GayandRight

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 (www.freethinkingfilms.com)

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Michael Coren is wrong...

In today's National Post, Michael Coren writes that gay marriage is Canada's biggest mistake..The major problem I have with the Michael Coren article is that there is absolutely no evidence to support his claim.

Let's look at what he has written...
As for polygamy, it’s making something of a comeback — and here begin the objections.

Whenever this is mentioned by critics of same-sex marriage we are accused of using the slippery-slope argument. Sorry, some slopes are slippery. Polygamy is an ancient tradition within Islam — and was in Sephardic Judaism and some Asian cultures. When the precedent of gay marriage is combined with the freedom of religion defence, the courts will have a difficult time rejecting it.
Ok, so his first argument is the slipper slope one....

However, there are no court cases, that I know of, that use gay marriage as the precedent to legalize polygamy. Indeed, isn't Canada's lackadaisical approach to polygamy the real problem. Nobody is every prosecuted and the authorities just turn a blind eye to polygamy.....and that's been going on for decades, well before the legalization of gay marriage.
The state, though, should have a duty to judge and to do so based on its own interests. The most significant of which is its continued existence, meaning that we have to produce children. As procreation is the likely, if not essential, result of marriage between a man and a woman, it is in the interests of the state to encourage marriage.

Of course lesbian couples can have an obliging friend assist them in having a baby, and gay men can adopt or have an obliging friend have one for them, but this is hardly the norm and hardly going to guarantee the longevity of a stable society. Just as significant, it smashes the fundamental concept of a child being produced through an act of love. The donation of bodily fluid by an anonymous person, or that obliging friend again, is an act not of love but of lust, indifference, profit or a mere, well, helping hand.
Have gays 'smashed' the concept of a child being produced through an act of love...or have straights already done that through a variety of means??? And, who says that love isn't present??? Is he implying that there can be no love between gay couples???
For the first time not only in Canadian but in world history we are purposefully creating and legitimizing families where there will be either no male or no female role model and parent. Anyone who speaks of uncles, aunts, communities and villages raising children has no real understanding of family life. Single-parent families exist and are sometimes excellent and, obviously, not every mother/father family is a success. But to consciously create unbalanced families where children can never enjoy the profound difference between man and woman, mother and father, is dangerous social engineering.
For the first time? Gee, come on, give me a break. It's the divorce culture of straights, the rise of single mothers, etc. that have done more to delegitimize the family than ANYTHING gays can do or imagine.

I understand Coren's feelings towards kids having gay parents. But, to claim that these children can 'never enjoy the profound difference between man and woman" is just not true. Believe me, these kids (a very small number I should add) will get it.

Nowhere in Coren's article is there anything about the profound love that can exist between gay partners. The plain fact of the matter is that the only people, over the last several yars, that have really fought for marriage has been gay people and their friends.

12 Comments:

Blogger Johnathon said...

I respect your opinion, however I think you're wrong on this one.

Changing the definition of marriage to satisfy a "small" part of society is wrongheaded.

When you do so you open up a can of worms like gay adoption. Kids should not be raised by gay parents because they are not getting nature's natural upbringing.

Kids are supposed to be raised by a mother and father, not same sex couples.


Coren is wrong that it is a slippery slope for polygamy as you rightly pointed out, however I believe that he is right aboout gay adoption.

Even in the USA and in 99 percent of countries around the world, gay marriage is not seen as a "human right". Why is that? Because, quite frankly, it's not.

"Marriage" is not a "right".

Nowhere in our charter of rights does it say that marriage is a right or a freedom.

I think the way to go would have been to offer "civil unions" like they do in the U.K and elsewhere.

However, under no circumstance should gay adoption be allowed.

It simply is against nature and not good for the child.

That's just my opinion.

I read you're blog on a daily basis and agree with everything you post about, just not this issue.

4:29 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, Michael Coren isn't saying that it is Canada's biggest mistake by far, the column is one of a series called "Canada's biggest mistakes" in the Post, with contributions given by various writers. You could always write a letter to the Post, they welcome opposing opinions on their letters page, and the "biggest mistake" series has certaintly attracted some opposing viewpoints.

4:40 PM  
Anonymous  said...

Polygamy between two consenting adults is fine by me. Er...make that three, four, five and so on.

4:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I read you're blog on a daily basis and agree with everything you post about, just not this issue.

Doubtless "Johnathon" is quite happy when you stick to just bashing Teh Mooslims and railing against Global Warming, but that gay stuff... eeew. That's just icky.

5:33 PM  
Blogger Matthew said...

Actually, I believe that a case was said to be in the development stage some time last year. The Post had an article on it in it's pages. I'm sure a quick Google search could find something.

6:36 PM  
Anonymous matt said...

Marriage isn't a right? If you loved someone but where not allowed to marry that person because the 'law' says u can't, what would u do?

Get over it. I am glad SSM is allowed: this is coming from a person who used to be against it.

11:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It sounds to me like the problem is that you merely don't agree with Coren and have no true response other than to try and smear him as a Homophobe.

People were scammed by the Liberals just to stay in power a few more months , and Canada went against the U.N. Charter for Children's Rights when we allowed a child to be born into a mock-family with a possible home where there is no Biological link to the baby.
Just because a Court deems something a Legal Right or Human Right it does not make it so from a Moral perspective , Judges voted to allow Slavery and then Ban Abortions .
Then a future body of Judges saw Slavery as Wrong and then Abortion as a Choice issue for females .

I believe that the gay-Lobby will rue the day they marched with the FemiNazis to demand Abortion and have the Tax payers fund it , I say this because Gender-Abortions are now common along with Down-Syndrome babies and it won't be long before Science will decode the DNA to help make designer-Babies and help a Mother see what qualities her baby will have if brought to full term .

Coren has commented on the Catholic priest issue for Pedophilia but the MSM fears telling the truth that about 85% of the rapes were Homosexual Pedophiles , so either Men can make a Choice to like other men or Boys , or the Priests were born that way and looked for a supply of boys that were easy prey based on a trust issue.

It can't be both ways , if you are born that way then Science will some day create Homo-cides via Abortions that are a females Right, if lusting for people of the same Gender is a Choice then it causes a new issue for those who Parade around on Yonge Street once a year completely naked in front of boys and claim Pedophilic actions are part of their culture and sexual preference.

David Miller has yet to force the Police to arrest those naked men getting their jollies infront of boys and girls , and all the gay-stapo yahoos at City Hall have to say is that if you don't like it just get out of Toronto that weekend.
Just imagine owning a business where you tell gays that if they don't like the stores policy for protecting children they should just leave Toronto during store hours.
Svend Robinson and Libby Davies are just 2 Politicians that now claim to be gay and yet pretended to be heterosexuals when the Political climate was right.
Does this mean that Homosexuals are prone to lies and Bi-Polar disorders to jump back and forth on serious issues or Morality?

Same-Gender marriage and pro-Choice groups will clash one day when the Rent-a-womb females want their child back or choose to have an abortion to break the deal.

Murder is not Illegal just because there is a law saying it is wrong, it's wrong based on a Societal collective of Morals and standards that agree it is wrong.
Hold on tight folks because in about 10 years there will be Homo-cide Abortions and nothing can stop them because the SCOC is pro-Choice.

12:12 AM  
Blogger Kateland, aka TZH said...

I was against gay marriage and not because I cared how adults arranged their personal relationships but I felt the state had no business attempting to regulate or define it. I wanted civil unions for all and leave marriage to the religious – in other words, if that meant your Wicca priestess or your Anglican minister or Catholic priest officiated at your ‘marriage’ straight or gay - more power to you. That being said, I was in a small minority.

SMS legislation is here to stay and I do not believe most Canadians feel threatened that a tiny portion of the larger ‘marrying’ segment of society arranges their unions. Now on, to gay adoption and gays raising children. If gay couples want to raise a family and the premise is that it is a ‘un-natural’ construct to raise a healthy child.,. then what about the ‘un-natural’ construct of a heterosexual couple attempting to raise a ‘gay’ child. At my age, I have known more gays who were raised by terribly unsuitable heterosexual couples than gay couples who have raised children. Anecdotally, I have known a gay couple who are raising two absolutely delightful little girls and are doing a bang up job of it. I have also known a lesbian woman who is busy raising three children and who is making a right hash of it. Oddly enough, it breaks the same way for heterosexual couples raising children – some are okay, others not so hot.

Truth is, we have far too many children being raised outside of a loving family. I’d rather worry about seeing those children placed in a loving home than I care about how adults arrange their unions. If two gays or lesbians can provide a nurturing environment for raising children the more power to us as a society. I’d rather live in a society were gays & lesbians are afford the same rights to make a union and raise a family as straights do.

As far as pedophilia goes, I believe if you were to look at the big picture - straights have been overwhelmingly committing the majority of sexual assaults against children – and that is including Catholic priests in the mix.

4:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i agree with KATELAND in that we should have gone with civil unions 4 all, and took marriage out of the hands of the govt. that would have lowered the temperature on all sides. and gay & straight could have had whatever personal or religious ceremony they wanted themselves and not have a huge societal fight which pushed people further away rather than accomodate each other which used to be the canadian way before trudeau's charter and the idea of winner's and loser's with rights rather than good old canadian compromise and accomodation.

on polygamy i think u overreact. i have no problem with gay marriage now that we have extended it to all but the more i think about it the less anti polygamy i am. if u take away one traditional definaition of marriage (man & woman) what prevents us from limiting it to 2 people (which is also just our present traditional idea) . i know it leaves a wierd taste in my mouth , but if it is about loving relationships ......god....& actually about love and not coercion or underage then hell i don't know how we can say its out of bounds. all marriage really is , is traditions if u start saying marriage is fluid and can mean new things (gay marriage) then why can't it mean old things again like polygamy?

im not saying that's a reason not to have gay marriage , im saying there is no real reason against polygamy except traditional definitions as long as these are people's true loving choices. so even though polygamy feels distasteful to me. me thinks thou doest protest too much....

10:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I see we have people who still didn't get the point about re-defining marriage.

First off I'd like just one person on Earth to show me where it is written that Marriage is a Human-Right , secondly I'd like to see exactly where the SCOC and OHRC wrote a Judgement on Gay-Marriage.
There is no Test by the SCOC for persons to prove they are Gay if they want to marry each other , the Martin Government took sides over the Same-Gender marriage definition which is different from gay-Marriage.

I don't known why gays felt Threatened because the definition of married was based on being over 16 , un-related , and of opposite genders .
As for kateland's opining about sexual abuse and pedophilia , you missed the point on that one too because the Priests where about 85% Homosexual-Pedophiles which doesn't bring much comfort to the Boys raped by these men when they read your comment that the majority of sexual assaults are by Heterosexual .
Maybe you could draw pictures for me to explain how female pedophiles rape boys , because I don't see too many lesbians being arrested for rape .

2:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with the idea "that we should have gone with civil unions 4 all, and took marriage out of the hands of the govt. that would have lowered the temperature on all sides." The redefinition of marriage was such that a link to traditional marriage has been destroyed. For some, I am sure, marriage just does not mean that much anymore. (I would not be bothered marrying if I were not already married.) The significance of marriage as an element of social cohesiveness and culture has been undermined. And yes, now that the definition is up for grabs, why not polygamy. To be perfectly honest I have less opposition to polygamy than I do toward gay marriage -- primarily because gay marriage requires that marriage be about "two-people who love each other" -- kind of Hollywood if you ask me -- while polygamy at least preserves the connection between marriage and families and begetting a new generation. I am all for gay rights in almost every context, but to insist on marriage (instead of civil union) will I think leave a sad legacy in our socity over the longer term. We are no longer defined by our families, but rather by "coupledom" which does not seem to be much of a basis on which to build a strong society.
P.S. I like this blog --keep up the good work!

12:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ontario Sheep Marketing Agency
130 Malcolm Rd., Guelph, ON N1K 1B1
Telephone: (519) 836-0043
Fax : (519) 836-2531
E-mail: general@ontariosheep.org
April 18, 2008


The Honourable Kathleen Wynne Minister of Education
Ministry of Education
Mowat Block
Queen's Park
Toronto ON M7A 112
Telephone (416) 325-2600
Facsimile (416) 325-2608


Dear Ms. Wynne,
Mr. Ken O'Day Chairman of Renfrew County Family Action Council alerted us to your newest initiative of training Ontario children on issues of homosexuality namely “Jer's Vision: Canada's Youth Diversity Initiative” http://www.jersvision.org/english/.

It is out humble opinion that your program however very commendable does not go far enough as it totally ignores issue of zoophobia and totally unfounded fear of bestiality in Ontario schools and leaves issues of harassment of youth attracted to farm animals as objects of their sexual preferences totally unaddressed.


This is very serious issue in rural Ontario that urgently needs to be addressed. As you know homosexuality is a rare phenomenon in rural Ontario and homophobia rarely if ever becomes an issue in rural schools. Zoophilia and bestiality on the other hand are much more common in rural Ontario and zoophobia in rural schools is a very serious problem that when not properly addressed can be as devastating as homophobia is in urban schools.


Anecdotal evidence abounds of young boys being ostracised at school after they were spotted having sex with farm animals (mostly sheep). In many cases harassment of zoophiles is so intense that it drives boys to commit suicides.


Zoophobia needs to be stopped so our youth can live productive lives without fear of discrimination based on sexual orientation.


We the Directors of Ontario Sheep Marketing Agency would like to join forces with you and offer our stock of sheep as live props for the purpose of sexual education of Ontario boys.


Our sheep will get proper sexual stimulation; Ontario boys will learn safe sex practices and learn how to obtain sexual gratification without resorting to sexual harassment of Ontario girls.


We anticipate that such initiative when properly funded and executed will result in a huge boost to rural Ontario economy as we envision that you would include in our program urban youth as well and buss them to designated farms.


We anticipate that as a result of our initiative incidents of sexual harassment of girls in Ontario school system will drop dramatically, incidents of STD transmission will also go down, zoophobia in rural schools across Ontario will become the thing of the past and sale of cowboy boots will get significant boost all across the province.


We anticipate that in initial stages of this program we would offer services of our sheep free of charge but as this program expands we would expect that at least some of our sheep would start to earn some additional income by being hired by local school boards in positions of teacher’s aids/assistants.


We hope that you will find our initiative acceptable. Please contact us at your convenience to discuss details of our initiative.


Sincerely,
Ontario Sheep Marketing Agency

9:35 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home