Canadians Losing Freedom of Speech?

[nbk]

I thought this thread was long dead, but good posts and points Allan and yes even Infanteer. Infanteer, you seem to have been posessed by a "making sense" fairy. I like how you are making sense now, and I shall promote you for it.  Try not to go mad with enthusiasm.

 

[muskrat89]

Well, as I said - I have mixed feelings on the issue - and posted points, some rhetorical, both pro and con.

So, Allen (or anyone) - let me ask you this (am sincerely asking, not being argumentative) - when it comes to your children (not sure if you have any, or their ages) - how are you raising them? Do you teach them that they can be gay if they want? When talking of dating, growing up, who likes who at school - is it totally either sex now? Or do you/we teach our children the "traditional" way, and then if they express interest in the same sex - cross that bridge when we come to it? I mean if society is evoving to the point where we truly accept alternate lifestyles - shouldn't we alter the way we teach our children accordingly?


No one has answered my question regarding bigamy. That should be OK, too - right?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

I don't know Muskrat, maybe you should ask the wife. :evil:  Bye Muskrat :akimbo:

 

[Brad Sallows]

Just to clarify: we don't elect politicians simply to make laws; we elect politicians to - preferably only as necessary - enshrine our values in law.  Just because we enshrine a value in law doesn't mean it's correct for all time, or even correct now.

The problem with "gay marriage" is that it isn't an equal rights issue.  It has been misdefined.  A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as a straight man, and vice versa for a woman.  Not exercising a right the way you might prefer is not the same as not having the right at all.  The problem is that the de facto redefinition of marriage sought is away from the basis of a (presumed) partnership for the purpose of natural childbearing and childrearing to one of adult companionship and sexual expression.  The fact that the institution of marriage has been weakened by reproductive technologies, no-child (by intention) couples, divorce, and the irresponsible behaviour of entertainment celebrities is not necessarily an excuse to further weaken the institution.  As I have written before (maybe somewhere else), if we wish to redefine marriage we had better first determine very carefully our intentions.  If it is a companionship/sexual issue, then we might as well broaden the definition right now to include every possible arrangement between consenting adults.  (Presumably we would not extend marriage to children below the age of consent, animals, or inanimate objects despite whatever yearning the prospective adult human spouse has.)

Again, the solution may be to reserve "marriage" as a religious institution to be decided by each established religion, and "civil union" as any other legally recognized union.  All marriages would be civil unions, but not all civil unions would be marriages.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Brad,
That was  excellent post and the perfect way to see the situation.   I said this before in another thread a long time ago to me marriage is not so much about love but the commitment to raise children for the DURATION of their childhood.  To me anything else is just about showing you own something.
BRUCE

 

[ZipperHead]

I see there is much preaching to the choir on both sides on this issue. Those that are for, will probably never be against. And those that are against..... well......

I do indeed have children. Two girls (4 and 5) and one on the way. I will never tell them that they "can be gay". If they ARE gay, I will live with that. Trying to "beat" it out of them is like cutting the tongue of someone who stutters. Useless and damaging.

I don't think marriage is about pumping out the maximum amount of offspring possible, though I think it was the intent of the church and the state in the past (for the church, more income, and for the state, more soldiers). I don't think that anybody should feel compelled to have children just because society says they should. Too many people marry too young, have children when they aren't ready to, all because society or their families expect them to. I married 1 month shy of my 29th birthday, and had my first child just before I turned 30. I cherish my children moreso because I waited until I was more prepared than if I was 19 (or even younger yet). I know people that had children when they were young that love them, and raised them well, but I think we can all relate a story of people who weren't ready or willing to perform the task.

My wife and I are raising our children to be tolerant of all people, if they are black, native, asian, gay, handicapped, and when they are ready to understand what "gay" is, gay. I had the misfortune of being raised in an era where it was common to refer to people by the stereotypes and derogatory slurs that were in abundance. Until I had friends that were native, asian, black, Polish, German, etc I thought there was nothing wrong with what I was "brainwashed" with by family, society, etc. But I learned eople are people.

Let me ask all of you opposed to same-sex marriages: how many same-sex couples, or gays for that matter, do you personally know? Not the brother of a cousins friend, but that you actually know, as a co-worker or acquaintance. Probably none. Much like those people that don't know any muslim people, but hate them regardless. Ignorance and hatred. Hitler did a great job with those tools.

As for bigamy, the only thing that makes it illegal is law. If you change the law, it would be legal. Does it make it right? To me, I don't know if I could handle multiple wives. One is plenty for me. Some people that are married have mistresses, with both the wife and mistress knowing of the other, and life goes on. I think that if all the parties involved are in agreeance, who am I to deny them. Whom does it hurt? You? Their children? Some people think that just because they don't agree with something, that it should be illegal. By that token,I think  smoking should be banned outright. Not in your car, not in your house. Nowhere. But that isn't going to happen, now is it? Smoking in PUBLIC places is being banned and rightfully so. However, if someone wants to sit in their own house, and poison themselves, their children, their pets, stain their clothes and their walls, giv'er.

I know this is an issue that polarizes people, because it is something that almost everybody is uncomfortable with. I don't personally know any gays, or same-sex couples. Why do I support it? Same reason I realized that apartheid in South Africa was wrong. I didn't know any blacks from South Africa, but I still thought it was wrong. Gay people aren't going to "convert" our children, or us. Let them live, and be happy, if that's what they want. I know that as soon as the first legally wed same-sex couple applies for divorce, there will be many cries from high horses that "they" were wrong to have ever being allowed to have the luxury of being married. People will always make mistakes. Let them have the opportunity to do so, without uninformed moralizing.

Al

 

[Infanteer]

Ok, this may be a bit long-winded, but I've been doing much philosophising of late, so bear with me (or not, it's your choice )

And since you seem to think anything we did in the past is ok, did you know that homosexuality was practiced and accepted in many ancient cultures? Spartan men used to take young boys as their lover/student. Since it was ok then.........

Actually, it appears that Spartan's were rather intolerant of homosexual relationships.   In Athens, it was very common and socially acceptable for an older man to adopt a younger one and act as a sort of mentor.   A sexual relationship was figured to be part of this mentorship in which the older man taught the younger one social grace.   Of course, women were a completely different story, being confined to the home and to their husbands or fathers.   It's quite shocking to read some of the more current translations of playwrights such as Aristophanes and to see how much fun was poked on homosexuality in quite blunt language.   Anyways, I am starting to sound like an expert here, it's just that Classics was my minor.
----

As for your points Muskrat:

- People talk about the threat to the "institution of marriage". I think that a 50% divorce rate is a far greater threat than the (relatively) few same-sex couples that want to get married.

I completely agree with you.   What I want to see come out of this if a Canadian definition of what marriage is, not what it isn't.   One of the reservations I have about the entire debate is the opening of the flood gates.   Okay, marriage isn't a man and a women; so what do we say about polygamists, how about people who want to marry their relatives?

I've seen no logical explanations to justify sticking to a heterosexual formula.   Before we go further, I want to see a logical formula that justifies what Canada will consider a marriage.

- I truly think what bothers most right-wing conservatives (like me) is the appearance of making this normal. Some posters have mentioned "throwing it in our face". Accepting something, or not treating people meanly or discriminating against them is not the same as condoning it. I think that line is getting more and more fragile. Look at "Will & Grace" - it practically glorifies homosexuality. I think that is a different (and wrong) message than what I am comfortable with.

What I figure is that straight-shooters like you and I are bothered by the erotic nature of it.   Could I care less if two men live together - no.   Could I care less if they care for each other deeply - no, although it is of a different nature, soldiers can attest to the strength of male bonding.

But I'm not too keen on guys swapping spit with eachother.   But is that the only form of eroticism I find morally questionable?   Some people like gangbangs and hardcore pornography, while others like shit-porn and fat chicks.   Some tight-laced prom queen may consider anything beyond missionary to be a sin.   I figure the line should be drawn at the point where eroticism goes beyond consensual and starts to be harmful (ieedophiles like kids, many rapists prefer the empowerment, some people screw animals) then it moves into the realm of deviance and we should deal with that.

As for the "throwing it in our face."   Some "metrosexuals" like to do nothing but go to bars and screw as many people as possible.   Flaming gays like to dress flamboyantly and express themselves.   I find both to be rather annoying.   "Will and Grace" is stupid, so is "Sex in the City".   But as Allan said, it is pop culture at best, and it appeals to me as much as the "gangsta" culture that is popular among teens.   For the most part, I consider all these "in your face" sub-cultures as part of the rudeness that is so prevalent among Western society, and to be honest none of it quite appeals to me.

For the most part, I would think most gay men and women are like most straight men and women; they just want to live their lives out dignified and quietly.   My belief in a free and open society commits me to let them have that, regardless of my personal thoughts of how they choose to live it.

- I do think long term same sex couples should have hospital visitation rights, etc.

Sure, I don't think anybody could argue against denying a human of their most important form of support when they are ill or hurt.

- Why does it have to be "marriage", which most people agree is more a religion- based concept? What about a civil union, common-law, or whatever.

I think for the most part we are speaking of state recognized unions.   As a nonreligious Canadian, I could care less about what the church wants to do regarding marriage.   However, I don't want the church meddling in what is a matter of the Canadian public sphere; the separation of Church and State works both ways.

I think the crux of the matter is that the government should give the same recognition to monogamous union, regardless of whether its is mixed or same sex.   That is the point of equality and justice we a seeking to establish here.   Although it may simply be cosmetic to refer to gay couples as "civil unions" and straight couples as "married", it is distasteful in the notion of an egalitarian society.   We wouldn't tolerate white people have "Citizen" on their passport and minorities having "Resident" on theirs, so it is clear that the phrases we use are considered as well.

- I recently heard a homosexual man call in to a radio station that I listen to - he said many gays could really care less about marriage, per se - but that it was a way to politicize their issue

Yeah, we were having a debate in one of my classes and this one guy, an obvious homosexual, thought that gay marriages were a bad thing because they made the gay movement "mainstream".   He figured marriage is an obsolete institution and then proposed that we should move to some sort of Platonic society where everyone screws anyone and everyone cares for the children.   Like some weirdo communists, there will always be those fringe people who aren't satisfied with the status quo, but I don't think they are representative of the whole.

- How can you say "yes" to a homosexual, but "no" to a bigamist?

That is an unfortunate byproduct of the PC culture we live in.   I can fully admit here that I don't really like the idea of homosexual relationships, I guess that is my right.   If people want to label me a bigot, they can go right on ahead.   But I figure as long as I am willing to respect another citizens choice in how they live their life, I've done nothing wrong, and those accusers can kiss my ass.

- Right or wrong, "traditional" values seem to be eroding. People are afraid, not necessarily of this issue, but what comes next. Where does one draw a line, and make a stand on their values? "You're sitting in a tub of water, and the temperature of the water is increased, one degree at a time - at what point, do you scream?" I think this is further demonstrated in that it almost seems that some kids are gay now, for the "cool" factor...

Well, like I said before, I think this is a relatively harmless issue.   The world will not end if we allow gays to be married in the eyes of the government, they are fully engaged in relationships now and will continue to be down the future.   For what comes next, I suppose we can deal with that when it comes up.   But for me, my "value" of respecting the private sphere as private is more important than the "value" of how I think other people should live.

As well, I would hesitate to use the term eroding of traditional values.   No society stays the same, culture is constantly running through an evolutionary process as it collectively experiences new things.   I would rather have an open society that can contemplate changes based on their merit to our values than one that is ossified and facing an "erosion".

- People say "its genetic" or "its not their choice"... they've isolated genes related to alcoholism - does that mean it's OK to be an alcoholic? That we shouldn't nudge, steer, counsel people towards a life of sobriety?

I think that is comparing apples and oranges.   Alcoholism is a self-destructive addiction, while homosexuality is a preference.   To quote a councillor acquaintance of mine "I've seen too many dead teenagers who hung themselves to think being gay is a choice."   Heck, my genes are oriented to women with big boobs and nice berthing hips, this is probably the predominant gene; does it mean it is the only (acceptable) one?

- I'm supposed to be more accepting of someone's lifestyle choices, but they can't be accepting of the fact that I don't want my 6 yr old daughter to watch 2 men sucking face in public?

I wouldn't want my young sister to have to watch a man and a woman suck face in public.   In our society, excessive shows of affection are generally frowned upon, no matter who does it.  

I guess, in my ramblings, here is what I think - both sides seem to try and pull us to one extreme or the other. I would like to think that many people are more in the middle, and that somewhere in the middle, a compromise can be found..

Well, here are my ramblings as well.   I agree with you entirely, extremes are trying to pull us to one side or the other.   However, I think there is a happy medium to be found between the flaming gays that like to march down the street on parade and the redneck who thinks they should all be shot.   It all goes back to that concept of "live your life quietly and respect the privacy of others" (Bossi, do you have a quote that fits that?).  
If we can do that, I think the issue will disappear in the long run.

Here is a rambling of my own though, related to the current political "hot-button" nature of the issue.   My local MP, a Conservative running for re-election, openly opposes gay marriages and puts it right on his brochures.   I challenged some of his supporters on the issue with most of the ideas we've seen here.   Basically I asked, "Why should we not allow them to marry?"   Low and behold, I never got a satisfactory answer.   Someone brought up the Bible, and quickly ended that line of thought when I said that idea was no better than Imams who find ways to restrict the rights of people through their interpretations of the Koran.

All in all, these rabid social "regressives" really take the "eye off the ball" for the Conservative Party.   I consider myself politically conservative, especially when dealing with fiscal matters and the structure of government.   But, conservatism means small government, which is out of the private sphere.   One of the key social differences between the US and Canada is that Americans live in a much more religious society for the most part, where as Canadians don't.   Whereas Stockwell Day turned off many voters with his religious overtones, a Republican Candidate almost requires the support of the Christian Coalition lobby in the States to win the nomination for the party.   Going on what I see as an advantage, I would really like to see Steven Harper clean out the party of these yahoo's and concentrate on what we need, a party dedicated to maintaining a strong and accountable government that can run things properly.

 

[ZipperHead]

Infanteer, you are a learned man. I wish that there were more people like you here on this forum who could give reasonable and intelligent points to a debate, than the standard "that sucks, and I hate it". I can see why your "demotion" rate is so high: you say what you want, damn what others say. Good for you. There seems to be too much mindless backpatting and agreeing for the sake of fitting in. People say that I argue for the sake of arguing. I only argue when I disagree. Sounds like a reasonable thing to do. I suppose that's what happens when you are issued with a brain. I don't want to be a sheep, I only want to be with a sheep  (that's a whole other topic....... though it has been alluded to in some of the posts in this thread)

Take care (I'll "promote" you to offset all the demotions you are sure to receive from the dissenters...  >)

Al

 

[Infanteer]

Well, it took me a while to type my last response and I missed out on the conversation.

Mr Sallows, good post as usual.   You argument highlights the need to approach this matter carefully and rationally, because it is an important social institution.

Just to clarify: we don't elect politicians simply to make laws; we elect politicians to - preferably only as necessary - enshrine our values in law.   Just because we enshrine a value in law doesn't mean it's correct for all time, or even correct now.

You're absolutely correct.   What are laws except the codification of our values of right and wrong?   And that is how I've justified this to myself.   The value of respecting the sanctity of the private sphere is a pretty important value to me, and if status is confirmed by the state upon people for the way they orient their living arrangement (ie family), I feel it should be indiscriminate in its nature.

If it is a companionship/sexual issue, then we might as well broaden the definition right now to include every possible arrangement between consenting adults.   (Presumably we would not extend marriage to children below the age of consent, animals, or inanimate objects despite whatever yearning the prospective adult human spouse has.)

But isn't it just that.   If it was based on something else, we would have to limit many conventional marriages.   Bruce believes raising a child to be important.    My mother is married to man and they have a very strong relationship; both approaching 50, they have no desire to raise children.   Obviously, reproduction cannot be a defining factor of a marriage, as I think it would be completely unjust to forbid my Mother and her spouse to be married.

Like I said earlier, I hope we (Canadians) can gain from this debate and come up with a definition of what marriage is as opposed to what it isn't.


Allan, you said sides are pretty much set in their opinions on the matter, but I would have to disagree.   I used to be pretty intolerant of the whole idea; thought on the matter combined with a vigorous course on the theory of justice at school has caused me to reverse my opinion.   My old view just doesn't make sense to me anymore.   An even more surprising about face was my father.   Also intolerant, he runs a large firm that operates throughout North America.   He recently hired a very capable manager to run his operations in the United States, based out of Houston.   Low and behold, upon finishing his interview with a most Texan of Texans (Cowboy boots, you get the idea) the man said "I want to come out and be honest with you, I'm gay and I've been living with my partner for 20 years."   Caught off guard, my father now laughs about that, because he figures that if he knew that before meeting the guy, he might not of hired a most capable executive.

I figure if a man's opinion can be changed from the heart of Texas, anything is possible with thoughtful debate....

 

[Infanteer]

No worries about the honest debate here.  People obviously feel very deeply about the matter, and it is better to get our thoughts out and put them to the litmus test of our real values than to let them sit unchallenged.  I know that even if Bruce and Muskrat and Brad all disagree with me, they really do love me (in a non-gay way)  :dontpanic:.

 

[muskrat89]

I wish that there were more people like you here on this forum who could give reasonable and intelligent points to a debate, than the standard "that sucks, and I hate it"

 

Geez - now I'm hurt   

As I said, I'm floating around the middle somewhere. Both sides make good points. I agree with points made by Infanteer, AL, and Mr. Sallows. Generally, I'm not a fence sitter, but on this issue, I'm a little more centrist, than I am on many social issues. AL - it seems we are raising our children in exactly the same way.....