Another Question for Conservatives and their supporters
Well, since I got such high quality responses to my first question, I thought I'd ask another.
When parliament resumes next week, one of the big issues they will have to tackle, apart from the budget in committee, will be the Civil Marriage Act, more commonly known as Same Sex Marriage. I have asked this of my MP, Pierre Poilievre of the Conservative Party of Canada, and have not received an answer. At all. All he says is that his "polling" tells him he should vote against it.
So I'm going to throw it wide open, in an effort to stimulate real, honest debate on the issues. Conservatives and their supporters please tell me:
What is wrong with same sex marriage?
What harm, if any, will come from allowing same sex couples to marry in Canada?
Please explain this to me and provide reasonable evidence to back up your claims. In all honesty, I have never heard a reason as to why from the anti-gay marriage, other than quotes from the Bible and some vague mumbling about "family" and "traditional" and "morality". If gay marriage is a real threat to Canadian families, please present the evidence for this. I will be happy to ban gay marriage if you can prove that it is indeed harmful in some way.
And in order to nip the "you're gay" arguments in the bud, I'm a straight, married father of two. And I can't for the life of me figure out how letting two men or two women get married will do anything negative to my marriage or to the lives of my children. I can only see positives coming from it.
But please, convince me if you can.
Update:
I would be remiss if I didn't point everyone to an exceptional article that politicagrll has over at her blog. Its an well thought out article and a very good, scientific arguement in favour of Same Sex Marriage.
posted by Mike @ 10:28 AM
58 comments
58 Comments:
But Jason Kenney tells us that SSM is bad. And as an unmarried 36-year old, he is clearly an expert on marriage.
Seriously, I don't understand what the issue is. Aren't there other things for the CPC to worry about? Why does it always come down to sex and/or drugs with them?
It's a libruhl ploy to nullify my sanctified vows and make me a vegetarian...just kidding ;)
I think this question is bigger. Under what conditions is it right to deny any minority a right equal to that of the majority? It's quite paradoxical (sp?) that the party committed to individual "freedom" and reduction of gov't "interference" are the ones dead set on barring a minority from enjoying those freedoms. I would ask: under what conditions do we sacrifice equality for the good of society? I doubt these...people can come up with any worthy of consideration in this case. I haven't heard any yet. Although...you'll probably get the ol' "what's wrong with being christian" routine...
That's weird. It's me - Princess Monkey above, but it thinks I am "unknown".
I'm a Tory who supports SSM, but I can take a crack at answering your question.
From a traditionalist standpoint, the only thing that's wrong with changing the legal definition of marriage is that it is, in their view, the state intruding into what is a de facto religious realm.
This is why most people, even those opposed to SSM, still support equal rights for homosexual couples, they just don't want to give up the word - because the word means something specific, and to change it would be (a) not the place of the state and (b) nonsensical.
Consider the terminologies we use for existing relationships. We use terms like mother/father, sister/brother, son/daughter, because they denote a specific kind of relationship. It's not "second class marriage" to call gay marriage something else, any more than calling a female kid a "daughter" is like calling her a second class son. They just identify different things.
Therefore, a "marriage" means a man and a woman not because man + woman is worth more than man + man or woman + woman, but because it is just a specific reference to a certain type of relationship.
There are other arguments. One is that the family (in the traditional sense) is a foundation of our society - which is true, but I don't think this argument carries much weight given the divorce/single-parent rate that already exists.
The more fundamentalist opposition to gay marriage I think stems from biblical morality and a disdain for what is considered the innate 'sinfulness' of homosexuality, but I don't think such strongly prejudicial views are held by most people against gay marriage. In my experience, most people who oppose gay marriage see it as a defensive, protective stance, rather than a hate-driven, anti-gay stance.
Hi ALW: well said. Just with regard to the term "marriage". Two things. First we use the term in many instances that have nothing whatever to do with men and women. For example: "we hope to MARRY the two companies/ideas/concepts...". The term is not exclusive to this gendered dyad in everyday speech.
Second, the term is the issue. The committment it confers cannot be intoned by another word. For example: when we decided to consider women "persons" under the law, we didn't call them "things equal to persons". We called them "persons" because that is the only word appropriate to adequately identify the thing (in this case the woman as a person). A word other than marriage to describe a relationship considered by the people in it be a "marriage" will always be inadequate and therefore unequal. As well, marriage is a civil term in so much as it is universally used regardless of religion. No church has legitimate ownership of the semantics.
Anyway, I know you are only explaining on behalf of those with whom you disagree. Thanks for that. I have heard these arguements before and wanted to respond here at this opportunity Mike has kindly provided.
Isn't it interesting how people go after one particular phrase in the bible but not another when it suits them? And how one Bible is taken more seriously than other in Canada? (using Bible as a Holy Book of teachings to include Qu'ran, Jewish Bible, ANY Holy Book)
There are a zillion things you can't do in some way or another in many Bibles. But people get hungup on the gay sex thing, but not on though shalt observe Sabbath as a from a Judeo Christian comparisson.
Oh and the Judeo Christian bible never mentions sex between women so there should be no problem with making lesbian marriages legal if the concern is following the Bible. Just sex between men is mentioned in the Bible.
Mostly people don't take every word of the bible word for word because it's impossible to actually do everything as described. Sometimes it's not relevant and at other times a person can't easily follow all the rules a religion has. But most parts of Bibles nobody takes them word for word (ok well not no one---- but under Canadian law most of the punishments as talked about in the Bible can't be enforced.).
So why does a Judeo-Christian concept of marriage have to be forced on the country?
Jesus spends a lot more time speaking of adultery (including just looking at someone and being interested if they are married or you are) and from what i've read just about nothing about gays and lesbians. I'd like to hear what he did say if i've missed it...
How many of our parliamentarians have occaisionally looked and have committed adultery if you take Jesus's definition as the definition. And we have divorce, something Jesus said could only happen if there was adultery.
Is it only on bigotry that people will force the upholding of his sayings (if they say they are doing it for religious reasons)? And are all the people that are saying SSM should not be allowed following every single word and commandment in the Bible (of whatever type they follow)? If not they are being hypocrites in my opinion.
Princess monkey,
I agree with everything you say except the part about "any other term" not being equal. I support SSM because I think the symbolism is important, not because I dress it in the language of rights. Rights are legal entitlements, and the word marriage is symbolic (i.e. you could give equal rights without giving the symbolism)
That said, I do support SSM largely on the strength of arguments such as the ones you made. My point is simply to point out that there are reasonable arguments to be made in support of traditional marriage, and that those people are not automatically raging bigots who want to throw all gays in jail.
ALW,
Thank you for your insights. I don't mean to make SSM a Conservative vs. Liberal\NDP or a Left vs Right issue. I know a great many Tories that are for SSM as well.
While I understand all your arguements and they may be true in London (I'm from Petrolia BTW), up here in Ottawa, ALL the arguements on Parliament Hill are based not on the interesting and cogent arguements you put forth, they are based on religion, more specifically a fundementalist Christian view of the Bible. I go walking down there every day at lunch and see them. On Sundays its the organized evangelicals who march. And Stephen Harper or Jason Kenney always speak to them and support them.
So I hope you'll excuse me if I come to the conclusion that this is based on a particular religious view and nothing else (that being said, I know that churches like the Anglicans and United Church are wrestling with this and taking courageous, liberal stands in favour of SSM as well. So its not ALL Christians - wow, what kind of country do we live in where the Anglican church is the LIBERAL one?).
If this was a question of semantics, I don't think the fight for SSM would be so divisive. But if that is the case, then I think this is something that can be overcome with more discussion.
Again, thanks for your input. This is the kind of tete-a-tete and civil discussion I want here, no matter what your political stripe. You are always welcome here.
Alw,
I didn't mean to say your response was biggoted.The explanation you gave wasn't biggoted, it's just not the way it plays out where i am. While i'm a strong believer in SSM the issue might not get as heated if it wasn't put in religious terms so often. Because the law is about civil marriage. Albertian your response is fairly tame and much more civil than the debate i see regularly.
"I know you guys don't think there should be boundaries in society,"
Nonsense - no one is saying that at all. Of course there should be boundaries. NO pedophilia to use your example. That is not the issue at stake here. Does hetero marriage lead to more hetero pedophilia? No. The slippery slope argument is so tired. You can't argue that something is wrong because of a link to something else you dream up. There is no evidence what so ever that extending marriage rights to SS couples will have any negative effects on society at all. Using misinformed hypotheticals to keep a group from equality is unacceptable and not, as I asked, a legitimate reason to deny a minority their rights. As for testing the "traditional structure of society", unless you are a straight white man, the only reason you have any rights at all is because others before you did exactly that. Challenging a structure that unequally empowers a few is necessary and commendable. It took courage to have the inclusive and peaceful (relatively on both) society we have now, and it will take hard work and courage to ensure progress is not halted by paranoid, self serving, "slippery slope" champions.
albertanation,
The difference between SSM and peodophilia and bigamy is that peopdophilia and bigamy are provable harmful to one of the parties involved and to society in general. SSM is not. It is two consenting adults choosing to demonstrate their exclusive pair-bond to each other (to use biologic terms rather than religious ones). They will live together, love each other and be a positive role model monogamy and against promiscuity.
I'm more instereested in what harm will be caused by allowing SSM. I honestly haven;t heard a proper arguement that it will, infact cause harm. While I understand the position you articulate, I don't think it is a good enough arguement to restrict the rights of a minority in Canada.
Remember, if you don;t like gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex.
I would love to hear how allowing gay marriage will damage society when it only affects ab out 2% of the population.
mike, politicalgrll, I agree. I think a lot of the reasons this debate has become so hostile is because I think a large segment of people on both sides of the debate attempt to define their opponents before the debate even begins. This defeats the purpose of having a civil discussion.
Albertanation makes an interesting point in invoking the slippery-slope argument and discussing boundaries. Certainly, boundaries are necessary (i.e. we all accept that paedophilia is wrong); it's just that the boundaries shouldn't be arbitrary. So you can't say the boundary should be X just because that's the way it's always been.
The problem with the slippery-slope argument, conversely, is that if that's your issue, we're already slipping down the slope, gay marriage or not! Look at common law relationships. Look at divorce rates. I would think the arguments about the sanctity of the institution would be much stronger if the institution wasn't already taking a beating as it is. And ironically, gays want access to this institution because they see the very value in it that heterosexuals do - and even though there are a dwindling number of people who truly respect the institution, some people strive to keep gays out?!?
Andrew Coyne made an excellent case for gay marraige in a column several months ago. He observed that the real disdain for homosexuals by social conservatives is more related to their percieved promiscuous lifestyle than their actual sexual orientation. So wouldn't it logically follow that social conservatives should *want* them to get married, so they could be monogamous? A very unorthodox, but effective, argument. But it also exposes a darker view, which is tthat many people just believe being gay is prima facie "wrong"....
alw, I've used that same argument that Andrew Coyne did (though I didn't know he had made it) many times, and unfortunately that always reveals the darker reason. Very sad.
Wow, never thought I'd find myself agreeing with Andrew Coyne, but there it is...
;)
Mike said: "I would love to hear how allowing gay marriage will damage society when it only affects ab out 2% of the population."
It's been shown through numerous studies that that "2% of the population" commits 30-40% of all child molestations. That means that a child is 10-20 times as likely to be molested by a homosexual (http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet2.html)
The use of the term "marriage" is looked on by both groups as legimitization of a proven high-risk lifestyle. Once that lifestyle is legimitized the gay community can increase it's recruiting efforts. Once that "2%" grows into 10%, what do you think will happen to the proportion of children that get molested? will it grow or stay steady? Are you willing to increase the risk to your own children?
Richard,
Interesting the statistics you provide, but they, Paul Cameron and the rest of his "research" (and the rest of the so-called Family Research Institute) has been debunked by the scientific community, to the point that his rantings are ignored.
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron.html
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_sheet.html
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Paul_Cameron
http://www.qrd.org/qrd/origins/1992/molestation-facts-11.22.92
From the last link:
"According to Herek, Newton's review concluded that "gay men are no more likely
than heterosexual men to molest children." "
It appears that his research used sample sizes so small that it has a 33% margin of error - when he says 29% of child molestations are by gay men. Hardly good research.
Of course even with your numbers, that means 60 to 70% of child molestors are STRAIGHT!. Oh my, I think I should keep my children away from straight men!
Richard, I welcome your attempts to back up your claims. Next time you quote statistics you may want to double check them and get them from a reputable source. Quoting a man that advocates literally Nazi tactics when dealing with gays will not win you any arguements - Paul Cameron advocates facial tatoos for AIDS victims, castration of AIDS victims, deportation of gays and AIDS victims to former leper colonies and the extermination of gays.
I would point you in the direction of some real science so you can learn:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/0510_050510_gayscent.html
BTW, thank you for proving alw and I right in our exchange above. Sad, really. I hope you can overcome your hatred and learn from real science.
Richard,
Even if the facts you cite are correct, the conclusions you draw are still illogical!
First of all, there is no correlation between gays getting married and gays molesting children. Further, you can't impugn, for example, all black people because some black people commit crimes.
Second, there's nothing to suggest that marriage will lead to an increased number of people 'becoming' homosexual. That argument is premised entirely on the notion that sexual orientation is entirely a choice or socialization, rather than an innate quality.
Third, gay marriage might lead to a decrease in the 'high risk' (i.e. promiscuous) aspects of the gay lifestyle, since it would lead to a monogamous, stable relationships.
Finally, what it really comes down to is that you think anyone who is gay is 'high risk' to children everywhere. So really it has nothing to do with marriage, and everything to do with just *being* gay.
Incidentally, mike, I think the real test of whether someone's anti-gay marriage stance is a "defensive" or "offensive" one comes down to that person's view of homosexuals in general. Some people say "live and let live, but you can't have our institution". Others, like richard here, seem to suggest that being gay is in and of itself the problem.
Alright, I've cited a single source and you've cited a single source and a blog that goes back to cite your single source... Here are some more..
http://traditionalvalues.org/urban/one.php
http://www.afajournal.org/archives/23060000011.asp
http://www.fathers.ca/study_reveal_'dark_side'.htm
http://www.drjudithreisman.org/whitep.htm
Here's a neat quote: "In 1995 the homosexual magazine "Guide" said, "We can be proud that the gay movement has been home to the few voices who have had the courage to say out loud that children are naturally sexual" and "deserve the right to sexual expression with whoever they choose. …" The article went on to say: "Instead of fearing being labeled pedophiles, we must proudly proclaim that sex is good, including children's sexuality … we must do it for the children's sake."
More links:
http://www.americanfreepress.net/Censored/31_Educators_Advocate_Homosexua.htm
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/DaileyHomosexualAbuse.shtml
http://www.hli.org/homosexuality_not_molestation.pdf
http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/rebuttal.htm
Oh, before you call my data into question I would suggest you choose to look at your single source. Your single source is himself, gay and has a vested interest in furthering the cause...
http://www.narth.com/docs/creates.html
In regards to the numbers: You don't see a problem with 2% of the population comitting 30-40% of molestations? You don't see a serious disproportion there?
Oh yeah, why is it that the "Man Boy Love Association" is allowed to march in every major gay pride parade in north america?
Yup, I think being gay itself is the problem... everything else is the manifestation of symptoms...
Here's a quote from the NAMBLA site:"Freedom is indivisible. The liberation of children, women, boy-lovers,
and homosexuals in general, can occur only as
complementary facets of the same dream. -- David Thorstad "
hmmmmmm
RICHARD:
NAMBLA has been very controversial in the gay communitry for at least 15 years. Many places and newspapers will have nothing to do with them. Finding one that does does not mean anything.
While you are at quoting figuers about molesters (not that i agree with you) what are you going to do about the fact that at least 90% of child molesters are MEN? (and there is a lot more evidence to back this fact up).
One could argue all males should be gotten rid of and used only for breeding purposes if we follow your argument given the males proclivity to molest. Or at least what your sources are suggesting should be done with Gay men.
Also the vast majority of the people that kill their spouses (or ex spouses are male). Hmm.
Randy Shilts in "And the Band Played On" made an intersting observation about AIDS and how Christian groups blamed it on promiscuty of gays. Summed up it comes to: straight society refused to recognize gay relationship in any way and stigmatized them. Is it any suprise there was more promuscuity? Even once AIDS was well known it's not like gays were given equal rights or say the right to be married and have a recognized relationship.
Of course one doesn't have to be promiscuous or gay to get AIDS. In Africa the majority of transmission is betwen heterosexuals. And it only takes having sex with the wrong person once (who could have had sex previously in some other relationship and gotten the virus that way, once) to pass on AIDS. Safer sex helps, but it isn't perfect.
In Canada heterosexual trasmission of AIDS is up, especially in younger age groups (below 24). Apparently some people think the new "cocktails" can save and give them normal lives. Or just aren't getting the same amount of information that we did when i was growing up and AIDS was new.
One other thing to everyone. I think it's interesting that when people get into specifics lesbians rarely come up. My opinion is because society doesn't look at women as sexual without a man (and even then maybe not) and they can't take lesbian relationships as seriously. I say this as an observation, not saying it's deliberate in any way, i think it's more a cultural artifact worth thinking about.
When i refered to Christians i should have refered to right wing/fundamentalist Christians. Don't want to paint everyone with the same brush!
Or for that matter say it was only Christians. In North American Christians have more influence generally though.
"While you are at quoting figuers about molesters (not that i agree with you) what are you going to do about the fact that at least 90% of child molesters are MEN? (and there is a lot more evidence to back this fact up)."
You've missed it completely politicagrll... Maybe math isin't your strong point... The fact is that an extremely large % of molestation is purportrated by an extremely small segment of the population.
"And the Band Played On" is a work that helped pioneer the term "faction" which combines fiction and fact. Shilts himself was gay and where the facts didn't meet his nhilistic/narsicistic view he deviated...
"Of course one doesn't have to be promiscuous or gay to get AIDS"
have to be gay to get aids? No, not anymore. You do have to be promiscious though. Look at the definition:
1. Having casual sexual relations frequently with different partners;
2. indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners.
Lacking standards of selection; indiscriminate.
3. Casual; random.
"Safer sex helps, but it isn't perfect"
Does it never occur to you folks to keep your pants on? That is the only to prevent the spread of std's.
"In Canada heterosexual trasmission of AIDS is up,"
Due to increased drug use and promuscity amoung young people...
" Apparently some people think the new "cocktails" can save and give them normal lives."
What they don't understand is that those cocktails result in superstrains of virus that won't stay contained to those involved in the high risk lifestyles...
"NAMBLA has been very controversial in the gay communitry for at least 15 years. Many places and newspapers will have nothing to do with them. Finding one that does does not mean anything."
Is it contriversial because most gay's think it's wrong or because most gay's think they'll slow down the "intergration agenda"?
Here are my CREDIBLE responses to RE’s right wingnut sites. Unlike him, I used impartial, objective, peer reviewed, verifiable sources. I purposely avoided any of the many articles to be found on this subject in gay publications like the Advocate. While it is impossible to prove a negative (wingnuts know this – that’s why they always invite people to do so) there is no credible evidence to suggest that homosexual people are a danger to children. The burden is on RE to prove his nonsensical rant – and he cannot. All he can do is cite plainly biased sources, with no references. Me, I’ll take the words of McGill University student health policy, peer reviewed published authors, and journal articles over the tirades of groups like “orthodoxy today” and “traditional values” any day.
"Heterosexual men are twice as likely to sexually abuse children as homosexual men are. There is solid evidence that over 92% of child abuse cases, including same gender sexual abuse, are perpetrated by heterosexuals".
http://www.mcgill.ca/studenthealth/information/queerhealth/myths/
"The researchers concluded that the risk of child sexual abuse by an identifiably gay or lesbian person was between zero and 3.1%, and that the risk of such abuse by the heterosexual partner of a relative was over 100 times greater".
http://www.robincmiller.com/gayles4.htm
*Note: the "researchers" are published in peer reviewed journals such as Paediatrics.
"The verdict: They don't support a claim that gay men are more likely than heterosexuals to abuse minors".
http://www.usatoday.com/news/2002-07-15-church-gay_x.htm
*Note (again): the "researchers" are published in peer reviewed journals such as Paediatrics.
“USA Today and The Washington Post reported that researchers who study sexual disorders say that homosexuality is not related to pedophilia. The Post even reported that "behavioral scientists are virtually unanimous in their emphatic rejection of a linkage between homosexuality and child sexual abuse."
Missoula Independent. Missoula: Dec 12, 2002. Vol. 13, Iss. 49; pg. 8
Watch out Dick:
http://www.abbotsfordtimes.com/issues02/084102/news/084102nn3.html
Richard,
Did you know that in Toronto, black people account for a disproportionate amount of crime, relative to their numbers? Do you therefore advocate adopting a policy of guilty until proven innocent, specifically for black people? After all, statistically there *is* a much higher likelihood that they're guilty, compared to a non-black person.
Once upon a time, Richard, I used to think being gay was a choice, and a bad one. After having met enough gay people over the years, including many I call my friends (in the Conservative Party no less!) it's become quite clear to me if it were truly a choice, almost no one would choose it.
Richard,
Perhaps you missed my point...there is NO evidence that 2% of the population commits 30 to 40% of child molestations. You are drawing those numbers from a source that, as I and politicagrll have shown in our previous posts, has been thoroughly debunked. Real mainstream science does not support that conclusion but rather shows that sexual orientation has no bearing on the likelyhood of molestating children. So you can stop arguing that, you've been proven wrong.
As for your assertions about NAMBLA being in "every gay pride parade in North America" I can assure you that his too is false. As a downtown Toronto resident for 8 years, I never saw them in the parade there. Last year, while in San Francisco for the Java One Conference, I got to see the Pride Week festivities there - the largest in North America. I watched the parade for 4 hours. I saw every float. No Nambla. Trust me, as a father of a little boy I would have noticed. Your bringing them up as part of the gay community is like me bringing up the Church of the Creator as part of the Christian community or the Heritage Front as part of the right wing community. Every community has their fringe elements, Richard. They do not reflect the mainstream.
Do you further realize, Richard, that, as alw and Andrew Coyne have pointed out, that allowing gays to marry would, in fact, REDUCE the incidence of high-risk behaviour your rail against in your posts - promiscuity and the spread of STD's. Thanks for helping to show gay marriage is good for society.
Richard, I honestly hope you look at the links we have provided and listen to others, even within the Conservative Party and the conservative movement, that reasoned this out.
Based on the science from princess monkey and politacagrll and the ancedotal evidence from alw, I still canoot see anything wrong with being gay or gay marriage. Thanks to them, and to you, I actually see it as a postiive for society.
Seriously Richard, look over the information and be open minded. It is much easier to live without the burden of hate in your heart.
opps...sorry for the bad spelling and for letting my Buddhism leak out in that last paragraph.
;)
AN: Meeting and speaking with ALW has been a privilege for all of us I'm sure. Contrasting him with RE clearly demonstrates the diff. between "conservative" and "wingnut". Don't worry - it's easy to make the distinction.
albertanation,
I couldn't agree more. I know that not all Conservatives are bigoted rednecks. I unfortunately have had to deal with many that are, so it is refreshing to deal with ones that aren't. I'm afraid I need reminding of this every now and again, so I too will thank both you and ALW for that once again.
Now, if you can do me a favour and read my post about the budget and remind your self that not all us Dippers are your stereotypical tax-and-grab, spend on everything, members of Comintern that many Conservatives paint us to be. A great many of us now-a-days are business people, entreprenueurs and middle class folks who are very fiscally responsible. If you look at the latest NDP policy, it is very fiscally responsible, with no deficits and still paying down the debt (have I mentioned Tommy Douglas and the 17 balanced budgets in a row back when even the Liberals and Conservatives weren't worried about it?).
I mean, since we're destroying stereotypes and all.
Now, this is the kind of civil discussion I hoped fo here.
Thanks everyone (even you rrichard, you've actually been quite civil, albiet missinformed).
Damn...big fingers, little keyboard.
Sorry for the typos guys.
Ahhhh... PM, You're my favorite...
"http://www.mcgill.ca/studenthealth/information/queerhealth/myths/" = absolutely no basis for their claims provided. Was it written by a freshman/woman/it?
"http://www.robincmiller.com/gayles4.htm" = does not look at proportions correctly ie: small portion of population responsable for large portion of instances - quotes research performed by "single gay source" noted previously - no documentation provided in terms of peer review. If the researchers have appeared in journals such as pediatrics, were they featured with this work? Was this work peer reviewed?
"http://www.usatoday.com/news/2002-07-15-church-gay_x.htm" = a quote from the article: "No scientifically conclusive research exists that would answer questions about pedophiles' sexual orientation, says Berlin" Now your own sources are saying that they don't know... interesting
As for this one: "http://www.abbotsfordtimes.com/issues02/084102/news/084102nn3.html" Well now, I do have a right to state that I disagree with homosexuality, lesbianism, pedophilia and all of the rest of the sexual deviations. I have a right to speak my mind without the threat of the thought police comming to get me. If that's a veiled threat PM you just do your best...
"Perhaps you missed my point...there is NO evidence that 2% of the population commits 30 to 40% of child molestations. You are drawing those numbers from a source that, as I and politicagrll have shown in our previous posts, has been thoroughly debunked" That's the problem I guess because I don't believe it was debunked... Your debunker is a gay psycologist... He's biased... Rule number one in scientific study - STAY OBJECTIVE!
"Did you know that in Toronto, black people account for a disproportionate amount of crime, relative to their numbers? Do you therefore advocate adopting a policy of guilty until proven innocent, specifically for black people"
Not saying that at all and you're straying away from the argument. My point is that legalizing SSM will legitimize it and lead to bigger problems... It's called enabeling. No, ALW, I won't get sucked into a racial argument. Folks can't choose their color...
"Based on the science from princess monkey and politacagrll and the ancedotal evidence from alw, I still canoot see anything wrong with being gay or gay marriage."
I wasn't trying to change your mind Mike, just looking for a good argument and some new material for my site... I've got enough to last the week now, thanks.
Richard,
And what if people can't choose their sexual orientation? I never "chose" to prefer women to men, I just always have. What if it's the same way for gays?
RE: What do you suppose the chances are that an institution with the excellent academic reputation enjoyed by McGill would post on its website unsubstantiated information? The university is staking its reputation on the facts published on the site. That it remains uncontested even when scrutinized by individuals with an intellect remarkably superior to yours RE, is enough for me (and clearly the entire McGill student body) to have confidence in it. If you can disprove it, present your evidence to McGill and have them change their site. If your stuff is credible – they are obligated to do so or risk lawsuits from all the students who act on the information they provide. Let us know how you make out with that. Same with the Robin C Miller article. The issue is credibility. These authors have demonstrated their expertise by passing the rigorous test involved in peer review (if you don’t know what it is – look it up). They have proven their credibility and as such, can be relied upon. Unlike the source quoted by you, these authors are embraced by their peers and not rejected by them.
"No scientifically conclusive research exists that would answer questions about pedophiles' sexual orientation, says Berlin" Now your own sources are saying that they don't know... interesting”.
Yes – exactly. No evidence exists to back up your idiotic claims. Like I said – you can’t prove a negative. You are spewing hateful propaganda based on NOTHING. Since you like quoting the USA Today article, here are some more:
“Although no large-scale national research has been done, several small studies find homosexuals are no more likely than heterosexuals to molest kids, says San Diego psychologist Robert Geffner, editor of The Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, a professional research journal”
“ NARTH states on its Web site that gay men are three times more likely than heterosexuals to have sex with minors; it also says about 35% of pedophiles are gay. It attributes these figures to studies published in 1984 and 1992 by Kurt Freund, a Toronto researcher who died a few years ago… USA TODAY asked experts on pedophilia and sex behavior research to evaluate these studies… The verdict: They don't support a claim that gay men are more likely than heterosexuals to abuse minors. In fact, Freund explicitly points this out, says physician John Bancroft, director of the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction”.
“ NARTH's claim that 35% of pedophiles are gay stems from "a flawed assumption" that men who prey on young boys also are attracted to grown men, says Johns Hopkins University psychiatrist Frederick Berlin, an expert on sexual disorders”
“Psychologist Joseph Nicolosi, president of NARTH, declined to speak to USA TODAY. But when asked about evidence of a gay-pedophilia link, publications director Linda Nicolosi responded in an e-mail that the link is "hard to track down”.
So…hopefully your flawed stats didn’t come from NARTH. As for the link to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal…no threat. It was to demonstrate that your claims are so false, the tribunal considers them hate speech and worthy of action. If these claims were true, the tribunal wouldn’t have had the grounds to shut down the mentioned site. I can say: “Paul Bernardo is sick, twisted, murdering bastard”. Clearly a statement designed to inspire hate toward Mr. Bernardo. But I don’t worry about repercussion – cause IT’S TRUE.
You cannot prove that something DOESN’T exist (i.e. there is NO relationship between A & B). But you made claims that something does exist - which you must prove – and you haven’t…you haven’t even convinced the conservatives reading here. There is no credible evidence to back up what you say and any evidence there is suggests the opposite is true. Good luck with your McGill assignment…let us know when they retract their information. Also, please PROVE that a researcher is biased - to an extent that invalidates his work - because he is gay. That's quite claim to make too. Please provide credible evidence to question this man's integrity, and that sexual orientation is a basis for that. Please show us the studies which prove that sexuality is grounds for dimissing a researchers' work and please use credible sources this time and not debunked crackpots.
Mike: It’s a good thing your site demands civility…How do you feel about writing for two sites? Is there a penalty for blogger plagiarism? I guess the penalty would be the beating your credibility takes for flagrant unoriginality – but that all depends on one’s readership…
"What do you suppose the chances are that an institution with the excellent academic reputation enjoyed by McGill would post on its website unsubstantiated information? The university is staking its reputation on the facts published on the site. That it remains uncontested even when scrutinized by individuals with an intellect remarkably superior to yours RE, is enough for me (and clearly the entire McGill student body) to have confidence in it."
What a completely beautiful example of circular reasoning PM; To paraphrase: "They must be right because they run the show and they must be running the show because they're right...." That doesn't wash at all...
In fact, with yesterday's reading I discovered a serious flaw on the part of your credible researchers. It seems that they put fourth a study stating that pedophilia was not harmfull to children which they later had to retract. (getting ready for work and will have to find/post the link a little later). Your researchers are not infailable PM.
"Unlike the source quoted by you, these authors are embraced by their peers and not rejected by them."
Who are the peers you're refering to PM? I did not find documented peer reviews on one single study that you provided. The peer reviews have to be published with the study to make it valid no?
"As for the link to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal…no threat. It was to demonstrate that your claims are so false, the tribunal considers them hate speech and worthy of action. If these claims were true, the tribunal wouldn’t have had the grounds to shut down the mentioned site. I can say: “Paul Bernardo is sick, twisted, murdering bastard”. Clearly a statement designed to inspire hate toward Mr. Bernardo. But I don’t worry about repercussion – cause IT’S TRUE."
Does the right to free speech belong only to those on the political left PM? Your tribunals are loosing traction PM. There's a case out here where a priest is being hauled in front of one because of his (very public) stance on SSM and homosexuality. The tribunal is not winning nor does it have the support of the public.
"As for the link to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal…no threat. It was to demonstrate that your claims are so false, the tribunal considers them hate speech and worthy of action."
I have 2 points on these particular lines: a) BullFeathers! - a threat is a threat my dear no matter how you package it... and, b) poor logic again... Lets put it into a context you can understand PM: ""As for the link to the Nazi, Jew (support) Crimes Tribunal…no threat. It was to demonstrate that your claims (that jews are harmless) are so false, the tribunal considers them hate speech and worthy of action."
"In fact, with yesterday's reading I discovered a serious flaw on the part of your credible researchers. It seems that they put fourth a study stating that pedophilia was not harmfull to children which they later had to retract. (getting ready for work and will have to find/post the link a little later). Your researchers are not infailable PM."
Just to be clear, it was not McGill researchers that did this as implied by the position of the paragraph... It was either the AMA or the other psych journal...
Like I said RE - if the McGill site is wrong...PROVE it to their satisfaction and let us know when you do. I will be watching to see their site change it's policy. Staking your academic integrity on facts posted on your site is not "running the show". They are putting themselves at the mercy of (very informed) readers. Hardly running the show. If my reasoning is flawed and we shouldn't believe them, that will be demonstrated when you convince them of the inaccuracy of their work. Please get right on that. You'll be doing McGill a favour. They don't want to be misinforming their students with faulty fact finding. If you are that confident in your position, you can't in good conscience let all those hapless McGill students believe the lies spouted by the school. You have a civic duty to correct them - get on it.
Which researcher that I quoted said pedophilia is not harmful to children? What an abhorrent position to take. Please show us which one it was and I will remove their work from that which I cited since I would have serious doubts about their perspective.
Like I said - the issue is credibility. Since you cannot prove the negative (that no relationship b/t homosexuality and pedophilia exists) there are no peer reviewed studies to show that - since it is impossible to do so. However, these authors have published peer reviewed works. This speaks to their credibility. The have passed muster with experts in their field and that lends credence to their words. Your guy has been rejected by his academic counterparts and so is suffering in the credibility department. We have to choose which are more likely to know what they're talking about...that would be the ones I cited (except the one you say claims pedophilia is unharmful...waiting on the evidence).
If the catholic church issues statements that homosexuality is conclusively linked to child abuse, they might find themselves in the same trouble as the site author in question. What did the priest in question say? Can he prove it? That's the issue. As is your NEW claim that the Canadian human rights tribunal does not have the support of the public. Prove it please - with credible stats. And as for your "Nazi" thing...WTF? (Sorry Mike).
So RE...get busy. You now have to:
1. prove McGill wrong in their assertions about homosexuality and have them retract their position, and change their website (for the public good).
2. prove that sexual orientation is conclusively linked to academic bias. You have stated that a psychologist should be dismissed because he is gay and therefore too biased to believe. Either give us evidence that his peers agree with you, or provide credible studies which say sexual orientation of the researcher is a consideration when evaluating the validity of academic work.
3. prove (with stats) that Canadians do not support the work of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.
We are counting on you RE. Clearly you consider yourself a bastion for truth and integrity. We need to believe these things are present in the blogosphere, and so we need you to prove these statements.
Researchers do not have to be infallible, Richard. They simply need their work to be peer reviewed, published and vetted. That is how science works.
Publishing from sources that use poor methodologies, false data, or purposely distort legitimate data (as is the case cited above with Kurt Fruend) do not prove anything, except that you and people like you are willing to stoop to any means to "prove" your hatred is "right".
Richard, I am open-minded enough to have my mind changed. If you can prove your assertion that being gay is dangerous or that gay marriage will harm society, I will change my position and oppose gay marriage. But I will make you work for it and you will have to provide a great deal of quality evidence to back up your claim. The kind of evidence, for instance, that princess monkey and polliticagrll have shown to debunk your position.
(Actually, that's pretty much my position on everything - prove it. Provide enough evidence for an assertion and I will take your side.)
I did not come to my position out of the blue, Richard. I researched it. I actually know openly gay people. I have observed how their lifestyle is not like the stereotypes, that it is exactly like mine (go to work, go home, pay the bills , root for their favourite team etc). I have pondered what would happen if gay marriage were allowed. And my answer is 'Nothing'. Your arguemnts may be heartfelt to you, but they are unconvincing.
Now, if you want to take some of this 'material' for you site, in order to make fun of us, that is your perogative. I would say it says something about your maturity level. But if there is the possiblity that one person that might read this stuff on your site will come here, read our arguments and the arguments of fellow Tories like ALW and Albertanation, follow the links provided and change their mind about being gay and gay marriage, then its worth it.
And Richard, I honestly hope that one person is you.
Albertanation,
That's fine, but you are using reasonable, cogent arguements that are not based on misinformation or hatred of an identifiable group. I can respect your reasons, even if I don't agree with them.
Mike: Just wanted to let you know...you may already...via My Blahg news - Bound By Gravity has a good post about the Conservative plan for childcare. I know you like to talk to intelligent people with differing view points. The author at this site posts quality information and is committed to laying out the specifics of con platform (too bad the party isn't). Anyway, it looked like a conversation you would like...
okay people, this has nothing to do with religion. The court cases and bill C-38 deal only with civil marriage. You know, city hall, judges, marriage commissioners. It has nothing to do with any religious institution. As for religious organizations, they can do whatever the heck they want. Nobody tells the catholic church that it must marry an interfaith couple or a people who have been divorced. Same thing here. If a church wants to marry same-sex couples, it can. If it doesn't, it doesn't have to. That's called religious freedom which, by the way, should apply equally to churches who WANT to perform same sex marriages. Or do only some religions enjoy religious freedom? As for the suggestion that the recognition of same sex marriage will destroy society by knocking down boundaries, that is just beyond stupid. The same thing was said (SERIOUSLY) regarding the legalization of interracial marriage.
Hi AN: The part of the plan you refer to is straightforward - until they say they will also do whatever it is the libs are doing? And Ottawa isn't "telling" anyone what to do with their kids. Those who can afford to have a mom or dad stay home can still do that. And I don't think the child tax credit is going away. This program is more a help to those folks (like single moms) who don't have the income possiblities necessary to afford good childcare. It's possible for some people to face a miserable dilemma. They have a child and need a job. But by the time they pay for childcare, they don't bring home enough to live - and that's if they can find a spot. Any program that provides a safe and affordable system to allow single and low income parents (cause that's who'll benefit most) to go to work rather than resorting to social assistance is a good idea to me. Chances are, if you make enough money that your "tax credit" would cover childcare, you don't need this program. But no one HAS to use it. It would just be an additional option for those who may need it. If you're happy with your own child raising situation, this won't mean much to you...if you're not...and you're in the aforementioned catch 22...it will.
...And I wasn't indicating that the post at Bound By Gravity was wrong. I was saying it was good. As an NDP supporter, I assumed Mike would be for the program, but still interested in what the Conservatives were doing instead. He's seems like that kinda guy. The author at BBG has taken on the task of laying out Conservative policy - which is a good idea since, in my opinion, the picture in the media is just of an angry party and there has to be more to the CPC than that. That's why I brought it up. If Mike wants to post on this - he will. I don't want to highjack his thread with something so completely off topic. That wasn't my intention.
Empirecookie: cool name - or maybe I'm just hungry. Exactly right. That's what's so hard about this debate. It gives an oppressed group something they want, and are entitled to, at the expense of no one. No one is compromised by this legislation at all. Like you say, religion is protected. The CPC stance is weak because of that. They don't have a concrete reason for denying homosexuals this right. "It offends my sensibilities" is not a good enough reason.
Canadi-anna has quite a thorough argument as to why SSM isn't all it is cracked up to be. Rather than have me copy the whole thing, hop on over to her blog and check it out.
Bottom-line: prove that the definition of marriage needs to be changed and that no harm will come from it, rather than putting the onys on why the definition of marriage should not be changed.
Dave:
No. When you're talking equality and the Charter of Rights...the burden is on those who wish to oppose that. The courts have said that it is unconstitutional to deny these rights. If you want to change the Charter - it's acutally up to YOU to prove why we should allow that. How many times do I have to say this: you CANNOT prove a negative. When the gov't issues your drivers licence, they can't prove that you WON'T crash (or that "harm will NOT come from it"). To deny that right (privilege actually) would require proof of risk substantial enough to outweigh the obligation the gov't has to the public to grant of the licence. Same thing here. The lawyers argued the points and the courts said, under the Charter of Rights, same sex couples have this right. To deny it, you must prove harm and good luck with that. As you can see above, others are having quite a problem. And...instead of copying the whole post - you could just provide the link.
I just blogged today on an article from the 23rd of May about "American Psychiatric Association Adopts Statement Supporting Same Sex Marriage: Final decision will be made by directors in July". I found the article yesterday evening.
The article makes a good case that same sex marriage will improve mental health, and that gays and lesbians should have the same civil rights as anyone else. I also discuss some of the myths it effectively debunks. Other stuff in the post too...you can read it if you want...I'm certainly not going to post it all here (This is Mike's space, i wouldn't address it if you hadn't asked Dave)
Take a look there if you want an idea of why same sex marriage (civil) needs to be allowed. Good health is always something we are trying to encourage and it is good for society. The APA says that not allowing SSM is having a negative impact on the health of gays and lesbians.
Politicagrli,
Interesting. I haven't read the article, but I will. I certainly am not advocating negative health alternatives for any members of society.
Still, and I am sure that I'll take it on the chin for suggesting this, but, what would be wrong with civil unions for SS couples, which would provide all the societal rights as marriage, without actually using the term "marrigae.' See, a lot of people in society are actually very emotionally attached to marriage in its current definition. A civil union presents a fair, equal alternative; a compromise position, if you will. Basically it is a matter of semantics, no?
What is also interesting is that the CPC is the only party that: allowed free votes in the house on the subject and, that is presenting a compromise vision. They are looking for a shade of grey solution, not an all-or-none option.
OK, fire away!
Dave: I know you addressed Political Girl...but I wanted to point out that the "semantics" issue is discussed at length up the page. "Separate" is never equal. Ever. Those currently using the term don't lose it. I was married before SSM became legal in Ontario - and guess what? I still am. My vows are no less sacred than they were. In fact, knowing how great it is to be able to enter into marriage with the person you love...well I can't see how any married people could deny it to SS couples. Anyway, look at my women/person argument and the comments of ALW and politicalgirl and Mike above - they answer your question. And you can't go with a "majority" position on a minority issue. I'm sure you can see how, if we did that, we'd have a pretty backward society right now (i.e. women's rights).
AN: Women had no right to vote. So the majority of (the ONLY) voters were men. I'm pretty sure the pop split has always been around 50/50 in Canada. But as for representation - women had none - definitely a minority status in that way.
You are resorting to "slippery slope" business again. It doesn't work because you could conceive of any number of vile possiblities for anything. Defining marriage as two adults of consenting age automatically prevents the 10 wives (although that goes on in some places I guess) and the boy/man issue. If anyone ever starts asking for the right to marry a child or the legal right to have a harem marriage - then argue those things - they are not at issue now.
As for the rest...interracial marriage etc. Their time did not come. People had to fight for those rights - you know that. And the time has come for this too. It's a difficult issue because many people (especially religious ones) have a problem with gay poeple in general. Those folks seem to appalled that society would recognize a sexual orientation that they cannot understand. Opposition to gay/lesbian equality is just based on fear and baseless hate. People don't know many gay individuals because they make up such a small part of the population. Like ALW said, once you know them, they are the same as you or me. You can't hold a referendum on a minority issue because you can't trust a majority to do the right thing in the interests of a minority. It's that simple. Otherwise, all those salve-keeping southerners would have freed their people, for instance. No one would say that southerners are morally devoid, but they had to be forced not to keep slaves. Do you really think a referendum or a "free vote" at that time would have led to emancipation? When this bill has passed and some years go by, no one will even notice. On Saturday's we'll drive by the wedding photo shoots on the front lawns and sometimes see two white dresses or two tuxedos - and that'll be it. Relax. No one is going to hell in a handbasket. Not even close. You wanna worry about a culture war...put you effort into something actually negative. Work on reducing the violence in video games or something. And if the majority were against SSM as you say, why would the CPC - the only party taking a solid "against" stance, be sitting at 30%? Most people don't even think the issue is worth an election. I'm afraid to win this battle, you guys will have to rewrite the Charter of Rights or resort to the notwithstanding clause. It's fear of those tactics that will keep the CPC from forming gov't. Canadians may undecided about SSM, but they are solidly behind the Charter. There's your trouble. I think eventually, you'll have to suck it up and bitch amongst your friends when you see the lesbian wedding announcements in the paper. That's my prediction. The majority should rule on issues that affect the majority, but they cannot decide a minority issue. Humans are not empathetic enough to do that - as you yourself have shown.
AN: Women had no right to vote. So the majority of (the ONLY) voters were men. I'm pretty sure the pop split has always been around 50/50 in Canada. But as for representation - women had none - definitely a minority status in that way.
You are resorting to "slippery slope" business again. It doesn't work because you could conceive of any number of vile possiblities for anything. Defining marriage as two adults of consenting age automatically prevents the 10 wives (although that goes on in some places I guess) and the boy/man issue. If anyone ever starts asking for the right to marry a child or the legal right to have a harem marriage - then argue those things - they are not at issue now.
As for the rest...interracial marriage etc. Their time did not come. People had to fight for those rights - you know that. And the time has come for this too. It's a difficult issue because many people (especially religious ones) have a problem with gay poeple in general. Those folks seem to appalled that society would recognize a sexual orientation that they cannot understand. Opposition to gay/lesbian equality is just based on fear and baseless hate. People don't know many gay individuals because they make up such a small part of the population. Like ALW said, once you know them, they are the same as you or me. You can't hold a referendum on a minority issue because you can't trust a majority to do the right thing in the interests of a minority. It's that simple. Otherwise, all those salve-keeping southerners would have freed their people, for instance. No one would say that southerners are morally devoid, but they had to be forced not to keep slaves. Do you really think a referendum or a "free vote" at that time would have led to emancipation? When this bill has passed and some years go by, no one will even notice. On Saturday's we'll drive by the wedding photo shoots on the front lawns and sometimes see two white dresses or two tuxedos - and that'll be it. Relax. No one is going to hell in a handbasket. Not even close. You wanna worry about a culture war...put you effort into something actually negative. Work on reducing the violence in video games or something. And if the majority were against SSM as you say, why would the CPC - the only party taking a solid "against" stance, be sitting at 30%? Most people don't even think the issue is worth an election. I'm afraid to win this battle, you guys will have to rewrite the Charter of Rights or resort to the notwithstanding clause. It's fear of those tactics that will keep the CPC from forming gov't. Canadians may undecided about SSM, but they are solidly behind the Charter. There's your trouble. I think eventually, you'll have to suck it up and bitch amongst your friends when you see the lesbian wedding announcements in the paper. That's my prediction. The majority should rule on issues that affect the majority, but they cannot decide a minority issue. Humans are not empathetic enough to do that - as you yourself have shown.
I f you have to ask such foolish questions about the findamental undermining of the charter that the entire SMM red herring represents, I'ts also pointless pointing out to you that the current government sits as a constitutionally compromised government.
To avoid lenthy discussion I would only ask that your show me where "sexual orientation" exists in the charter to be held as anything we should address as a breach of section 15 prejudice guarantees.
Also pleas show me the reams of Hansard from the parliamentary sessions required to change the Charter as per it's formula to include this nebulous "sexual orientation" guarantee?
Uh huh I thought so...the whole farse is premised on false and illegitimate legal premise.
Now get your SSM farce outta my face and deal with the damn corruption in government and the obscene unaccountability that created it.
As if who sleeps with who is federal business..pfffffttt lefties with a phoney cause is like a monkey with a loaded revolver.
"To avoid lenthy discussion I would only ask that your show me where "sexual orientation" exists in the charter to be held as anything we should address as a breach of section 15 prejudice guarantees."
A little institution we have called The Supreme Court of Canada has, over and over again, stated the "sex equality" part of Section 15 also includes sexual orientation. Perhaps you've heard of this institution? They have a big building in Ottawa and they are constitutionally charged with interpreting and arbitating our laws in accordance with our constitution (Canada Act 1982, including the Charter). They've been around for 138 years. Perhaps you've heard of "English Common Law?"
"As if who sleeps with who is federal business..pfffffttt "
Uhm, yeah, kinda the point of supporting SSM, Mr. Anonymous. You do realize its the CPC that wants to tell us how to live and all that?
"Now get your SSM farce outta my face and deal with the damn corruption in government and the obscene unaccountability that created it."
Sure, just as soon as the CPC stalling tactics stop so it can get out of committee and on to the floor of the House for a vote. And the Liberals will face the music when we get the whole picture from Justice Gomery. Patience, my friend, patience.
BTW, this is a thread with 61 posts. Lenghty discussion is one thing we are NOT trying to avoid.
The SCC has NOT affirmed sexual orientsation exists in the charter and said as much in the reference question Martin asked them.
If you're going to join a hysterical rights crusade at least have some factual data.
The SCC has NOT read sexual orientation into the charter. I defy you to cite the case.
Moonbat Vs sanity does not count.
Oh, and BTW: for the Moonbats here that think that the SCC is the law making or Charter changing body/process in thei country, I dfy you to also show me where that exists in the constitution.
I see the Moonies have taken on the MO of their brehtern the Libranos in accepting the notion there are no rules.
Pfffttt
Anaonymous,
Have a look at:
Egan v Canada (1995) http://www.pch.gc.ca/bye_e.cfm?site=http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/cgi-bin/disp.pl/en/pub/1995/vol2/html/1995scr2_0513.html?query=%22James%22%20AND%20%22Egan%22&langue=en&selection=&database=en/jug&method=all&retour=/csc-scc/cgi-bin/srch.pl?database=en/jug%7E%7Equery=James%2BEgan%2B%7E%7Elang
Vriend v Alberta (1998)
http://www.pch.gc.ca/bye_e.cfm?site=http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/1998/vol1/html/1998scr1_0493.html
If the SCC is not good enough, how about legislation like the Canadain Human Right Act (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/h-6/text.html), ammended by Parliament in 1996 to iclyde sexual orientation as a prohibited ground for discrimination.
Further, the reading of prohibition of discrimintation on the basis of "sex" be read to also mean sexual orientation has been confirmed internationally by the UN Human Rights Committee in 1992 (http://www.pch.gc.ca/bye_e.cfm?site=http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/d22a00bcd1320c9c80256724005e60d5?Opendocument).
Not to mention the Supreme Courts and Courts of Appeal in 7 of 12 Jurisdictions in Canada...
Now as to the Constitutional authority of the Supreme court of Canada, I suggest you:
1. Actaully read the Canada Act 1982 , in particular the Constitution Act 1867. Pay attention to sections 91 and 92, the separation of powers.
2. In that light, read the Supreme Court Act, 1875, in particular section 53.
3. Read this: http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/aboutcourt/system/index_e.asp
4. Come back when you can make an intelligent point on law, history or human rights. Quoting and sounding like Richard Evans and calling people you don't agree with "moonbats" doesn't count as intelligent.
5. Read the case Regina v Oak, 1984 to see how "evil" the Supreme Court of Canada is. When you're done, tell me if you would rather have a Supreme Court in the country or not.
Now, in the issue at hand, the Court of Appeal in Ontario stated in 2002 that the refusal to allow gays to marry violated Section 15 of the Charter and gave Parliament 2 years to correct or enact new legislation. Does that sound like they are making new law?
I think I've answered all you questions Anonymous. Go study and come back when you have learned something about your country, it's history and it's legal system.
Post a Comment
<< Home