Okay, Canucks...

[Texan]

...I found something really important concerning YOUR country we can talk about.


=======================================


Canada's biggest mistake: Gay marriage
Posted: April 15, 2008, 7:02 PM by Marni Soupcoff
Michael Coren

What makes the national mistake of legalizing same-sex marriage unique in Canadian history is that to even discuss the issue is considered by many, particularly our elites, to be at the very least in extraordinarily bad taste. Although this is a valid and vital debate about social policy, anyone critiquing the status quo is likely to be marginalized as hateful, extreme or simply mad. Social conservatives aren’t just wrong, they’re evil.

The discussion, we are told, is over. Which is what triumphalist bullies have said for centuries after they win a battle. In this case, the intention is to marginalize anyone who dares to still speak out. In other words, to silence them.

It’s important to emphasize that this is not really about homosexuality at all, and has nothing to do with homosexual people living together. Opponents of same-sex marriage may have ethical and religious objections to homosexuality, but they are irrelevant to the central argument. Which is not about the rights of a sexual minority but the status and meaning of marriage.

Indeed, the deconstruction of marriage began not with the gay community asking for the right to marry but with the heterosexual world rejecting it. The term “common-law marriage” said it all. Marriage is many things, but it is never common. Yet with this semantic and legal revolution, desire and convenience replaced commitment and dedication. The qualifications, so to speak, were lowered.

And one does indeed have to qualify for marriage; just as one has, for example, to qualify for a pension or a military medal. People who have not reached the age of retirement don’t qualify for a pension, people who don’t serve in the armed forces don’t qualify for a military medal. It’s not a question of equality but requirement. A human right is intrinsic, a social institution is not.

The four great and historic qualifications for marriage always have been number, gender, age and blood. Two people, male and female, over a certain age and not closely related. Mainstream and responsible societies have sometimes changed the age of maturity, but incest has always been condemned and, by its nature, died out because of retardation.

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.

At the moment, the Muslim community is not sufficiently politically comfortable to pursue the issue; and the clearly deranged polygamous sects on the aesthetic as well as geographical fringes of Canadian society cloud any reasonable debate. But the argument will certainly come and the result is largely inevitable. If love is the only criterion for marriage who are we to judge the love between a man and his wives?

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.

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.

We made a terrible mistake, and may not appreciate the full consequences for a generation. We allowed emotion to obscure logic and belittled anyone who appeared out of step with the current fashion. To marry without good reason in regrettable, to divorce good reasoning from public policy is a disgrace.

— Michael Coren is a writer and broadcaster.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/04/15/
michael-coren-on-canada-s-biggest-mistake-gay-marriage.aspx

(Long link, so copy and paste both lines if you want to see it.)

[Big Muddy rancher]

[aplusmnt]

I wonder if Canada will have an immigration problem with Homosexual Americans moving there to be wed?

[CattleArmy]

What totally amazes me is it appears that some on the boards are against commitment. I don't care if it's two men, two women, a man and a women to me it's worthwhile when two individuals want to make a commitment to one another. We live in a society where more and more commitment is becoming a thing of the past.

Some of you need to think less about the sex involved and more about the commitment issue. The right to health insurance benefits, the right to make medical decisions about someone you love, and the right of survirorship.

[jigs]

I don't think it is about the commitment, it is about right and wrong.

I am very committed to my male friends. they get in a fight, I am there to whoop ass, they need cash, I sc rape a few bucks together.
and if a guy is gay, so be it. just keep it behiond closed doors, we do not need to see it out in the open. and you do not have the same rights as a married man and woman.

marriage is a union between a man and a woman, it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and STEVE.


however, I do agree that there is too much of a trend these days with people splitting up. the effect of it on kids is terrible. my brother,recently divorced, has 3 girls under 10 yrs old. and I ride his butt al;l the time about the commitment he made BEFORE GOD, to love and honor till DEATH do they part.....his comment " it is just a broken contract"

well, for me, breaking a contract is no big deal, happens every day...but to break one with the Lord, who is in command of your ETERNITY, I think I will have a bit more worry about breaking it....

[kolanuraven]

[Sandhusker]

[Mrs.Greg]

Over the last few years,I'm not going to say my tolerance changed,I believe its been more my understanding.I'm not going to dispute what God does or doesn't say in the bible,thats another revelation I had. The bible can be interpeted anyway one wants it to be.

From little on,I've had a special bond with this young man,hes just a walking smile,kind to a fault. He volunteered at the lodge my homecare office is in. The way he treated the seniors was touching.I chose to get my groceries onThurs. evening because Anthony and his frend Carly worked and I loved being in the presence of those two bubbly friends.Anthony was raised strict catholic and is true to his belief{won't fight with anyone on here about belief,so don't bother}

Anthony graduated school last year,off to the city he went,last week I was told Anthony was beat up very badly...why? Because hes gay,this broke my heart. I wish and pray for this wonderful young man,he finds the love he deserves. If he wants the commitment of marriage,its there for him in our country. not in his church though.

I've been open to letting people in my life that take me out of my comfort zone{read shortgrasses Sunday message today}Because of this I've been lucky enough to get to know Anthony and one of my dearest friends is a Jehova Witness,that my life wouldn't be the same without.Brendas interpetation of the Bible is WAY different then mine but she gets to God that way so it works in her world,nothing wrong with that.Another friend I have is this kooky guy from Texas,I had a bitter taste in my mouth over a certain Texas boy and this Texan showed me they ain't all like that.Its all a matter of what we're open too.

And that was my Sunday morning message.

[CattleArmy]

[CattleArmy]

[Mrs.Greg]

[aplusmnt]