Wednesday, May 25, 2005

Answering My Critic -- Part 5

9. Why this issue is even being discussed in parliament befuddles me.To me, a silly left-minded individual this seems like progress, we are adapting to a changing society. The direction we progress in is up to the people, if the people didn't like it, they wouldn't vote have voted Liberal. THIS is how democracy works.

This issue was brought up in parliament in 1999 because of court decisions resulting from charter challenges. Traditional marriage won. The radical left just keeps bringing it up and bringing it up until they finally feel the government ‘got it right’. An unelected, unaccountable judiciary has decided this – despite their own findings as recently as 1995 that marriage is ‘one man one woman’. The government is no longer allowing free-votes on this issue of conscience. This is not how democracy works. This is how dictatorships work.

A person might have voted Liberal because they preferred their stand on child-care or health-care. Their re-election is not implied endorsement of every policy they have – or else you would be saying that Canadians endorse corruption, theft and lies and we all know that’s not true, right?

10. Your right, wanting to ban same-sex marriage doesn't make you "intolerant" it makes you a fascist.

Do you even know what fascist means? Don’t throw words around because you think it makes you look clever. Go, look it up. Who’s the fascist? Also, don’t resort to name-calling. It weakens what little argument you have.

11. Oh, and Canadianna, in regards to your worry that they will "main street" same-sex marriage, same-sex couple have already been granted the right to marry in 10 provinces.

Again, you have misread me. I said –If gay-marriage is not the domain of the radical left, what is? And whatever it is, watch out, because it won't be long before they main street it.

When all things are marriage, nothing is marriage. If it is discrimination to exclude same-sex, then by the same logic it is discrimination to exclude polygamy, incest, child-adult unions. Don’t say ‘but that’s different’. To those whose ‘rights’ are being denied, it is exactly the same. They will do as the militant gays have done. They will lobby, they will ridicule, they will scorn – until their ‘rights’ are recognised. It may not happen in my lifetime. It took over forty years for the gay agenda to be advanced. But it will happen. There’s no stopping it once marriage becomes a ‘rights’ issue.

Now I will begin to address your comments to my guests:

12. Chris, you are way off bat, so far off in fact that your opinion is offensive and dangerous. Just for your information, the first establishment to perform same-sex marriage in my city was a synagogue, don't drag us into this, as I can assure you, a majority of Jewish people do not agree with you.

So, if the synagogue performed a same-sex ceremony, then SSM can’t be against the Judaism. Therefore, when a SS couple wants to get married in a synagogue where the rabbi does not believe in SSM, if the couple wants to challenge it under the charter, it can and would likely win. If something is against a ‘religion’ then all arms of the religion – each temple, each rabbi, must be following the same book, right? See the slippery slope we're on?

Never speak for the majority, Peg. You’ll find you’re very much alone.

Just a few more folks.


'Peg City Kid said...

9. Canadianna, thats how change occurs. Just as the right is not going to stop the push to "defend" the definition of marriage, the left isn't going to stop defending peoples rights.

10. Definition of fascist:

"a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual"

Substitute "race" with "sexual orientation" if that makes it easier.

11. You're right, I did miss read you.

Still, stop using crap as examples. Like I said before, these are all things that are against the law. Last time I checked, being gay was still quite legal. Come on, seriously, focus.

11. Canadianna, the slippery slope goes both ways, were just as likely to allow polygomy, incest and child unions as we are banning homosexuality all together. Is that what is has to come to?

12. When was the last time you saw an jewish led anti-SSM march?

Something, which obviously no one can make you believe, a Rabbi's right are protected.

Canadianna, who are you speaking for?

bob said...

Re: the religious rights
Then, I ask you, why was Bishop Henry in Calgary threatened by an agent of the Martin government because he enunciated his church's teachings? And why is the bishop facing a human rights hearing because he enunciated his church's teachings? That, to me (and, I suspect, Canadianna too), is a clear and present danger to religious freedom. And without religious freedom, political freedom really isn't free.

Les Mackenzie said...

Actually - being gay WAS illegal much like polygamy is now. Laws change so it really isn't a crap example.

Les Mackenzie said...

Oh - almost forgot the link.

So to say that any of the examples are crap are a little off the mark.

Canadi-anna said...

There is no 'right' to marriage. That is made up, so your argument on that is moot.

Fascist is what Canada is right now. Power is centralized in the hands of a few and state is all knowing, all powerful.

Believing that gays don't have a right to marry is not the same as not believing they have a right to exist.

My examples are not 'crap'. Forty years ago homosexuality was delisted from the DMS and subsequently decriminalized. You don't think that could happen with paedophilia? That's not fear mongering - the proliferation of child porn and the shocking banality of those who are engaged in it should indicate how mainstream that is becoming.
And polygamy is a cultural thing. Why is it illegal. If marriage is a right and I come from Saudi Arabia where polygamy is not against the law, doesn't our multicultural society have an obligation to bend itself to accomodate my rights?
It might be against the law now, but if our decisions are always based on what is good for 'now' we are setting up a dangerous road ahead.
You can believe otherwise if you like, but history is on my side.

We'll see Peg, in the next year or two after this law passes. The challenges will start coming. Maybe not right away, but soon enough, a Roman Catholic who is gay, will approach his church and request a wedding. When it is denied, he will sue. What side do you think the government will come down on?
The clergy might be protected from a lawsuit, but the religion is not protected from state interference.

And Peg, I speak for me. Hence the place where I write my opinions. My blog.