The same-sex marriage issue has brought the issue of homosexuality to the fore, like nothing before.
Despite the 'in yer face' approach of ardent gay activists, the mainstreaming of gay culture has been a relatively quiet revolution.
A few years ago, you'd have never seen gay people represented on television, let alone representing constituents -- now, not only do we have popular programmes with gay people as positive, likeable characters (John from NYPD Blue, Will from Will & Grace, Sean from Coronation Street, Ellen of the Ellen show) but there are even gay reality shows (Queer Eye, My Fabulous Gay Wedding) intended to appeal to a wider audience. Openly gay politicians like Scott Brison are voted in for their stands on issues, rather than for their gay advocacy (Opinions on Brison's jumping ship are irrelevant -- he wasn't elected as a gay politician, he was elected as a politician who happened to be gay.)
The vast majority of Canadians who oppose same-sex marriage, even those who consider homosexuality a sin, also support civil unions and gay rights.
Imagine then my surprise to read this quote by Dr. Miriam Kaufman, a pediatrician at the Hospital for Sick Children, in an article called Growing Up Gay from the Toronto Sun:
While most public school boards have some form of anti-homophobia education and more schools have gay-straight alliances, students in religious schools are getting vastly different message, Kaufman said.
"Within the separate school board, schools are having kids pray that same-sex marriage will be defeated," Kaufman said. "The message is that gay people aren't really people and aren't entitled to loving, committed relationships." (emphasis added)
How does she manage to make the connection between being against same-sex marriage, and believing gays are less than human, and not deserving of happiness?
It is this sort of off-hand analysis of religious opinion on morality questions that creates anger on both sides. There are many in the gay community (Kevin Bourassa and his followers) who would wholeheartedly agree with the doctor's theory and are already suggesting that the tax exempt status of churches be removed should the continue to advocate against same-sex marriage. How long before religious education is threatened for teaching the doctrine of the church?
canadianna
19 comments:
Be nice to that strawman. There are two issues. One, should schools recieving public money (many recieve provincial funding in addition to being tax deductable) be taking a stand one way or the other. Two, it is not the opposition that most people find offensive, but rather the arguments used (e.g., that homosexuality is wrong, that homosexuality is a mental disorder ...)
Personally I am of two minds on the subject. One of the reasons for providing public money to private schools and the vast majority, some 90% are religious schools, is to keep some control on what is being taught. Public money public rules. See the Marc Hall case. This is a reason to keep it.
On the other hand, I am loath to see public money going private eduaction. Besides, as far as I am concerned the less religious schools the better.
Of course, if, as some of claimed, religious schools are not playing by public rules, all public funding, in whatever form, should be removed.
http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/equality/cat280904.htm
And yet, we are constantly told how 'oppressed' members of the gay community are in Canada. Hmmmmm, if being able to control the government agenda at three tiers (municipal, provincial and federal), dictating family, social and educational policy is 'oppression'...where can the rest of us sign up?
Interesting that Koby also completely misrepresents the arguments against same-sex marriage to make his point and then smugly states 'public money public rules'. Since when do leftists EVER care about the public as opposed to their own increasingly small and middle-class white demographic interests?
If Koby really believed in 'public money public rules', there would be most likely no funding whatsoever of the radical gay agenda at the elementary and high school level as most families are opposed to it. Just ask members of the large Muslim, Orthodox Jewish. Hindu, Roman Catholic, Evangelical or Sikh communities in Toronto.
I am much more concerned that children coming out of the public school system are virtually illiterate, do not know what The Holocaust is, and have no sense of right or wrong. They are however very well-versed on how to put a condom on a banana. Ahhhh, progress.
nicol you are a tool. The issue is chartible status of various religious bodies and why the folks at equal marriage, say, want to see it taken away. I even provided a link.
In no way was a attempting to charterize the arugments against SSM marriage.
"I am much more concerned that children coming out of the public school system are virtually illiterate, do not know what The Holocaust is, and have no sense of right or wrong. They are however very well-versed on how to put a condom on a banana. Ahhhh, progress."
Yeah me too. I want to know do they know who Darwin is. Whether they dismiss plate tectonics because it does not jive with their interpretation of the book of Genesis. Do they ahere to a laughably silly divine command ethics. ...
"The vast majority of Canadians who oppose same-sex marriage, even those who consider homosexuality a sin, also support civil unions and gay rights."
I have yet to see proof of this statement thrown around so much lately.
Koby. More name calling from the enlightened.
The arguments you or others use to characterize the arguments for taking away charitable status are the same misrepresentations as the arguments used to misrepresent people opposed to SSM. I also notice how you so blithely want to shut down charitable organizations that help the poor, sick and disabled.
Again, the difference in your last statement about public education and mine is as follows. Most kids DO know who Darwin is. A Canadian survey last January however said that a third- A THIRD ! - of Canadians did not know what the Holocaust was. But hey, the public school board in Montreal was supposed to implement 'Gay Day' this week. That must make it alright?
Koby, you say:
should schools recieving public money (many recieve provincial funding in addition to being tax deductable) be taking a stand one way or the other.
I take it that means you are also against gay activists going into public schools to teach their views? And that would mean that you would not support making gay sex-ed part of the curriculum?
Just so long as we're clear on that.
Next, as far as I know there is still no law that says a person can't believe that acts of homosexuality are a sin. Nor is there any law (yet) forbidding the teaching that homosexual acts are sinful, as part of religious education.
Funding of religious schools has been upheld in the Supreme Court, and the courts knew what they would be teaching on sensitive moral issues like abortion and homosexuality.
You might find these teachings offensive, but what about all the parents who find it offensive that gay rights advocates bring their agenda to public schools? We don't get a say in that.
Besides, nothing of what the Catholic schools teach on same-sex in any way suggests that gays are sub-human and undeserving of happiness-- which is what the quote in question said.
To teach that homosexuality is a sin (wrong), or even to believe that it is a mental disorder, does not automatically make one a bigot and doesn't go against anyone's constitutional rights. Not only that - you have no proof that either one of these beliefs is wrong. Opinions, religious or otherwise, are still okay in this country, aren't they?
Why is it that liberals believe that walking into a public school and teaching my children at the altar of liberal secularism is a-ok, but if a RC school teaches its doctrine it's wrong. Both schools receive public funding. Each is being taught a particular value system. Who decides which one is the right one?
You said:Of course, if, as some of claimed, religious schools are not playing by public rules . . .
Are you saying there is only one publically acceptable, valid opinion in this country?
Don't forget the Catholic doctrine must be okay with the parents sending their kids to those schools -- there is no law forcing people to send their kids for Catholic education.
As a taxpayer whose children receive public education, I have no say as to how they are indoctrinated -- and indoctrinated they are.
Don't for a minute try to tell me that those who preach gay rights are anything less than religious about it. Why is this rigid POV the only one that's valid? Why is this the only POV that should be allowed in schools? That certainly isn't tolerant or inclusive. Just because there isn't a name for that religion, doesn't make it any less dogmatic.
As for the Marc Hall case, it was never definitively decided. The judge issued an injunction allowing him to go to the prom, but did not decide the larger issue of whether the school had a right to exclude him.
This issue isn't on point anyway, because the reason Hall was finally allowed to go was because although premarital-sex is also against church teaching, a pregnant girl was allowed to attend the prom -- hence in this particular case there was discrimination.
You tell nicol that you aren't trying to characterise the arguments against SSM, and yet you send a link to a vitriolic, anti-Roman Catholic site. This site isn't just about equality rights or the reasons for removing funding. It is filled with rage (justifiable or not, it is not impartial) It's fine that you sent it, but it's not a page that could be considered unbiased on the issue.
And please, don't name-call on my blog.
Also Koby, you have no problem attacking the belief systems of religious adherents. What happens to the libertarian in us when we find ourselves faced with religious views with which we disagree. I don't remember the religious community pushing for creationism in public schools yet your dismissive, condescending remarks are there on my blog . . . how do you know that I don't adhere to those beliefs -- you don't care so long as you can express your POV. Remember, tolerance is not a one-way street.
And I don't know whether you realize it, but when it comes to advancing the religious POV at schools, it's the secular christians (the ones who celebrate Santa and the Easter Bunny) who push for Christmas concerts and Christmas carols at public schools. I take my kids to church, so I couldn't care less if they call it a 'winter festival'.
Brian - http://www.legermarketing.com/documents/spclm/040525eng.pdf
In this poll, although 48% of people were against SSM, 74% believed homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals.
I've seen others, but I'm not in the mood for digging.
Parents are the primary educators of their children -- not the government. Parents' tax dollars fund public education. They should have some say over what is taught. The secularists' 'myth of neutrality' is the biggest scam out there. No such thing -- all views have underlying belief systems, whether explicitly 'religious' or not. The way out of this mess? Give parents educational tax credits that they can spend as they see fit. Public schools, charter schools, private schools, homeschooling -- shouldn't parents have 'the right to choose?' Ah, but I forgot -- the self-appointed Philosopher Kings of Canuckistan get to choose what rights we poor plebeians get to have...
"I take it that means you are also against gay activists going into public schools to teach their views? And that would mean that you would not support making gay sex-ed part of the curriculum?
Just so long as we're clear on that.”
Just so long as we’re clear, sex ed that does not talk about homosexuality is incomplete. For one, gay students have less of a support network and for this and other reasons are more vulnerable then other students.
”Funding of religious schools has been upheld in the Supreme Court, and the courts knew what they would be teaching on sensitive moral issues like abortion and homosexuality.
You might find these teachings offensive, but what about all the parents who find it offensive that gay rights advocates bring their agenda to public schools?"
I could care less what they think about “gay rights activists”. I am not a moral relativist. The arguments allegedly showing homosexuality to be morally wrong are a joke. The same goes for divine command ethics. Recognition of this has laid the foundation for homosexual Canadians having been granted many of the same rights and protections given to other groups and to Canadians as a whole.
The abortion debate, by the way, is infinitely less clear cut once one moves beyond the ridiculous notion that personhood begins at conception.
“To teach that homosexuality is a sin (wrong), or even to believe that it is a mental disorder, does not automatically make one a bigot and doesn't go against anyone's constitutional rights.
Not only that - you have no proof that either one of these beliefs is wrong. Opinions, religious or otherwise, are still okay in this country, aren't they?”
The debate with regard to rightness or wrongness of homosexuality is settled. Do not believe me? Step into a first you ethics class in any university in Canada.
The Catholic Church can pronounce homosexuality a sin all it wants. After all, a sin is simply what the bible says is a sin. It is all a matter of biblical interpretation. However, to pronounce homosexuality a mental disorder is another matter all together and most certainly a bigoted charge, but certainly not unconstitutional.
“Why is it that liberals believe that walking into a public school and teaching my children at the altar of liberal secularism is a-ok, but if a RC school teaches its doctrine it's wrong. Both schools receive public funding. Each is being taught a particular value system. Who decides which one is the right one?”
I suppose if you are moral relativistic you could take such a position. At any rate, the position of the state is clear. Homosexuality is not wrong and for the state to provide money for those who would want to teach otherwise violates one of the main tenants of Canadian society namely tolerance. Supreme Court Justice Clair L’Heureux –Dube drew the appropriate analogy in passing judgment on the Surrey school board: "Parents may be extremely racist, but we don't prevent the school from teaching that racism is bad." If RC wants to teach that homosexuality is wrong, let them do it entirely on their own dime.
“You tell nicol that you aren't trying to characterise the arguments against SSM, and yet you send a link to a vitriolic, anti-Roman Catholic site.”
Some groups are calling for the charitable status of various religious to be removed. That was the topic at hand. As Canadians for equal marriage is one such group and as they have a section on point I gave that link. They make no attempt to tackle all the arguments against gay marriage. They take aim at what various catholic priests are sayings about homosexuality. For example: “The paper goes on to say that homosexuality is ‘an anomaly’ that is ‘a serious depravity’ and ‘intrinsically disordered’ and ‘objectively disordered.’”
“Also Koby, you have no problem attacking the belief systems of religious adherents. What happens to the libertarian in us when we find ourselves faced with religious views with which we disagree. I don't remember the religious community pushing for creationism in public schools yet your dismissive, condescending remarks are there on my blog . . . how do you know that I don't adhere to those beliefs -- you don't care so long as you can express your POV. Remember, tolerance is not a one-way street.”
The creationism is a major issue south of the boarder. Thankfully it is not such a big issue in Canada. Of course, the Roman Catholic Church does not push creationism; the RC church believes evolution is compatible with the teaching of the church.
Now, there are some things that leave one open to ridicule. Believing that the earth is flat is one. Believing that the earth is only 6000 years old and that dinosaurs roomed the earth with humans is another.
“And I don't know whether you realize it, but when it comes to advancing the religious POV at schools, it's the secular christians (the ones who celebrate Santa and the Easter Bunny) who push for Christmas concerts and Christmas carols at public schools. I take my kids to church, so I couldn't care less if they call it a 'winter festival'.”
I wrote this on whole Xmas controversy back in December.
“The problem is this: both sides mistakenly believe that the traditions they wish to prop up, or do away with still have the religious significance they once did. The fact of the matter is various social factors, most notably commercialization, have robbed many of those traditions of any such significance and good number, even most, simply never had any. Indeed, Christmas was a creation of the emerging bourgeoisie and grew out of new conception of family fostered by that class and perfected by its best known representative intellectuals, most notably Charles Dickens. What is more, over time Christmas became something akin to a dirty snow ball as more and more disparate traditions found their way into the mix. I like it that way and I am no mood to have the “Christians” with the help of their “liberal” opponents instill religious significance into those traditions just so they can fight over the separation of church and state."
Kobe: "I'm not a moral relativist."
Really? Then you'd posit yourself as a moral absolutist? Because there is no middle ground -- you're either one or the other. So who or what is your 'god'? Societal concensus? The Charter? Parliament? The courts? If you've answered 'yes' to any of those, congratulations, you are a moral relativist, of the 'cultural' flavour to be exact. Unfortunately, this belief system is self-refuting:
"The supporter of cultural relativism maintains that there are no objective and universal moral norms and for that reason everyone ought to follow the moral norms of his or her own culture. But the cultural relativist is making an absolute and universal moral claim, namely, that everyone is morally obligated to follow the moral norms of his or her own culture. If this moral norm is absolute and universal, then cultural relativism is false. But if this moral norm is neither absolute nor universal, then cultural relativism is still false, for in that case I would not have a moral obligation to follow the moral norms of my culture.
Second, since each of us belongs to a number of different “societies” or “cultures,” there is no way to determine objectively which culture’s norms should be followed when they conflict.
Third, if morality is reducible to culture, there can be no real moral progress. . . . if what is morally good is merely what one’s culture says is morally good, then we can say only that cultural norms change, not that society is progressing or getting better. Yet who can reasonably deny that the abolition of slavery in the United States was an instance of genuine moral progress? Did America change for the better, or did it simply change?
In addition, if cultural relativism is true, there can be no true or admirable reformers of culture [such as Moses, Jesus, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King.]"
[source: Francis J. Beckwith, "Why I Am Not a Moral Relativist," in Why I Am A Christian: Leading Thinkers Explain Why They Believe, edited by Norman L. Geisler and Paul K. Hoffman, Electonic edition (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001).]
In the case of C-38, this means that the Lib/Dip/Bloc "consensus" on SSM is simply these individuals imposing their personal values and their will on the rest of us. Now that's the definition of judgmentalism. On the other hand, as Peter Kreeft has so aptly put it, "if morality is objective instead of subjective, if it comes from universal human nature instead of some human wills, then that's not "judgmentalism", not an imposition at all....The very people who say, 'Don't impose your values on me because they're only relative and subjective' then go on to create a society that they say is only man-made, not based on God or natural law, and they say that all values come from man, so a society is then nothing but some men imposing their values on others -- majorities on minorities, or rulers on ruled, or teachers on students, or media mind molders on stupid traditionalist masses."
As one local talk-radio show host here in Minneapolis says, Lefties can't link.
Like the children they are, they can't make the next logical step from one idea to the next, so when they try, you get things like "if they don't like gay marriage, they think that gays aren't human."
It's the same "infantilism" syndrome wherein they can't figure out that, "if you pay people not to work, they won't work".
Yes, they are children, but they are very dangerous children. Look what the did to Russia for 70 years.
http://www.bowjamesbow.net/2005/06/03-the_conser.shtml
Comments? (Comments should be open for a few more days before the spam wall goes up.)
Another interesting comment, this one from a Christian perspective, can be found here (with follow-up here).
Great Post, I am also concered that with tomorrow vote we are taking another big step towards the eventual eradication of religion. Driving it underground like in China or Cuba. I wote about this on my site as well at http://brentcolbert.com/blog/2005/06/24/the-end-of-religion-in-canada/
Keep up the pressue and expose the agenda of the secular left.
P.S. love the Harper endorsement pic, you might want to check out my button that I'm inviting everybody to steal and put on their site.
Eradication of religion? Don't see it. What do you say to the Quakers who support same sex marriage? Or the Anglicans, who will probably do so within the next two years?
Nothing in this law tells religions how to conduct their own religious services. It's only about the recognition of these unions under the law. I am speaking as a married heterosexual Christian. I am not threatened by same sex marriage and neither are my Christian friends and family. It's a little irksome to see some people claiming to speak for us, seeing an end to our religion that simply won't happen under this law.
A lot of good comments here, so instead of simply adding my own veggies to the stew, I'll quote my favorite leggie blonde, Mad Annie Coulter, "Prevarication and denigration are the hallmarks of liberal arguement. Logic is not their metier. Blind religious faith is. The liberal catechism includes a hatred of Christianity, guns, the profit motive, and political speech...(gay marriage)... when arguements are premissed on lies, there is no foundation for debate... kind and well meaning people find themselves afraid to talk about politics!"
Linda
During a conference on female circumcision a French theorist stood up and questioned the very validity of the conference. I can not remember exactly what he said, but he was a moral relativist and what he said went something like this: Who are we to tell them that female circumcision is wrong? There are no absolute criteria by which they can be judged.
"Who are we tell them that a rook can not move diagonally?" What makes this sentence seem perfectly odd and "Who are we to tell them that female circumcision is wrong?" common place? Are we right to treat the two differently?
With regard to the first of these questions, there is, of course, nothing wrong of a conceiving of a game in which the “rook” can move differently. It is just that that this game would not be chess. The pieces might be the same and the board might be the same and the other pieces might move in identical manner. However, the game of chess is, by and large, no more then the sum of the rules that make up the game and moving a “rook” thus would violate those rules. (It should be pointed out that a chess piece, such as a rook, is a chess peace by virtue of the rules of the game not by virtue of what it is called or how it is shaped. For this and other reasons, a move is only a move in a game.) Different rules different game. (To be sure, it is possible to conceive of chess as being played in alternative manner. Imagine for example that in the Western world the pawn can be moved two spaces forward on its first move, like it is now, but that the Chinese forbid it. My playing partner and I could then ponder whether we wanted to play by Western rules or by Chinese. However, there would be no non question begging why of determining what was the right way to play chess, the Chinese way or the Western way. Minor differences do not always add up to a difference in kind.)
Now, there are societies in which female circumcision is consistent with “moral” teachings of those societies. That is not in dispute, nor is the notion that female circumcision violates “western” ideas of what is right. What I think should be disputed is the notion that we can not condemn the practice because other people “conceive” of “morality” differently. The problem for the moral relativist is not that, dammit, female circumcision is just wrong. His problem is it is not enough to say that Westerners engage in particular language games and that the rest of the world plays in some cases altogether different games. What he needs to do is akin to explaining how a game of chess is more than just the sum of the rules of the game. He needs to show that the game westerners play is the same game that other people play, only it is played according to entirely different rules. Only then will he be able to say in the case of female circumcision that for one group the move is legitimate and for the other group illegitimate.
The problem is, though, that failing to condemn female circumcision would send logical tremors that could threaten to break apart the series of interlocking language games we call morality. We can no more recognize an alternative account arising from a different set of moral precepts than we can recognize a game in which a “rook” moves differently as chess.
All told, if we conceive of morality as simply a bunch of interlocking language games, what we end up with is remarkably similar to the static universal morality that the moral relativists dismiss. The moral relativist is right about the very human origin of morality and chess. However, what makes, say, a game of chess a game of chess is simply that the game is played in accordance with the rules that make up the game. As such, there are limits to the extent we can change the rules of the game and have it still have it remain the same game.
Koby, I don't see morality as a word game.
As such, there are limits to the extent we can change the rules of the game and have it still have it remain the same game.
And your chess analogy really seems to support maintaining the opposite-sex requirement of marriage.
Moral relativists assume that there are different systems of morality and that there is no objective way to determine which system is the correct one. Linda goes along with this in so far as she says there are different truth claims being made about the same thing. Where she differs from the moral relativist is she claims that god or natural law, things that many people reject outright, decide the issue.
Now, Linda is simply wrong to assume that one is either a moral relativist or a moral absolutist. I am, if anything, a nominalist. I deny that conflicting truth claims are being made.
Post a Comment