AllardIn question 3, the argument presented by Mr. Briggs is that marriage has very little to do with love.
It is true that a marriage has little to nothing to do with love. Marriage is mainly an economic contract. For a very long time, marriages were arranged for economic or political reason. Rarely in the past was marriage ever about love or even growing families.
Why shouldn’t gay be able to adopt? If heterosexual were so great at growing kids there would be no gays, since until recently parents were only heterosexual couples. It is not important to have a father and a mother, what is important is to have good parents that are able to educate their children, to love them and nurture them.
I really don’t understand your claim that the State will claim custody of children. There are enough orphans and abandoned children and not enough families are that are available to adopt them. Also, should we leave children in homes where they are abused, beaten, neglected or mistreated? I admit that social services might not be perfect, but they don’t go in houses where children are correctly treated or taken care of.
Freedom of speech is covered in Canada. What is criminalized is hate speech, or speech that would incite violence against a group of people. People are free to express their opinion, to say that they are oppose to gay marriage and many people do express themselves against gay marriage. Though, in Canada you have to be careful not to lie/defame about someone. For example, a guy like Rush Limbaugh who accused Sandra Fluke of being a slut, or prostitute, could have been sued for what he said, this is a lie and defamation.
Freedom and liberty have their limits, and those limits are at the level of the individual. It means what effect on your physical person. What I find interesting with people against SSM is that they always complain that others infringe on their rights, but they have no problem forcing their point of view onto others. The difference with SSM is that your point of view prevents them from doing something that you give yourself the right to do. You would have a point if the government was forcing you to get gay married, or again, was forcing the church to perform SSM. You have never provided a single example in what manner any of your individual right were violated by having the government recognizing it.
I dispute that historically marriages were “economic contracts”, or that they were mainly used as bargaining chips. Of course, they sometimes were; but always? Nay. Yet even if they always were, this is not an argument for or against SSM. As we agreed in Part I, what people do or don’t does not make what is right.
Allard: “If heterosexuals were so great at growing kids there would be no gays, since until recently parents were only heterosexual couples.” If your assertion here is correct, it only means married people have to do a better job, a plea which I support. But when you say, “It is not important to have a father and a mother”, I disagree vehemently. Thousands of years of experience argues oppositely. “Why shouldn’t gay be able to adopt?” If we prove that homosexual behavior is immoral and that SSM is wrong then these just are reasons against adoption.
“Hate” speech in Canada, as we saw in Part I, is whatever a Human Rights Commission says it is. “Violence” is a relative term and appears to include hurt feelings. Canadian HRCs do not have a glittering record defending freedom. But I’m with you in not supporting Limbaugh calling Fluke the “s” word. Better is to call her a publicly promiscuous pampered spoiled brat.
Allard: “you would have a point if the government was forcing you to get gay married…” Whoever claimed this? What I say is that I don’t want the government forcing me to say what marriage isn’t. Thought on tolerance: my best guess is that to appear truly tolerant an individual will soon either have to admit having a homosexual “experience” or at least allow that he would if the opportunity presented itself. Give this ten years.
In question 4, Mr. Briggs asked if we, those that support SSM, understand what marriage is.
What is interesting about same sex marriage is that those who are against it don’t have to bless it, don’t have to endorse it, they don’t even have to see it as marriage. I can’t imagine a situation in an everyday life where you would treat someone differently because they are married; maybe a nurse in a hospital who would have to grant access to the room of a life partner. But what does it change to a hospital employee who is by the bedside of a person as long as they are legally there.
No Church is being asked to perform SSM; this would be an infringement on religious belief. And nothing is asked of anyone except the government to recognize the same right to same sex couples than usual couples, i.e. to become an economic unit, mainly for tax purposes, or sometimes for adoption if they qualify. There are single parents that adopt children. We also have to consider the large amount of women, and sometimes males, who are stuck with kids that the father or sometimes mother didnâ€™t want.
As I have demonstrated earlier, marriage is a creation of the state (societies in any form constitute a state). For a long time, the reason for marriage was to transmit the ownership right a father had of his daughter to another man. Back then, women were the property of male, and still are in many old countries. Why are there so many divorces? It is because women are becoming their own person, instead of a commodity for males.
Allard: “those who are against [SSM] don’t have to bless it, don’t have to endorse it, they don’t even have to see it as marriage.” Rot. The opposite is true. You do have to bless it, you do have to endorse it, you do have to say it is marriage.
How many readers out there who understand the actual definition of marriage—be honest, now—defend it publicly? What happened to Chick-fil-A was no aberration and occurs on smaller scales increasingly. Yours truly has lost jobs after clients discovered his opinion on this subject which, I need hardly add, have nothing to do with his professional competence. If you find yourself thinking, “Good!” about this, then your thoughts are proof of everything I claimed.
And what is the result of any well-known person, even royalty (Spain), voicing opposition? You know the answer. Few want to be screamed at hysterically or risk losing their livelihoods. Better to keep your mouth shut (but don’t worry, everybody’s doing it).
What I and other freedom-loving people object to is the government and its lickspittle sycophants forcing us to go along with all things “pride.” Disagree with SSM and say so publicly? Then off to reeducation camp—i.e. sensitivity training—for you, you homophobe! After Anthony Kennedy’s illogical exercise the only freedom left is the freedom to agree, you bigot!
The so-called Department of Justice told its obedient employees in re homosexual pleasures “DON’T judge or remain silent. Silence will be interpreted as disapproval.” Silence is not allowed. Same kind of attitude—not uncoincidentally?—was found in the Soviet Union. Support or pay the price.
Allard is right to say that churches now are not “required” (who thinks before using this word?) to perform SSMs. But they will be. My prediction is that any place of worship that in addition to providing the sacrament or ceremony of marriage also takes care of the governmental paperwork will be required to perform SSMs. There is already a big push to remove tax-exempt status from places of worship, a strategy which will be successful here and there. All mainline protesting Christians (Methodists, Episcopalians, etc.) will acquiesce in time. Most Baptists will stay strong, as will evangelicals. Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and Catholics will hold fast.
Whoever does not act like a lady or gentleman in responding will be banned.