My name is Fred and I am a gay conservative living in Ottawa. This blog supports limited government, the right of the State of Israel to live in peace and security, and tries to expose the threat to us all from cultural relativism, post-modernism, and radical Islam. I am also the founder of the Free Thinking Film Society in Ottawa (

Thursday, October 12, 2006

I wish Harper would say this sort of stuff....

I am impressed!
A generation of boys is being "wasted" by serious failings in schools and society, Gordon Brown has warned.

The Chancellor said underachievement among boys had become an "acute problem" and said the rise of single parent families meant too many no longer had good male role models.

In an extraordinary speech ranging far beyond his traditional Treasury brief, Mr Brown also spoke in highly emotive terms about what he called the "soul of man".


Blogger Joanne (True Blue) said...

With all due respect, Fred, how do you square your affirmation of this report with your pro-gay marriage belief?

In the case of lesbians marriages where children are involved, there are often very few male role models, and men are often regarded as suspect at best, from some first-hand reports that I have read. This can lead to a very poor feeling of self-esteem with boys raised by lesbians (in some cases).

We are talking about the children here; not adult rights.

I hope you don't take offence here, because none is intended. I'm just trying to understand the apparent dichotomy.

6:14 AM  
Blogger GayandRight said...

Gay couples deserve the same protection and affirmation that stragith couples get. This is very straight-forward to me (no pun intended).

As for lesbian couples, they will have very few children. But, even so, so what?

Let's say research showed that children of multi-racial couples had some problems...would you say that multi-racial marriage should be prohibited?

10:27 PM  
Blogger jw said...

I see little attached to marriage (straight or gay) in this. Society has decided that boys are not worthy of decent treatment: A politician now says "Ooops, we'll have to fix that."

Harper shoudl have said it as well ...

4:59 AM  
Blogger Joanne (True Blue) said...

Let's say research showed that children of multi-racial couples had some problems...would you say that multi-racial marriage should be prohibited?

That is a red-herring argument.

We are talking about the effect of not having a man in the life of a young boy, and perhaps even being in an environment where men are regarded in a negative sense.

I know that can happen in straight marriages too, where the father is emotionally absent or abusive, or if the mother is the kind that puts men down all the time and the father does nothing about it.

My issue here is with adoption. Why deliberately put a young boy in a situation where he is not going to have a father in his life?

Just try for a moment to see it from the child's POV rather than the rights of the adults.

7:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


It may very well be that children are, generally speaking, better off if they have a mother and a father. But my understanding is that there are far more children up for adoption than there are people willing to adopt - so isn't it better that a child have some form of family unit, rather than none at all?

In other words, even if nuclear families are ideal (and I would argue there's strong evidence to suggest they are) it doesn't mean we should therefore exclude gays from adopting.

2:39 PM  
Blogger Shane said...

If I may throw my 2 cents in here too...

I don't think anyone is saying prohibit certain groups from adopting. However, I believe that as long as government insists on sticking its fingers into everything, then it should encourage things that have a positive net effect, or have the greatest chance of positive effect.

Based upon that, I believe that there should be incentives or encouragement for heterosexual marriages to adopt. This is based upon what is best for society long-term. If the children of such families are on average better adjusted with respect to all genders, and better able to function and drive society, then that should be given preference.

On the other hand, this would seem to "disadvantage" the gay person or couple that seeks to adopt. It will be argued that this represents "bigotry" and "sexism", promoting one sexual preference over another.

I am all for equal treatment under law, and I am all for respecting everyone regardless of sexual preference, on a personal level. However, governmental institutions have a duty to do what is best for the society, not for the individual.

4:15 PM  
Blogger Joanne (True Blue) said...

But my understanding is that there are far more children up for adoption than there are people willing to adopt

It would be interesting to see some actual statistics on that. It would also depend, I suppose, if we are referring to newborns vs. older kids with handicaps, for example.

Shane, I hear you. IMHO adoption should be based on what's best for the child under the given circumstances. I would hope that adoptions would be decided on that basis rather than what kind of lawsuit is coming at Children's Aid if they don't comply with a given request.

5:56 PM  
Blogger Joanne (True Blue) said...

Fred, back to the original article, what do you see that Canada could do to help young boys excel in school and have better self-esteem?

8:31 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home