'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.
5. Marriage is a "religious" idea, citizens of Canada have the right to practice their chosen religion. It is the responsibility of the Church to decide whether or not they accept gay marriage, it is the responsibility of the government to uphold rights.
If marriage is a ‘religious’ idea, why is the government getting involved at all? Why not withdraw from the ‘marriage business’ and allow religious institutions to handle marriage as they see fit, rather than imposing SSM on all of society. Separation of church and state should cut two ways.
The government has the responsibility to uphold rights, but this marriage bill, especially as written, does nothing to ‘uphold the rights’ of any persons of any religion. The solemnization of marriage is a provincial issue and the federal government will not be able to protect clergy, marriage commissioners and Justices of the Peace from potential lawsuits for not performing marriage ceremonies against their conscience. When push comes to shove, this government, and our unelected, unaccountable, judiciary – have demonstrated that the individual and collective rights of gays and lesbians trump the religious rights of others. Examples are well documented. (Link to relapsedcatholic re: Kempling)
The government has an obligation to promote and support the stable perpetuation of society. Marriage is the most stable environment for the nurture and rearing of children. Bad marriages and infertile couples are not at issue. Two parent opposite sex families are optimum for rearing children – otherwise, evolution would have made it so procreation could take place regardless of gender – because that’s what evolution does, right? It promotes the strongest, most positive qualities and establishes them as the dominant ones? It adapts species to their needs and environment? Or, is it just that nature and evolution haven’t caught up with the enlightened Liberal mind?
6. I'm sorry that you some how feel allowing same-sex marriage is detrimental or encroaches on our rights, but like any opened-minded individual, I'm going to ask you to prove it. Like many Canadians, I'm not prepared to accept the denial of someone's rights based on an opinion, nor am I able to accept it based on a 2000 year old book.
In the post on which you are commenting, I never stated my personal opinion on SSM. Read it again if you don’t believe me. I simply stated that the middle ground on this issue is the compromise solution of civil unions.
You are asking me to prove the unprovable. Okay, Peg City Kid – you want to change a centuries old universal norm – prove to me it is NOT detrimental.
None of my arguments are biblically based. Whether homosexuality is or isn’t a sin is not the issue. That’s for God to deal with, not me. But I would argue that marriage is a child centred institution, and that although people get married for reasons other than having and raising children, that in opposite-sex marriages the potential for procreation is there (potential being the key word).
Placing children with SSM couples is a social experiment. Like residential schools, some day, it might come back to haunt us.
As for denying someone’s ‘rights’. You’ve just proved that you’ve bought into all the propaganda. There is no ‘right’ to marriage. If there were a ‘right’ to marriage, then NO limitations could reasonably be put on it under the law – meaning that polygamy, incest, child-adult unions – would all be equally valid – because discrimination is wrong, isn’t it?
Challenges/Response on the next entry.
2 comments:
As you said:
"If marriage is a ‘religious’ idea, why is the government getting involved at all? Why not withdraw from the ‘marriage business’ and allow religious institutions to handle marriage as they see fit, rather than imposing SSM on all of society. Separation of church and state should cut two ways."
The Canadian government cannot force religious establishments to perform gay marriage.
However, the Canadian government has the responsibility to make sure that the right of the individual are upheld and they are not discriminated against.
How can the government ensure a persons right to practice there own religion if that person has been descriminated against in part of that religion. That is the point. It's not about civil unions, it about the right for an individual to practice religion.
Please Canadianna, don't send me off to site with little to say, it wastes my time. I cannot comment on that on that article becuase it doesn't say anything and is totally biased.
So much for critical thinking, Eh Canadianna? The first thing they teach you is to remove the bias from an arguement.
That's a school board issue, not a fedaral one. Since it doesn't say why he was suspended, I can only assume he spoke negativley about gays in public, which, as I said, constitutes a hate crime.
If your going to use the narure of evolutioun as an example, you probabky should have doone some research, then you might have discovered that many animals display homosexual activities. There are also animlas that spontaneuosly change sexes and those which are also asexual. If a human being should develop any of those talents, should they become illegal.
6. Read comment from previous post.
As you siad:
"As for denying someone’s ‘rights’. You’ve just proved that you’ve bought into all the propaganda. There is no ‘right’ to marriage. If there were a ‘right’ to marriage, then NO limitations could reasonably be put on it under the law – meaning that polygamy, incest, child-adult unions – would all be equally valid – because discrimination is wrong, isn’t it?"
Canadianna, polygamy, incest and child-adult unions are illegal, allowing SSM will not change that. This argument is full of fear and ignorance.
Kempling wrote a letter to the editor. You should look it up. I'm not doing your research for you. Suffice it to say it was not a hate crime, it's called an 'opinion'. They used to be legal in this country too. He did not advocate violence, he did not disparage gays, he simply stated his point of view. That isn't a hate crime -- at least I hope not, or else I'm guilty of one right now. I'm expressing a view contrary to the government line on gay sexuality and its place in public policy. Why don't you turn me in?
I've already covered the illegal/not illegal in a different comment.
Post a Comment