Wednesday, May 25, 2005

Answering My Critic - Part 2

'Peg City Kid, a frequent commenter on my site, has posed challenges to my post "Myth of the Moderate".His comment was long, and passionate. I intend to divide his challenges into 8 individual posts, in which I will answer each of his concerns, two in each entry. The numbered, italicized portions are 'Peg's unedited comments, under which is my response.

3. Yes, whether or not you can accept it, the Conservatives ARE far Left. You have a very skewed view of where the "Centre" is. It's almost as though you think the world revolves around you.

Again. I am to the right of centre. My argument is that the centre has shifted. You can agree or disagree with my opinions, but to argue that the centre position in this debate has not changed is just wrong.

In 1999 the House of Commons (including the majority of Liberals) voted overwhelmingly in favour of maintaining the traditional definition of marriage. At the time, they called this the 'moderate' position. Most who voted 'yea' were in favour of establishing some form of civil union to protect the rights of gays and lesbians in committed relationships.

You can't argue that this position wasn't the 'mainstream', 'moderate' position just six years ago. What's changed? The Liberals are embroiled in yet another scandal. Unlike HRDC, Somalia, APEC, EI, etc. This one is not going away. They have a formidable opposition now, demanding answers and accountability. The Liberals have not changed their views on SSM (people of principle don't change their views like they change their socks, something momentous must have happened for them to throw away their entire belief system and do an about-face) So, if the Liberals have not been suddenly enlightened. The only other explanation is that SSM is politically expedient. By shifting the debate, they can make everyone who disagrees a bigot, worthy of scorn and ridicule. They keep their clutch on power by squelching debate and calling anyone who disagrees 'unCanadian'. Gays and lesbians are being used as pawns in this power struggle because if you ask most Liberals what they personally believe about SSM, most haven't changed their opinions.

4. Since, I obviously don't understand your point if view, maybe you could explain to me how allowing same-sex marriage is detrimental to me. How does re-defining the definition of marriage effect me in a negative way? in anyway? How is this idea "radical", since church and state have theoretically been several for quite some time now?

In you previous statement, you suggested that I thought the world revolved around me. Apparently, you were wrong. It revolves around you. Are we to start legislating and believing in things only when they affect ourselves?

SSM is radical because it deviates from a universal, societal and cultural norm, established in all civilizations, and by all cultures before there were things like nations. Marriage goes beyond religion and is consistent in one aspect in every culture and religion --- that one thing is the opposite-sex requirement. Some religions/cultures allow polygamy, some allow child marriage, some allow marriage to close family members --- but universally, marriage requires the opposite-sex component. Moving away from that is definitely radical.

As for how it affects society? Countless ways. Once same-sex marriage becomes federal law, it follows that teaching against it will be illegal. What does that mean for parents who are religious but not covered by the tenuous protection offered to clergy under the law. And what about public schools. They teach sex education. Gay sex will inevitably be part of the curriculum, and the only option for parents who disagree will have is to pull their kids out of public school. And there is no guarantee that the teaching and learning of gay sexuality will not become manditory. Think 'sensitivity-training'. Alarmist? No. Pragmatist.

You also assume that anyone who disagrees with SSM is doing so on religious grounds. My religion has deferred opinion of SSM. They have taken no moral or spiritual leadership on this issue. My concern is that anyone who dissents on this issue is being branded as bigots, and you are proving my point.

You (and other like minded people) are proposing a major change to the fundamental understanding of marriage --- an understanding that has endured centuries and civilizations. The onus is on you to prove to me that this change will not adversely affect society -- not for me to prove that it will. Sorry, but your assurance that 'it won't', just doesn't cut it.

Challenges/responses continued on the next entry.

3 comments:

Shane said...

"Are we to start legislating and believing in things only when they affect ourselves?"

You will if you are a Libertarian... don't know if he is one or not. I kind of doubt it though. Libertarians don't have a lot of avenues of agreement with the Liberanos. Except the "Liber" part.

'Peg City Kid said...

3. Check previous post.

4. You haven't traveled much have you?

5.As you said:

"As for how it affects society? Countless ways. Once same-sex marriage becomes federal law, it follows that teaching against it will be illegal."

Canadianna, that would constitute a hate crime. It's identical to say, teaching against Judaism. Do you purpose we should be allowed to "teach" against certain people?

As you said:

"What does that mean for parents who are religious but not covered by the tenuous protection offered to clergy under the law."

First off, I'm not farmiliar with the protection the clergy offer under the law, so I am not in a position to argue this point. Although I do know that once a person reaches the age of majority, parents, nor clergy have any legal control over them. Although.

As you said:

"And there is no guarantee that the teaching and learning of gay sexuality will not become manditory."

There is no gaurantee it will be. Besides, despite a parents best efforts, some people still walk through that door. The fact that it is NOT talked about makes it more dangerous for them, as they are now entering into something they know nothing about. But, these people will be a minority, so why bother, eh?

You can't hope to outlaw homosexuality all together, can you? So perhaps we would be better off by preparing our children instead of turning a blind eye to this issue.

Although, ignorance is bliss.

As you siad:

"You also assume that anyone who disagrees with SSM is doing so on religious grounds. My religion has deferred opinion of SSM. They have taken no moral or spiritual leadership on this issue. My concern is that anyone who dissents on this issue is being branded as bigots, and you are proving my point."

Okay Canadianna, your going to sit here and tell me that there is absolutley no bigotry coming from the conservative side of things, please. I don't assume all people base their desicion on religious beliefs, nor did I even come close to implying it. You just assumeed I did.

I don't consider them bigots, I consider them, oh, how should I put it, conservative and reluctant to change.

As you said:

"You (and other like minded people) are proposing a major change to the fundamental understanding of marriage --- an understanding that has endured centuries and civilizations. The onus is on you to prove to me that this change will not adversely affect society -- not for me to prove that it will. Sorry, but your assurance that 'it won't', just doesn't cut it."

The law doesn't agree. The reason why YOU have to prove this change will adversely affect society is becuase you have no proof that it will, nor do you have any proof that your rights are being violated, and like any reasonable person, I will not accept this claim without further investigation.

Your solution treads on the rights of others, this one doesn't.

Tell me Canadianna, do you agree with the Canadian governments decision to put all the Japanese citizens in detention camps when Japan joined WWII?

Canadi-anna said...

I have no clue what you're talking about.

So, what you are saying is that if a Christian parent (or any parent, for that matter) tells his children that homosexual behaviour goes against the teachings of the church, and is unacceptable in the eyes of God, or that it is contrary to nature, that parent is guilty of a hate crime?

So much for the state staying out of our business.

'Preparing our children' for what? If homosexuality is natural and normal and what exactly are we preparing them for -- apparently you think it's something 'dangerous' though, that we must 'prepare them for' it, 'rather than turning a blind eye to the issue.'

Don't you dare imply that because I don't agree that gays fit the criteria for marriage, and the I don't think the definition should be changed because gay is 'chic' these days, that I am somehow in favour of internment camps.

If you can't argue issues, don't cast aspersions.