutions where it has no business. The natural family preceded the state, not the other way around.
Whether one is a theist or an evolutionist and believer in natural selection–even with the latter, the preservation and survival of the species depends upon the natural selection of opposite sex partners in order to survive. You don’t have to be a religious person at all to see clearly that those order of relationships are not of the same order as other relationships, and certainly not as relevant to our future generations.
With the human species, children were designed to be conceived and raised within a love bond between a male and a female, and that is what true marriage is. Other types of relationships can also have a love attachment, but then it is not marriage. It is a different kettle of fish altogether.
Let me just say in passing that I am in no way, shape, or form connected to the Vatican, and have never been, nor do I ever expect to be Roman Catholic.
The scientific facts are that Canada, along with a number of European countries, have had a declining birth rate that is the direct result of the sexual revolution of the 1960’s and 1970’s, and now we are increasingly faced with the stark reality today that in Canadian society, our present birth rate will not sustain our population.
That my friend, is a fact. I don’t mean to be offensive, and I reach out my hand to discuss this with you in a reasonable atmosphere (without the name-calling). Let’s discuss reasonable ways about how we got here, and what do we do about it.
Remember, if immigration alone is the answer, it is an admission that Canada has lost something that other countries have preserved, and yet we have arrogantly prided ourselves in being so much more “progressive” and “advanced” and “modern” than these other countries who have preserved family values, and to whom we (who were supposed to be more “progressive” and “evolved”) now have to “devolve” in that we are dependent on them and turning to them for help.
Yes, the world’s population as a whole may not be under any threat, because, thank goodness, the world’s population has not followed the Canadian experiment with policies that minimize the value and the need for having children to preserve future generations.
The one exception to this in Canada are the Inuit and First Nation’s communities, where the birth rate is still very strong. Those cultures have strong family and community values, and they have much to teach us when we thought we were so superior and more advanced than these traditional cultures.
We can stick our head in the sands about this all that we want, but the reality is still going to increasingly force us to eventually make a decision about the declining birth rate, both in Canada, and in several European countries.
There is no need to label me as something I am not. This is not a reasonable argument. The facts still stare you in the face, Bill, and it is going to take something more than “killing the messenger” to deal with “the message” that you don’t want to hear.
“Oh and Roger, do you actually know any gay people? Have you ever talked with them? Do you have any clue about their lives?” –Bill Muskoka.
Yes, my only son’s best friend is gay, and we have good times together. He knows what I believe, and I know where he stands. And we don’t hate each other. We are friends.
I have friends with same-sex attractions, and also with former gays who have seen their sexual orientation change, even though it is not easy.
I also realize that people are gay through no fault of their own, but you will always find a love deficit in their background for which they are seeking legitimate compensation. Sadly, the sexual act alone cannot fill that love deficit, whether heto or homo.
“What you are born is all you will ever be Roger. Sorry about hopes and dreams because that is just the way things are and have to stay that way!” –Bill Muskoka.
That is pure fatalism. We cannot change how we were born, but we can change who we will become by the choices that we make. Otherwise, humans are nothing more than machines and robots rather than free agents who can make meaningful decisions that will affect our future.
Not even all identical twins turn out the same. They have identical genes, were born the same way, but yet turn out differently. What is the difference? We cannot choose our genes or our environment as small children, but as we grow, we can choose how we will respond to that environment.
You see humans as deterministic (which makes them basically robots). I see humans as free (which makes them persons with freewill, and a right to steer their own course).
“Now, whether it’s called marriage or something else can be argued–what matters is the rights and the benefits have to be equal.” –Jaimee.
That has already long been decided before this marriage issue even came up. Gay couples fully have equal rights and benefits with any other couple in Canada. That is not even an issue here.
So if calling it “marriage” or “something else” is not an issue, why not call it a “civil union”? Why should the state try to redefine a religious term which is marriage.
Yes, they call it marriage for civil purposes in Bill C-38, but they still call it a marriage (which is not for them to define). Call it a civil union, and let the religious and faith institutions determine their own definitions.
“With your logic, single parents can’t take care of their kids, much like same-sex couples can’t…this just doesn’t make sense and has no real proof behind it.” –Shane.
There is proof. It is now known, for example, that the number one cause of poverty is the abandonment of children by men who sire children, run off to have sex with somebody else, and leave the mother to raise the child single-handedly. This is not fair to the children, and men should be made to be responsible for the children that they produce. They leave a generational disconnect.
It can be proven that children of single parents are at a real and unfair disadvantage, and will be far more likely to underachieve and end up on the streets looking for love in all of the wrong ways.
Having said that, I stand in full support of every single parent who has fought valiantly for their families, and who have gone above and beyond the call of duty. I personally take young people with single parents out for coffee or for lunch, as society must do what it can to fill that love deficit in their lives. This would be more practical rather than to put our head in the sands and pretend that children of single parent families don’t suffer anguish and disconnection from the missing parent.
The fact is, babies need a mother to bond with emotionally and psychologically, during life in the womb and during the earliest formative years in order to find the world to be a safe place.
Correspondingly, as the child grows older, they need a father to affirm them in their own distinct, unique identity, separate from mother, and to find the world to be a safe place as they individuate to become their own unique, freestanding selves.
“Dysfunction? What is really dysfunctional these days?…Show me a time in history where humans were not dysfunctional in any way.”
I never said that no society was dysfunctional in any way. What I said is that we are the first society to normalize that dysfunction, and to suggest that an undefined “sexual orientation” is a human right. We are not dealing with the results that the sexual revolution of the 1960’s and 1970’s has brought upon our society, but are normalizing it and legalizing it. Which will hardly prevent ever more serious problems from mounting in future generations if we don’t come to our senses here at some point.
“OK…why don’t we just make it a law that parents cannot break up and sole-parenthood is illegal…that would go hand in hand with what you are saying.” –Jaimee.
No it would not. No government legislation can solve this problem at all. It is going to take a society that is more compassionate and caring enough to help familes who are struggling, and for young people to bear a greater sense of responsibility for their sexual lives.
To accomplish that, it is not government legislation, but parental love that is needed in the lives of children, the love of both a father and a mother who is compassionate. A child raised in such a home does not need to go looking for love out on the streets in all of the wrong ways.
“There are many single parent families. Many of theser former heterosexual unions failed and continue to fail because they refuse to change.”
I agree completely. The answer is not to normalize our dysfunction, but we need to see a greater willingness on the part of dead-beat Dads, for example, to change. Therein lies the problem.
Dads who are either physically or emotionally absent from their children are a big part of the problem.
“You wonder why the churches are running near empty?”
This is true of churches like the United Church of Canada, which is trying to get people back in their pews by severing themselves from the foundations of their faith, but it is not true of churches that proclaim a living faith, and a Redeemer who saves, heals and delivers. Those churches are growing rapidly.
I have travelled to the Canadian Arctic and to Greenland, where the sexual revolution has run full course. Those people have come to the point where the pain in their lives has become unbearable, and they are now turning back to God in great numbers for healing and restoration. And this movement is growing. It is based on true love and healing available to all without respect of persons.
“Well science has proven that homosexuals are born with a different gene that makes them so.”
It is interesting that people make statements like this without presenting the scientific proof.
You show me the “proof” that you are talking about, and I will show you where the so-called “proof” is inconclusive.
If it were, then there should ber 100% co-relation between identical twins becoming of the same sexual orientation. But there is not. There are other environmental factors involved.
There is no “gay gene” as such.
Just to show you where this slippery slope is leading us, and which those advocating SSM will have to help us provide answers for, we now have an Ontario women asking the courts to officially recognize her as the third legal parent of a five-year-old boy she is raising with her same-sex partner.
This would be the the first time in Canada that a child would have more than two legal parents.
Yet the advocates of SSM swore that all that they were asking for was the marriages rights of “two persons,” not other polyamorous relationships.
Once more than two become parents, it opens the door to polygamy and other bisexual and polyamorous relationships, which is already the new line of battle on this issue, simply because “sexual orientation” has never been defined.
This lady is arguing that if the law does not make room for three legal parents, it is a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedom’s guarantee of equality.
So if one can have three legal parents, why not four, five, or ten?
All of this is part of a trend that puts the growing use of egg and sperm donors, high rates of divorce and single-parent childbearing and support for same-sex marriage–all evidence that our present society puts the interests of adults before the needs of children.
According to Dan Cere, “Radical changes to our public norm of parenthood in law and public policy are challenging one of the msot fundamental tasks of human culture, namely the struggle to forge strong healthy connections between children and their biological parents.”
Breaking ranks with the United nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Canadian law now elevates the rights of adults to children over the rights of children to their birth parents.
The purpose of adoption is not to provide a child to a family, but rather provide a family for a child.
Now, according to the Globe and Mail of July 21, 2006, we have a case of one child and five would-be parents!
A surrogate mother, the biological father, his sister, and a caretaking couple all want custody of Baby X.
Rachel Sullivan injected into her body a syringe of semen from a former RCMP officer who paid her $23,000.00 (U.S.) to be a surrogate mother.
At the time, in October of 2003, the Utah woman thought she was helping a Nevada-based gay couple create the family they couldn’t. After she became pregnant, she was to turn the baby over to the biological father, Arthuro Nuosci, a Canadian.
And that was to be the end of it. Except that things didn’t go anywhere close to plan.
The biological mother now says that producing the baby with her own egg as part of a surrogacy agreement was “a setup for heartbreak.”
When will this cycle of pain and heartbreak stop in future generations?
So who are the 5 would-be parents?
1. Mr. Nuosci, the 45-year-old biological father who wants custody of his son, but can’t take care of him since he is serving time in a penitentiary. and therefore wants his sister, Dolores Rizzi, who lives north of Toronto, to have custody of his son until his release.
2. Rachel Sullivan, the biological mother, who wants the boy to live with her and her two other children.
3. Baby X currently lives with a married couple who have no genetic tie to the boy, but they have raised him for most of his life and are fighting to keep him.
The Supreme Court of Utah will ultimately decide.
Can we not see that our courts are increasingly being put in a place where they must now make decisions are are like trying to unscramble eggs? Where will it lead?
Roger your arguement is the most ridiculus thing I have ever heard. You say that the state has no business controlling who can be a parent yet you then go on to argue against same sex couples being parents? Please tell me how this makes any sense whatsoever. The current laws prevent anyone from controlling who can or cannot legally parent a child, which is how it should be. Also you religious wingnuts should give it a rest.
I am a Christian.
I believe that same sex couples should be able to get “married.” No, not a civil union, but “marriage.” Who are we or anyone else to say otherwise? It does not violate your faith in any way. You can still get married.
Get over it.
And the notion that same sex marriage is responsible for low birth rates is the most ignorant thing I have ever heard. Go get educated. PLEASE!
Roger,
Answer one question please. Why is this of such critical importance to you personally?
In April of 2006, a diverse group of nearly twenty GLBT (Gay Lesbian Bisexual Transgendered) activists, some organizers, some scholars and educators, some funders, some writers and cultural workers, came together to discuss marriage and family politics.
Despite other differences, they all stand in agreement with the statement that they drafted entitled, “Beyond Same Sex Marriage.”
It is called a “new strategic vision for all our families and relationships,” and was signed on July 26, 2006.
Here is an excerpt from their statement:
“The struggle for same-sex marriage rights is only one part of a larger effort to strengthen the security and stability of diverse households and families. GLBT communites have ample reason to recognize that families and relatinships know no borders and will never slot narrowly into a single existing template…
“The transgender and bisexual movements, so often historically left behind or left out by the larger lesbian and gay movement, have powerfully challenged legal constructions of relationship and fought for social, legal and economic recognition of partnerships, households, and families, which include members who shatter the narrow confines of gender conformity.
“To have our government define as ‘legitimate families’ only those households with couples in conjugal relationships does a tremendous disservice to the many other ways in which people actually construct their families, kinship networks, households and relationships. For example, who among us seriously will argue that the following kinds of households are less socially, economically and spiritually worthy?
“*Committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner.
“*Blended families.
“*Single parent households.
“*Queer couples who decide to jointly create and raise a child with another queer person or couple, in two households…
“GLBT movement strategies must be sufficiently prophetic, visionary, creative, and practical to counter the right’s powerful and effective use of wedge politics…
“We, the undersigned, suggest that strategies rooted in the following principles are urgently needed:
“*Recognition and respect for our chosen relationships in their many forms.
“*Freedom from a narrow definition of our sexual lives and gender choices, identities, and expression.
“*”GLBT movement strategies must never secure privilege for some while at the same time foreclosing options for many. Ouir strategies should expand the current terms of debate, not reinforce them.
“We advocate close attention to such efforts to provide material support for the widest possible range of household formations…Now, more than ever, is the time to continue to find new ways of defending all ouir families, and to fight to make same-sex marriage just one option on a menu of choices that people have about the way they construct their lives.
“We invite friends everywhere to join us in ensuring that there is room, recognition, and practical support for us all, as we dream together a new future where all people will truly be free.”
For the sake of the children involved, a French parlaimentary report which was released last February concluded that marriage should not be extended to include same-sex couples.
The 450-page study affirmed, “Marriage is not merely the contractual recognition of the love between a couple; it is a framework that imposes rights and duties designed to provide for the care and harmonious development of the child.”
Commissioned by the president of France’s National Assembly, the 30 member parliamentary commission recommends against any move by France to legalize gay marriage, gay adoptions or the use of new reproductive technologies that would enable same-sex couples to procreate.
Researchers took a full year gathering data for their report, including 14 round-table discussions involving people with a diversity of opinions on the subject. They also visited several countries that have either legalized or taken steps toward legalizing same-sex marriage, including Canada.
“To systematically give preference to adult aspirations over respect for these (children’s) rights is not possible any more.” (Report on the Family and the Rights of Children, National Assembly, France).
French law allows for three forms of organization for couples: common law, civil unions and marriage.
Yet, for the simple and considered reason that the French government decided to call same-sex unions as “civil unions,” and not “marriage,” our intolerant society here in Canada has referred to those who hold similar views as hate-mongerers, bigots, homophobes and idiots.
That means that we, in Canada, have the gall to tell the French that they are in violation of fundamental human rights and equality just because have stood in agreement with the U. N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Who do we in Canada think we are to use this disparaging type of language towards those who hold alternate views?
Canada is a signatory to the U. N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. This convention affirms that the child shall have “as far as possible the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents” (Article 7), meaning the father and mother who gave him or her life. Article 3 states that “In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by courts of law, or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.”
As the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (Article 16) declares, “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state.”
Children should not have to suffer from conditions imposed upon them by adults. The best interests of the child must prevail over adult freedoms, even including the lifestyle choices of parents.
The purpose of adoption is not to provide a child to a family, but rather provide a family to a child. Given the original trauma and brokenness of his personal history, the adopted child requires the judicial and emotional security that married parents can provide.
It is true that some same-sex couples may be, in some cases, even more caring parents that some opposite-sex couples are. The problem with normalizing same-sex parenting on a par with the preferability of having both a father and a mother, however, is that same-sex parenting introduces additional discontinuity for the adopted child, namely the loss of the analogy between the original couple and the couple educating him/her.”
What was noticed in the province of Manitoba, was that with the policy of adopting native families into other households, that the policy failed miserably, and children, to his day, are still trying to get to know their true identity, and their true biological roots, and wherever possible, to reconnect.
This is why the French Report stresses the need, in the medium term, to lift the veil of secrecy in the case of children born from anonymous mothers, and to allow children to know the identity of their mother when they reach the age of maturity.
It is better and highly desirable, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both the mother and the father.
No one wants to deprive anyone of legitimate rights, but when claims for the sexual ‘rights’ of adults jeopardize the rights of children and the future of the nation, someone must have the courage to declare:
“No! You may not use a claim to private ‘rights’ as a weapon to threaten the rights of those who do not yet have a voice, nor to threaten the stability of future generations.”
Bill, this is of interest to me, because it involves the future of the Canadian society in which I live, and the legacy our generation is leaving the next generation.
As a member of the baby boom generation myself, I personally feel that we have failed the younger generation, and they have suffered for it, and we owe them an apology. It is time that we change directions, like cultures that have seen the full harvest of the sexual revolution are presently doing–the Inuit of Arctic Canada and Greenland, for example.
Have a good day, Bill. We can agree to disagree, and I take no offence with any of your reports. I believe that you are a good person. We just view some things differently.
Bill, if you want live and let live, don’t force any cities to have these parades. Live and let live doesn’t mean that people are forced to do this.
“Roger your argument is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. You say that the state has no business controlling who can be a parent yet you then go on to argue against same sex couples being parents? Please tell me how this makes any sense whatsoever.” –Charles Barnard.
Charles, please hear my heart. I mean no offence to you are anyone. You are no doubt a very good person.
What I am saying is that the Canadian government has changed the name of “natural parent” into “legal parent.”
Neither the state nor I can have any control whatever as to who the “natural parent” is, but now we are just disregarding one’s biological parenthood altogether in defining what a parent is. The state should not be changing the definition of parenthood in that way in my view.
When there is a social or generational disconnect, a legal guardian is a real help in making the best of a bad situation, but yet they can never be the natural parent, which is the desirable option for the child so that they can stay psychologically and emotinoally connected to their deepest roots. This involves much less pain and trauma for the child at the early stages of life which are so impressionable and the scars are long-lasting.
But barring that, I fully recognize the need for substitute guardianship of the child, but the “natural” parent is still the “real” parent, and that is why children always want to know who their real parents are, and, if possible, to reconnect.
It is a fact of life. We need to face it fairly and squarely, do we not?
Jaimee, so, who has children then? Does humanity die because of career women? If that’s what they’re progressing to since you say this is progress, then its a society that will die because of selfish choices.
You demean women who are mothers and I find that disgusting. Typical feminist attitude, women aren’t worth anything unless they have a job. Guess what? Birthing and taking care of children is a job, and its obvious you don’t know anything about it.
William Hane, Gender is relevant to the definition of marriage. Race is not. Hence, it was racist to interject race where it was not relevant. You, too, are guilty of interjecting race where it is not relevant. You, too, are a racist.
Judy, you are changing the subject but I am glad that you are equating the two. You would be wrong because I know of many parents who are careful as to what their children watch. I would say that most parents do not do this but there are some and these parents are to be congratulated. You can bet these people have strong morals unlike most “progressives”.
“And the notion that same sex marriage is responsible for low birth rates is the most ignorant thing I have ever heard. Go get educated. PLEASE!” –Charles Barnard.
Charles, I don’t think I have said that SSM alone is responsible for the low birthrate, but it is part of a culture which includes abortion on demand, couples choosing not to have children for fear of world conditions, easy divorce, and equalizing unions that do not produce children with those who do–it is all part of a culture that does not place a very high priority on the need to see the birth rate sustained or that children stay connected to their biological roots.
This would help to make the world a more accepting place for small children, rather than to decide just to have no more children because there is so much family violence and marital break-up that we don’t want to bring them into that environment.
I realize full well that the world at large is in no danger of becoming extinct, but in Canadian society, we are depending on other outside cultures and immigration policies just to sustain our population.
That might be ok, but then it is totally inappropriate for Canadians to look down at these more traditional cultures and see ourselves as so much more advanced those those cultures who hold to traditional family values.
Thank you, and have a wonderful day.
Jackie Chan, you would be wrong in stating that science has proven it. They have not.
The marriage crisis is intimately involved with two key ideas:
1. that children need mothers and fathers, and
2. that marriage is the main way that we create stable, loving mother-father families for children.
Both adults and children live longer, have higher rates of physical health and lower rates of mental illness, experience poverty, crime and domestic abuse less often, and have warmer relationships, on average, when mothers and fathers marry and stay married.
On June 19, 2006, Ryerson University in Toronto awarded an honorary doctorate to Margaret Somerville, founding director of the Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University.
A controversy erupted because she dared to say in public: “I don’t think same-sex marriage is a good idea, but I haven’t got any problems at all with being gay or standing up for the rights of gay people.”
What protesting faculty and students seemed unwilling to hear was, “It’s about kids’ rights.”
One can oppose discrimination against homosexuals, but still not support same-sex marriage.
As Somerville stated, “Children get valuable genetic traits from each of the opposite-sex parents, something not possible with two mothers or two fathers.”
Her viewpoint is supported by an avalanche of researched facts, though many of Canada’s elite have not yet learned to be tolerant enough to hear such views.
And so we perpetrate the myth, the belief, the untested faith that preferring mother-father-child families is part of our bigoted past.
Where’s the tolerance? Where’s the openness to reason? Where’s the open-mindedness?
Roger,
I asked “Why is this of such critical importance to YOU personally?”
You have not answered my question. You have merely quoted the statements of others.
Garth, I know that the last Halton MP received overwhelming support to vote against SSM from his Halton constituents. He voted with integrity. I am asking you to vote yes to repeal it. I will never support SSM. This vote from you will determine if I could support you in the next election.
Maureen
The last Halton MP campaigned in the election saying he would NOT vote to re-open the issue he voted against. Is that integrity or practicality? Like me, he determined the majority of people in Halton do not wish to revisit this issue. By the way, so did all the other candidates, and what does that tell you? — Garth
Roger Armbruster,
Polyamorous is a word with which I am unfamiliar: unless you meant to write polyandrous.
BTW, are you in competition with Geoffrey Layton to submit the most consecutive posts to this blog? Too many of your entries are repetitive and excessively long.
When confronted with disagreement you argue ENDLESSLY and attempt to prove your point. IMHO people who are impelled to prove they’re right, are admitting that they could be wrong.
Please give it a rest and move on. Not everyone is interested in the world acording to Roger; although you’re entitled to an opinion.
Heeeeelp,
You folks with your long winded blogs are sure confusing a simple issue.
Can you answer a simple question?
Why do people want to get married?
In 15 words or less now!!!
Bill Muskoka, here was the response that I gave you posted at 2:31 p.m.:
“Bill, this is of interest to me, because it involves the future of the Canadian society in which I live, and the legacy our generation is leaving the next generation.
“As a member of the baby boom generation myself, I personally feel that we have failed the younger generation, and they have suffered for it, and we owe them an apology. It is time that we change directions, like cultures that have seen the full harvest of the sexual revolution are presently doing–the Inuit of Arctic Canada and Greenland, for example.”
What part of this answer was a quote from somebody else?
“poly” — much many.
“amourous” — inclined or disposed to sexual love, enamoured.
You will see this terminology starting to surface in the literature.
“Why do people want to get married?”
It depends on whether they are just thinking only of themselves as consenting adults, or are also thinking of the next generation.
Roger,
A liberal Non-Answer
Roger,
My prior post referred to your post made at 1:43PM, not those after, which I have now to read.
Roger Armbruster,
Thanks for the reply. Then polyamorous is a newly coined word such as ‘OFF OF’; neither of which has been ratified by lexicographers.
It is merely a drawing room synonym for whore-master.
Thank you Bill.
Just Wondering, am I a Liberal? Didn’t think so.
Who of us would presume to speak for all people as to why they would want to marry?
Here Here Irate, I think Garth should give Roger an entire thread for himself so that for the 2 or so people who want to read his ranting can go there and get their enjoyment. Regards
Roger,
Okay, amidst watching the news, phone calls, etc., I finally read all your posts and have to say the closest you cam eto actually saying “This is important to me, Roger Armbruster, as a person, is…”
Here is the one point you actually said something regarding a close proximity to yourself.
“Bill, this is of interest to me, because it involves the future of the Canadian society in which I live, and the legacy our generation is leaving the next generation.”
So not to be rude, nor repetitive, as to ask the question again…“Why is this of such critical importance to YOU personally?†NOTE: Personally refers to internal needs, not philosophical, scientific (alleged), religious, or societal reasons.
In other words, take away all the rhetoric, reach down into your inner being, and explain your ‘personal’ reasons this is of importance to YOU!
What drives you? Is it a fear? An experience? How does it DIRECTLY affect your life for people to be under a particular label and to have true equality and freedom of choice.
Seriously, you do not actually believe you have a massive duty to steer our society towards your belief…do you?
“This convention affirms that the child shall have “as far as possible the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents†(Article 7), meaning the father and mother who gave him or her life.”
That argument is a non-starter. By that argument, there must be no adoptions. Also, it never says in the convention that it must be the mother and father.
“As the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (Article 16) declares, “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state.—
Again, you’re making assumptions here. You’re making an assumption about what the definition of family is.
“The research on homosexuality is very clear. Homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity… Nor is homosexuality a matter of individual choice.” Welch then continues to state that efforts to cure homosexuality are little more than “social prejudice garbed in psychological accouterments”. He continues that research now indicates that homosexual orientation begins very early in life, perhaps before birth. He further states that there should be no reason to discriminate against gays in the slightest way as they are every bit as productive and as much of an asset as any other member of society.
The APA has in fact taken the general view that homosexual orientation is an innate quality since 1975. It followed the American Psychiatric Association removing homosexuality from the list of official mental and emotional disorders in 1973. This confirmed their belief in the new scientific research in the area of homosexuality. Both associations now promote an ideology designed to help dispel the idea that homosexuality is a mental illness.
“So not to be rude, nor repetitive, as to ask the question again…’Why is this of such critical importance to YOU personally?’ NOTE: Personally refers to internal needs, not philosophical, scientific (alleged), religious, or societal reasons.” –Bill Muskoka.
I guess where we see reality differently, Bill, is that you seem to see persons as disconnected islands in isolation of one another, and that what affects others does not affect me personally in any way, shape or form.
I see reality in the light that everything is inter-related and inter-connected. What affects one affects all. No man or woman is an island unto themselves.
Therefore, when we say that what “two consenting adults” agree to does not affect anybody else, that is not quite true. When they decide to divorce, for example, it affects the children hurtfully, as it does the other family members. It is a matter that affects many people outside of themselves.
Similarly, if a couple desides to hire a surrogate mother, for example, so that they can have children–their decision affects the surrogate and biological mother as well as the child. I have already given you a concrete example of how that is already happening right now, and how people are fighting in the courts in three directions now for the custody of an innocent child.
This is not a make-believe that I am making up.
So when people go through pain like this, I feel their pain as a fellow-human being, and I want the pain and the hurt to stop, not to go on unchecked.
When I talk with children affected by the decisions of consenting adults who have not really considered how their decisions affect the next generation, I know that many times they are reluctant to talk and to speak up, but I feel their pain, and I care.
And so as I personally reach deep within myself, I can say that when they hurt, I hurt, and I want the suffering of generational disconnect and of STD to stop.
“The APA has in fact taken the general view that homosexual orientation is an innate quality since 1975. It followed the American Psychiatric Association removing homosexuality from the list of official mental and emotional disorders in 1973.” –Jackie Chans.
Jackie, you are going to love this. Read on.
Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, Chief of Biometrics Research and Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University in New York City, announced the results of his research in a presentation Wednesday at the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association. “Contrary to conventional wisdom, some highly motivated individuals, using a variety of change efforts, can make substantial change in multiple indicators of sexual orientation,” Spitzer said.
Dr. Spitzer, a leading figure in the 1973 APA decision that removed homosexuality from the official diagnostic manual of mental disorders, said that he began the study as a skeptic. “Like most psychiatrists, I thought that homosexual behavior could only be resisted, and that no one could really change their sexual orientation. I now believe that to be false. Some people can and do change,” he said.
“’This convention affirms that the child shall have “as far as possible the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents†(Article 7), meaning the father and mother who gave him or her life.’
“That argument is a non-starter. By that argument, there must be no adoptions.”
No, it does not say that. It says that children have the right to know and becared for by their parents “as far as possible.”
“For those who do not see homosexuality as harmful, the question of whether or not it is the result of a conscious choice is irrelevant.”
“the question of whether or not it is the result of a conscious choice is irrelevant.†–Jackie Chan.
Yes it is relevant, because it determines whether one can marry the opposite sex or not.
Roger,
As far as possible, that’s right. And if it’s not possible, then they can be adopted. It doesn’t say anything about the sexual orientation of who adopts them if it isn’t possible.
Stephen, your comment is well taken, but it sttill doesn’t address the psychological research which points out the desirability and preferability of children having both a father and a mother–mother to bond with the child physically and emotionally from the womb through the earliest years so that the child finds the world a safe place, and then the need for a father to individuate the child at puberty by affirming the adolescent in his or her own unique identity, separate from mother.
Initially, mother’s world is the only safe place where emotional attachments should go unsevered, but later, father represents freestanding personhood that it is ok to be your own unique self separate from mother.
“As far as possible, that’s right. And if it’s not possible, then they can be adopted. It doesn’t say anything about the sexual orientation of who adopts them if it isn’t possible.” –Stephen Karr.
Stephen, come on now! If you simply look over the wording of the UN Resolution once again, it is saying that to know and be cared for by one’s parents is preferable to adoption. Both partners in a same-sex union cannot become parents apart from adoption, so clearly, the statement is saying that staying connected to one’s natural parents, if possible, is preferable.
For evidence of this, see the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (Article 16) declares, “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the state.â€
So the family is defined as a natural group, which includes natural parents, not parenthood which is attained unnaturally such as through reproductive technology.
The evidence is very clear if you look at the resolutions of the United Nations on this topic of the family. Most of the world sees Canada as simply out of step, and out of sync with reality. Yet we gloat over our superiority over more traditional societes.
This is quite a thread. Lots of different opinions – some of which are quite scary. While I agree with the separation of church and state, they don’t have to be mutually exclusive in practice. I happen to attend a church every Sunday (in Garth’s riding) where we welcome everyone – of any race, gender or sexual orientation. To say in any way that one has more rights than another is absurd.
And all of this business about mother-father families being so much better can’t hold water today since something like half end in divorce anyway…. So then the poor kids have to deal with all kinds of different situations – most of which are not the traditional standards. So you just can’t use that one. Until we heteros marry and stay together and faithful forever, there is not a leg to stand on. (not that there is anyway…)
Guess what – all gays want is to be treated equal in society – to get married and to live in peace.
For some reason we have been able to get over all kinds of bigotry but when it comes to gays, it seems to still be ok to discriminate. Well, it’s not.
God made all of us. And just as we’ve evolved in women’s rights and race equality, so should we step up with sexual orientation.
So stop being afraid. If we allow gays to marry it will not affect anyone else. You will not turn gay and it won’t turn anyone gay that wasn’t already.
How ’bout this – let’s have our governments issue Civil Union licences to EVERYONE and then only get a marriage licence at a religious institution.
In other words, Garth, you’ll run a poll on your site and vote the wishes of your constituents just as long as you’re sure the will of those constituents is the same as your’s. Pathetic. You’re no different than any of those you live to criticize.
What the heck are you talking about? SSM? — Garth
“How ’bout this – let’s have our governments issue Civil Union licences to EVERYONE and then only get a marriage licence at a religious institution.”
A good solution, Catherine. Let the government stay completely out of the business of defining marriage, since marriage is a religious term, and let the religions deal with it.
Civil Union licenses is exactly what the CPC government is proposing, and this is consistent with the conclusion of the governments in Great Britain and France. A reasonable solution.
Garth said, “The last Halton MP campaigned in the election saying he would NOT vote to re-open the issue he voted against. Is that integrity or practicality? Like me, he determined the majority of people in Halton do not wish to revisit this issue. By the way, so did all the other candidates, and what does that tell you? — Garth ”
Garth, that would tell me that people were not given a choice. You asked if its integrity or practicality, you forgot the 3rd option, hypocrisy. I believe that is what this is. Its very suspicious when someone who voted to preserve one man and one woman would be so eager to drop the issue and then vote against it, as that is the end result of your vote.
The number of comments on this particular entry proves how much of a hot topic SSM continues to be in Canada. Thank you, Garth, for allowing our views to be heard.