Christian Conservative Christian "Independent"

I'm an evangelical Christian, member of the CPC, but presently & unjustly exiled to wander the political wilderness.
All opinions expressed here are solely my own.

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Ted Morton on SSM

Alberta PC leadership hopeful Ted Morton had a piece published in the Calgary Herald the other week, clarifying his views on SSM. He hit the nail on the head, if you ask me.

He correctly identifies that there is a bigger issue here... a "hidden agenda", if you will. It is not good enough that SSM is now legal... certain individuals want to keep pushing until all voices of descent are silenced.

An excerpt:
"As we saw this past week, anyone who disagrees with this agenda will be denounced as bigoted and “homophobic.” The usual suspects will stage a demonstration to engage in hysterical and unsubstantiated overstatements — e.g. “If Bill 208 passes, it will be open season on gays.” This panic mongering is then echoed by their media buddies like Lakritz. And if this doesn’t silence the opposition, then it’s off to the courts and human rights commissions, where unelected judges and bureaucrats will decide these issues for us. Is this where Albertans want to go?

Albertans are a tolerant people. We agree to disagree on many issues, especially ones affecting people’s private personal lives. Alberta is a live-and-let-live society, and Bill 208 is intended to keep it that way. Tolerance is a two-way street. Bill 208 will ensure that the traffic keeps moving in both directions."
The blog is just one of those many, many voices. Let's hear it for Ted Morton! May Bill 208 pass in Alberta.

h/t to "Mainstream Canadians".

posted by Christian Conservative @ 7:54 p.m.  

39 Comments:

  • At Wed Sep 20, 11:21:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Emilio said…

    Thanks for referring my blog. I'm not a huge Christian (god knows my vices are women and alcohol) but gay lobbyist extremists really piss me off and pushing a gay agenda onto Canadians really gets my blood boiling. I doubt Harper's bill this fall will win but at least he can stop whats going on in BC before everyone is forced into "queer studies" in public schools and churches are prosecuted for speaking from the bible on the subject.

     

  • At Thu Sep 21, 07:55:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    From the article:

    "Tell this to parents in British Columbia, where the government has just contracted with a gay teacher and his partner to rewrite the entire B.C. curriculum to make it inclusive of positive portrayals of “gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered” culture. The contract specifically states that “opting out” is not an option."

    This says it all. He wants parents to be able to opt their kids out of being shown positive portrayals of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people at school, which will barely counter-balance the negative portrayal shown by their parents and churches, and we're supposed to take anything else he says seriously? Be against gay marriage, fine (although there is no good, non-religious reason to be against it that I've ever been made aware of), but those who would try to fight against equality and positive portayals of LGBT people are homophobes and no amount of protestations to the contrary are going to be convincing to the rest of us. Homophobia needs to be countered at school, just like racism does, because it is still so prevalent in society.

    And as far as Bill 208 goes, Canada is one of five progressive countries in the world on the issue of gay marriage, why would we want to change that? Let's move forward on issues like this one, not backwards. If the CPC wants us "liberals" to see them as a party worth voting for they'd better give us some good reasons to, and any voting for Bill 208 is going to be just the opposite for most of us.

     

  • At Thu Sep 21, 08:28:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    Two points Drew.

    1) The CPC and Alberta Tories are two seperate and distinct entities... we're talking about Alberta provincal Bill 208 here, not a federal one.

    2) Based on your comment, do you then consider me a homophobe?

     

  • At Thu Sep 21, 08:56:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "1) The CPC and Alberta Tories are two seperate and distinct entities... we're talking about Alberta provincal Bill 208 here, not a federal one."

    Ah, I figured this was the one that the CPC is supposed to be voting on this fall (shows how much I follow politics) so just remember my comments when that bill comes up. :)

    "2) Based on your comment, do you then consider me a homophobe?"

    It depends on whether or not you'd be against education teaching equality and positive portrayals of fellow human beings who are not doing anything to harm anyone. Does the shoe fit there? Anyway, if one isn't a part of the solution they're a part of the problem, I suppose. :)

     

  • At Thu Sep 21, 10:11:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Canadian Abroad said…

    I don't see any harm in showing our kids that LGBT folks are just like them.
    How many hours of diversity studies are we talking here anyways? Probably just a few.

    I think this irrational fear by the anti-gay crowd comes from the fact that they think one can make someone gay. That's not how it works. and you can't "un-gay" a person either.

    I do agree that chuches should be able to refuse to rent out their rooms to gay marriages.
    Anybody who wants to hold their SSM at a hostile place is a bit wacko anyways...

     

  • At Thu Sep 21, 11:17:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Emilio said…

    I'm more afraid of people being forced into believing being gay is normal. Its not. Its unnatural. And schools shouldn't be teaching that they are. It seems like we are trying to promote gay lifestyles by teaching them in classrooms. We should simply teach kids that there are gays, lesbians and transexuals in society and we should have a live and let live policy. Thats what I learned. But it should end there and we don't need "queer" studies. Thats code for "lets show kids being gay is cool". I'm for Ted Morton.

     

  • At Thu Sep 21, 01:01:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "He wants parents to be able to opt their kids out of being shown positive portrayals of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people at school, which will barely counter-balance the negative portrayal shown by their parents and churches"

    Any "balance" that these poor brainwashed church kids might need in the homosexual debate is already amply provided by the MSM, hollywood, and acedemia. Let's be honest here, the whole SSM debate was not even openly discussed in the publi forum, the debate presented in the media was completley one sided, none of SSM's critics positions were ever explained reationally, they were just dismissed out of hand as bigots. We're at a point where no criticism of homosexuality is allowed.

    I'm not sure why our kids need a class to explain to them why homosexuals are so great, should we have a class about the vast contributions to society that fat people have made? or maybe schizophrenics? This curriculum does not promote any real discussion,since it does not allow for any criticism. Its indoctrination, pure and simple.

     

  • At Thu Sep 21, 02:01:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "I'm more afraid of people being forced into believing being gay is normal. Its not. Its unnatural."

    I'm sorry but if it happens in nature (as it does, humans are a part of nature, and it happens among animals as well) then it is, by definition, "natural." Care to try again?

     

  • At Thu Sep 21, 09:58:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    well I'm not really interested in continueing this arguement but your logic is somewhat annoying.

    "I'm sorry but if it happens in nature (as it does, humans are a part of nature, and it happens among animals as well) then it is, by definition, "natural." Care to try again?"

    Some animals eat their young, kill their rivals, abandon their children, and are sexually permiscuous. It all happens in nature, so its all natural. But the extension of your arguement is that if it happens in nature than it is right. Occurance in nature doesn't make something right.

    As for what is "normal", if 90-96% of a population is heterosexual, then its fair to call homosexuality abnormal.

    A cursory knowledge of anatomy demonstrates what should be a glarringly obvious purpose for the sexes.

     

  • At Thu Sep 21, 10:59:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    Drew, if you want to talk about what's "natural", we could always discuss Romans 1:26-27...

    "Care to try again?" ;-)

    And equating mankind with mere animals is foolishness... you know better than that.

     

  • At Fri Sep 22, 07:10:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Don't think I was saying that just because something is natural it is a good idea (and yes humans are technically animals even if we are more evolved or advanced animals, although looking at our species I'd even question that). I was simply pointing out that Emil Vargas was wrong to call it unnatural. As far as normal goes, being left handed could be considered abnormal. Heck, if we're going by percentages being white could be considered abnormal. Natural, normal, traditional, all things I'm not particularly concerned with. What I am concerned with is whether something obviously harms other people against their will or not, and while homosexuality hasn't been proven to harm people any more than heterosexuality does (the only aspect I could think of that might be physically harmful is possibly anal sex and lots of straight people do that, plus anal sex is not a defining characteristic of being gay anyway as lots of homosexuals, particularly female but male as well, don't participate in said practice) promoting intolerance and trying to suppress positive portrayals of gays has been demonstrated to harm people.

     

  • At Fri Sep 22, 07:12:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Oh, and Romans 1 is kind of irrelevant to this discussion for me as I don't mix religion and politics except perhaps when religion suggests showing love and grace.

     

  • At Fri Sep 22, 03:07:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Emilio said…

    Drew you're just showing your extremist gay activist colours. There are men and women for a reason. We reproduce to keep the species going. That is why we have opposite sexes. But saying being gay is natural just because in nature there might be a few odd animals doesn't make it so. We are talking about a fundamental male and female characterisitc here, not something like being left handed. I don't know the hormone numbers but I'm pretty sure homsexuals are lacking in Testosterone as males or Estrogen as females. It could be a hypothalamus problem, I don't know. But its not natural just like hyperthyroidism isn't. Its a defect caused by who knows what. We don't need to publicly condemn homsexuals but they also shouldn't be changing our belief systems to suit their partisan interests when they represent 5% of the population at most. I think your problem is you are anti-religion and anti-anyone who disagrees with you on this subject. You think your opinion is supreme and anyone disagreeing with you is intolerant. I've seen this before. Myabe we should legalize people who want to marry their dog too? Would that make you happy. We can't deny them that right. Or Polygamists. Its the Charter stupid! Why don't you go protest for them.

     

  • At Fri Sep 22, 03:46:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "We don't need to publicly condemn homsexuals but they also shouldn't be changing our belief systems to suit their partisan interests when they represent 5% of the population at most."

    What belief system? The one that condemns homosexuals as evil, sinful or inferior because they have a different attraction than we have? I'm not talking about belief systems here, I'm talking about treating fellow human beings with dignity, love and respect.

    "I think your problem is you are anti-religion and anti-anyone who disagrees with you on this subject."

    I am definitely anti-religion, but I'm not anti-people-who-disagree as long as they can give a good, non-religious reason for their views since religion doesn't belong in politics.

    "Myabe we should legalize people who want to marry their dog too? Would that make you happy."

    Happy? It wouldn't really make a difference to me one way or another. Marriage is nothing more than a legal contract run by the government, at least it is as long as the government stays involved in it, so it can be between any two or more people or things that the government says it's between.

    "Or Polygamists."

    Definitely, it would be about time. I've long stated that polygamy should be legal, right here on this blog if I'm not mistaken.

     

  • At Fri Sep 22, 04:05:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Drew,
    Oh, and Romans 1 is kind of irrelevant to this discussion for me as I don't mix religion and politics except perhaps when religion suggests showing love and grace.

    Translation: I don't believe in the Bible unless it agrees with my position.

    Then why believe in the Bible?

    Emil, Ryan, SOG

    ...gay is not normal...irrational fear...brainwashed church kids...etc. etc.

    Queer studies is a red herring. The question is "why are special interest groups allowed to push an agenda in the public school system?" If queers are allowed to have their views taught in the public school system why are other groups not allowed?

     

  • At Fri Sep 22, 05:33:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "Translation: I don't believe in the Bible unless it agrees with my position.

    Then why believe in the Bible?"

    I was talking about religion, not just the Bible (the Bible is only one of many religious books). My view on the Bible is that it is not inerrant by a long shot and is full of errors and contradictions if interpretted literally (but that it was never meant to be taken literally so that's ok), so why would I believe it when it doesn't agree with something I believe?

    "If queers are allowed to have their views taught in the public school system why are other groups not allowed?"

    Many other groups are (or at least have been, as many don't have to be as much anymore). Those who were (are) for the equality of females with males were allowed. Those who were (are) for the equality of non-white people with white people were allowed. Those who believed that one religion shouldn't be allowed to be given priority over other religions were (are) allowed. Now it's another group who is marginalized and looked down on (and often treated with violence, both physical and emotional) by much of society who is being given a chance at equality, as will other groups in the future I'm sure, so why would we begrudge them this opportunity? Can anybody here give a good, non-religious reason why we shouldn't be trying to teach the next generation not to follow in the footsteps of bigotry that their parents walked in just like we have for previous issues?

    But to be fair, what other group are you refering to here that you'd like to give a platform for equality to in schools?

     

  • At Fri Sep 22, 05:37:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "Can anybody here give a good, non-religious reason why we shouldn't be trying to teach the next generation not to follow in the footsteps of bigotry that their parents walked in just like we have for previous issues?"

    And even if one wants to argue it from a religious perspective (which they shouldn't if it is a political argument), my "religion" (although I should probably say faith) says that homosexuals should be allowed equality and be allowed to marry as long as straight people are allowed to. Why should your religion be given priority in politics over mine?

     

  • At Fri Sep 22, 08:13:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "It wouldn't really make a difference to me one way or another. Marriage is nothing more than a legal contract run by the government"

    Those who defend SSM the most care the least about marriage.

    "What I am concerned with is whether something obviously harms other people against their will or not, and while homosexuality hasn't been proven to harm people any more than heterosexuality does"

    First of all there are many emotional and psychological wounds that seem to be precusors to homosexual behaivour. I'm not saying there is a formulaic pattern but certianly we can recognize that various environmental variables factor into homosexuality. But as for homosexuality hurting those who practice it, yes there have been many studies that link homosexuality with depression, drug abuse and self-destructive behaviour. Bug-chasers are a prime example. Certain homosexual men activley seek out HIV infected partners to engage in unprotected sex for the purpose of contracting the desease.

    Furthermore I reject your assertion that "if you're not hurting anyone than its A-OK" This is a common attitude today and it couldn't be more wrong.

    I just want to create a hypothetical situation for you. (One that sadly I believe we will see within our lifetimes) And you tell me whether its right or wrong.

    With the perfection of computer generated imaging we will soon be able to create photo-realistic "actors" for movies and video games. Imagine that some perverse individual out there uses this technology to cerate child pornography. Pedophiles would be able to endugle their "sexualitly" after all they are "born that way" and they're not "hurting anyone". So you tell me, would that be alright? Would that be good for society?

    As for the whole "queer studies" thing. If something is inalienabley right then you don't need a class for it. Kids don't need to learn to respect and care about homosexuals, they need to learn to respect and care about all people becasue they are people regaurdless of where we approve of their behaviour, this is truly tolerant and inclusive. The purpose of this class has nothing to do with teaching tolerance and everything to do with normalizing homosexual behaviour.

     

  • At Fri Sep 22, 10:13:00 p.m. EDT, Blogger Canadian Abroad said…

    ryan,

    Do you know why gay people are depressed? It's because haters like you make us feel like shit for being the way we are.

    Yeah, and thanks again for bringing up pedophelia in a post about SSM. You're a real treat!

     

  • At Fri Sep 22, 10:31:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "Those who defend SSM the most care the least about marriage."

    I sincerely doubt that that's true.

    "First of all there are many emotional and psychological wounds that seem to be precusors to homosexual behaivour."

    From what I've read this isn't true at all, but whatever the cause might be, I'm again more concerned with people and their feelings than I am with what some might think to be sinful behaviour.

    "But as for homosexuality hurting those who practice it, yes there have been many studies that link homosexuality with depression, drug abuse and self-destructive behaviour."

    Which is very possibly (and I'd suggest most likely) caused by society's intolerance towards them. Not to mention the fact that many straight people have exactly the same problems.

    "Bug-chasers are a prime example. Certain homosexual men activley seek out HIV infected partners to engage in unprotected sex for the purpose of contracting the desease."

    I really don't know the psychology driving this behaviour, and neither do you. One thing we can be fairly certain of is that being gay doesn't cause this behaviour otherwise most homosexuals would do so, would they not?

    "Furthermore I reject your assertion that "if you're not hurting anyone than its A-OK" This is a common attitude today and it couldn't be more wrong."

    And your proof that that it couldn't be more wrong is what exactly? What basis are you suggesting we should base our behaviour and legal system on exactly?

    "I just want to create a hypothetical situation for you. (One that sadly I believe we will see within our lifetimes) And you tell me whether its right or wrong.

    With the perfection of computer generated imaging we will soon be able to create photo-realistic "actors" for movies and video games. Imagine that some perverse individual out there uses this technology to cerate child pornography. Pedophiles would be able to endugle their "sexualitly" after all they are "born that way" and they're not "hurting anyone". So you tell me, would that be alright? Would that be good for society?"

    First of all, I didn't say that homosexuals were or weren't born that way, but you tell me, would that be good for society? If it actually kept pedophiles from turning into child molesters it might be the best thing, if not then probably not. Since we don't have a way to test it out at this point I don't think either of us can answer that question with any certainty, only opinion.

    Oh, and real classy comparing homosexuality, which generally involves consentual sex, with child abuse, which doesn't.

    "As for the whole "queer studies" thing. If something is inalienabley right then you don't need a class for it."

    Apparently we do.

    "Kids don't need to learn to respect and care about homosexuals, they need to learn to respect and care about all people becasue they are people regaurdless of where we approve of their behaviour, this is truly tolerant and inclusive."

    That would be nice, but unfortunately most of us have too much baggage from our upbringing to see past the homosexuality to the person behind our preconceptions, just like our ancestors did with women and black people in times past.

    "The purpose of this class has nothing to do with teaching tolerance and everything to do with normalizing homosexual behaviour."

    Even if that were the case I don't see how that would be a bad thing. "Normalizing" the sexuality of a large population of people when this sexuality hasn't been proven to harm others sounds like a good thing to me, particularly if it keeps future Matthew Shepherds from being murdered and Marc Halls from being discriminated against for who they fall in love with.

    But let's get down to the bottom of this issue. On what basis do you think we should be creating our laws and basing our behaviour?

     

  • At Fri Sep 22, 10:48:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Hey drew,

    But to be fair, what other group are you refering to here that you'd like to give a platform for equality to in schools?

    I do not believe that any special interest group should be allowed to use the public school curriculum as a vehicle to spread their philosophy. My understanding is that "queer studies" is an opportunity to promote a particular sub-culture via the public purse, very different from simply teaching anti-discrimination or Charter Rights.

    Again, to me this is not a gay rights issue, this is about special interest groups pushing their agenda on the public school system.

    Ryan,

    As for the whole "queer studies" thing. If something is inalienabley right then you don't need a class for it.

    Yea, you do. Every child (and adult) needs to be taught right from wrong. But there is a difference between being taught "do no evil" and "you are bad if you think this way."

     

  • At Fri Sep 22, 11:59:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Drew:

    "First of all there are many emotional and psychological wounds that seem to be precusors to homosexual behaivour."

    "From what I've read this isn't true at all"

    From Dr. Dean Hamer, the “gay gene” researcher, and himself a gay man:
    “Genes are hardware...the data of life’s experiences are processed through the sexual software into the circuits of identity. I suspect the sexual software is a mixture of both genes and environment, in much the same way the software of a computer is a mixture of what’s installed at the factory and what’s added by the user.”
    – P. Copeland and D. Hamer (1994) The Science of Desire (New York: Simon and Schuster).

    From psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover, M.D.:
    “Like all complex behavioral and mental states, homosexuality is...neither exclusively biological nor exclusively psychological, but results from an as-yet-difficult-to-quantitate mixture of genetic factors, intrauterine influences...postnatal environment (such as parent, sibling and cultural behavior), and a complex series of repeatedly reinforced choices occurring at critical phases of development.”
    – J. Satinover, M.D., Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (1996) (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books).

    When “gay gene” researcher Dr. Dean Hamer was asked if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology, he replied:
    “Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors...not negate the psychosocial factors.”
    – “New Evidence of a ‘Gay Gene’,” by Anastasia Toufexis, Time, November 13, 1995, p. 95.

    From sociologist Steven Goldberg, Ph.D.:
    “Virtually all of the evidence argues against there being a determinative physiological causal factor and I know of no researcher who believes that such a determinative factor exists...such factors play a predisposing, not a determinative role...I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors.”

    The American Psychological Association says:
    “Various theories have proposed differing sources for sexual orientation...However, many scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors.”
    – From the A.P.A.’s booklet, “Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality.”

    The national organization P-FLAG (“Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays”) offers a booklet prepared with the assistance of Dr. Clinton Anderson of the American Psychological Association. Titled, “Why Ask Why? Addressing the Research on Homosexuality and Biology,” the pamphlet says:
    “To date, no researcher has claimed that genes can determine sexual orientation. At best, researchers believe that there may be a genetic component. No human behavior, let alone sexual behavior, has been connected to genetic markers to date ... sexuality, like every other behavior, is undoubtedly influenced by both biological and societal factors.”

    Genetics play a play a role in identifying an individual predisposition toward homosexulaity, the rest is environmental and pscyhological.

     

  • At Sat Sep 23, 12:17:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "Do you know why gay people are depressed? It's because haters like you make us feel like shit for being the way we are"

    First of all I am not a "hater" I don't hate gay people at all. All I wanted to do was have an open discussion, and I thought this might be a place to do it. Maybe I was wrong, and maybe I came off as mean in my posts, but that is not my intention. Much of our intent can be lost in the writen word, especially in this type of medium.

    I really think that we need to love our neighbors as ourselves, and I try to live my life that way. But many seem to think that to love your neighbor means legitimizing their actions and I just don't believe that is true. You know it sucks, but we've all sinned and fallen short. Some people have a harder row to hoe in life than others, and that sucks, but we can't just make wrong right.

    I'm sorry if I've hurt anyone in my posts, my intent was only to spur thought and discussion.

     

  • At Sat Sep 23, 07:33:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "Genetics play a play a role in identifying an individual predisposition toward homosexulaity, the rest is environmental and pscyhological."

    I'm not saying this isn't the case. What I'm saying is that I doubt it is "emotional and psychological wounds that seem to be precusors to homosexual behaivour.[sic]"

     

  • At Sat Sep 23, 07:38:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "I do not believe that any special interest group should be allowed to use the public school curriculum as a vehicle to spread their philosophy."

    Well either some people in the government or the school board(s) (I honestly don't know which, maybe both) disagree with you or else you might be wrong when you say, "this is not a gay rights issue, this is about special interest groups pushing their agenda on the public school system." Do you have any proof that this is the case? I haven't seen the curriculum so I can't know with certainty one way or the other, have you seen it?

     

  • At Sat Sep 23, 07:40:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I asked this question previously and didn't get an answer: In order to get to the bottom of this issue, on what basis do you think we should be creating our laws and basing our behaviour?

     

  • At Sat Sep 23, 09:03:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Drew,

    Well either some people in the government or the school board(s) (I honestly don't know which, maybe both) disagree with you...


    VANCOUVER, June 1, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A homosexual teacher and his same-sex partner who launched a human rights complaint with the British Columbia government have settled with the Government of British Columbia. According to the homosexual activist who launched a human rights suit, homosexual issues will soon be a mandatory part of school curricula taught in classrooms throughout the province, without the ability of students or parents to opt out.


    This is not the curriculum, it hasn't been written yet, but it is an indication of how much control the teacher and his partner want to have over the education system. "Homosexual issues" is a pretty vague term. Can you define what it means? Why are only homosexual issues being targeted? Why not black issues, Muslim issues, or aboriginal issues? Why not a general course on minority issues? Why are gays being singled out for special treatment and everyone else excluded? Why is the course mandatory? What will happen to children who do not take the course? Will they be denied their grades because they disagree with the material taught? No other group wields this kind of power why does the gay community get to? What makes them special?

    I asked this question previously and didn't get an answer: In order to get to the bottom of this issue, on what basis do you think we should be creating our laws and basing our behaviour?

    If you asked this of me I'm sorry I missed it. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a good place to start. I'll agree that the document is not perfect but it is a good foundation for the creation of laws. It has a general "do no evil" theme running through it. It does not explicitly discriminate against anyone. I wish some of the language had been tightened up but people aren't perfect. I would also like to have seen some protection of the person and state against special interests (since we're on the topic) and a more explicit separation of church and state but lawmakers didn't think of it back then.

     

  • At Sat Sep 23, 04:27:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "This is not the curriculum, it hasn't been written yet, but it is an indication of how much control the teacher and his partner want to have over the education system. "Homosexual issues" is a pretty vague term. Can you define what it means?"

    Issues relating to homosexuality perhaps? That's about as much as I could say at this point, but I doubt it's going to be teaching people how to turn gay (as if one could anyway). Out of curiousity, what is it specifically that you're worried it's going to be teaching?

    "Why are only homosexual issues being targeted? Why not black issues, Muslim issues, or aboriginal issues? Why not a general course on minority issues?"

    I don't know what school you went to, but in my high school we did have black issues, woman's issues, etc. Islam is a religion which one chooses (well, in the west anyway), whereas gender, race and sexual preference are not, but we did have religious studies so you must have gone to the wrong school.

    "Why is the course mandatory?"

    Probably because it's necessary if we're going to reduce the bigotry that is so common towards homosexuals today. If racism and sexism were as prevalent as homophobia still is in the west we might have to make courses on these issues mandatory too.

    "What will happen to children who do not take the course?"

    Many of them will grow up to continue the cycle of bigotry that their ancestors before them began, and others will be exposed to basic logic outside of this class and realize that those who are against this idea are wrong just like I did (I grew up a fundamentalist Christian who over time came to realize that much of what I grew up believing was wrong).

    "What will happen to children who do not take the course? Will they be denied their grades because they disagree with the material taught? No other group wields this kind of power why does the gay community get to? What makes them special?"

    Neither of us knows the answer to this yet so we'll just have to wait to find out.

    "I asked this question previously and didn't get an answer: In order to get to the bottom of this issue, on what basis do you think we should be creating our laws and basing our behaviour?

    If you asked this of me I'm sorry I missed it."

    It wasn't directed towards you specifically, but I'm glad to see someone replied to it.

    "The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a good place to start. I'll agree that the document is not perfect but it is a good foundation for the creation of laws."

    Good, but I was trying to get even farther back than the 1980s (or 60s if we consider the Bill of Rights). Why is the Charter a good place to start? Imagine there was no Charter, on what would you (and others here) suggest we should be basing our laws and behaviour?

     

  • At Sat Sep 23, 04:32:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I'd be curious to hear what someone like Fred of GayandRight has to say about all this (or what some of you here think of people like Fred).

     

  • At Sun Sep 24, 10:32:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Drew,

    Issues relating to homosexuality perhaps? That's about as much as I could say at this point, but I doubt it's going to be teaching people how to turn gay (as if one could anyway). Out of curiousity, what is it specifically that you're worried it's going to be teaching?

    You completely missed the point. It is not the teaching of homosexual issues that I object to. I object to ANY special interest group using public funds to forward their agenda.

    I don't know what school you went to, but in my high school we did have black issues, woman's issues, etc. Islam is a religion which one chooses (well, in the west anyway), whereas gender, race and sexual preference are not, but we did have religious studies so you must have gone to the wrong school.

    No, I went to the right school. Things like black issues, etc. were taught in context, not as a separate program and certainly not directed by special interest groups. For example, I was taught that in the past slavery existed in Canada as part of my history class and prejudice and bigotry are things modern Canadian society must defend against as part of my social studies class. We did not have a "black issues" course and it certainly not overseen by any special interest group pushing a black agenda. Why did you need special courses for minority issues?

    If racism and sexism were as prevalent as homophobia still is in the west we might have to make courses on these issues mandatory too.

    I would say that racism is more prevalent than homophobia. I certainly hear of more synagogues being torched than gay bars. But I digress...

    "What will happen to children who do not take the course?"

    Many of them will grow up to continue the cycle of bigotry that their ancestors before them began...

    Care to back that up?

    ...Why is the Charter a good place to start?...

    The Charter is a good place to start because it is the most recent document we have that attempts to embody what we consider the rights of the individual in a secular society. There are other acts and laws that proceed the Charter but there is no real need to go back to them as the Charter attempts to encompass what they stood for.

     

  • At Mon Sep 25, 08:56:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "You completely missed the point. It is not the teaching of homosexual issues that I object to. I object to ANY special interest group using public funds to forward their agenda."

    Ah, I see. Well, if the government believes it's something that needs to be taught then I'd say it is no longer a "special interest group" issue but rather a public or social issue.

    "Why did you need special courses for minority issues?"

    Actually a mandatory "minority issues" credit that covers all the necessary minorities sounds like it would be a good thing to add to the O.S.S.D. requirements (and equivalent secondary school diplomas around the country).

    "I would say that racism is more prevalent than homophobia. I certainly hear of more synagogues being torched than gay bars. But I digress..."

    You could be right, I guess I don't know for sure. If you are correct then we might need to add racism to the classes as well.

    "Many of them will grow up to continue the cycle of bigotry that their ancestors before them began...

    Care to back that up?"

    All we have to do is look at the western history of treatment of homosexuals. Yes, things are getting better, particularly in Canada where we seem to have evolved a better social conscience than our southern neighbours have, but it's still going to take a generation or two before we're out of the woods (it could still go backwards).

    "...Why is the Charter a good place to start?...

    The Charter is a good place to start because it is the most recent document we have that attempts to embody what we consider the rights of the individual in a secular society. There are other acts and laws that proceed the Charter but there is no real need to go back to them as the Charter attempts to encompass what they stood for."

    That's great, but again I was trying to dig a little deeper than the last few decades. I was trying to find out on what principles you (and others) believe laws and behaviour should be based if (hypothetically speaking) there were no Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

     

  • At Mon Sep 25, 09:03:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    Drew - "Ah, I see. Well, if the government believes it's something that needs to be taught then I'd say it is no longer a "special interest group" issue but rather a public or social issue."

    No, this whole matter has arisen because two men used the system to impose their will upon the government... the government of BC had no choice in the matter.

    (for the record, I'd like to know if these men had their court costs paid for by any federal programs... it would add more fuel to the fire for the recent calls to scrap such left-wing activist funding)

     

  • At Mon Sep 25, 09:46:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Canadian Abroad said…

    Ryan,

    Thank you for your apology.

    My response was more emotional than I would have liked looking back. But everytime I read a post where homosexuality is compared to or considered equal to pedophelia and other horrific crimes my stomach goes into knots and, yes, it hurts. It hurts everytime.
    It may not even have been your intent to compare gays to pedophiles. But the choice of example overshadowed any point you were trying to make.

    As for nature vs nurture.
    I identify as gay. I don't know why I'm gay. I know I never made a choice to be gay. I tried lots of times to NOT be gay, including prolonged periods of prayer and abstinence. It only worked in the sense that I eventually came to the conlusion that if I could not change my orientation then God is ok with me being gay. I'm at peace with that now. Some may disaggree and I guess that is their right.

     

  • At Mon Sep 25, 09:47:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "No, this whole matter has arisen because two men used the system to impose their will upon the government... the government of BC had no choice in the matter."

    If the government is allowing the courts to do whatever it is they do then it is technically the government who allowed it, is it not?

     

  • At Mon Sep 25, 11:14:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    "If the government is allowing the courts to do whatever it is they do then it is technically the government who allowed it, is it not?"

    Isn't that the entire argument of this thread? You've pointed out the very heart of the argument... the fact that a special interest group has managed to manipulate the situation and hijack the agenda.

     

  • At Mon Sep 25, 11:24:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "Isn't that the entire argument of this thread? You've pointed out the very heart of the argument... the fact that a special interest group has managed to manipulate the situation and hijack the agenda."

    I dunno, is it? It's not my point in the thread, but it might have been yours. Either way, it's a positive thing for Canadians (IMHO) in this instance, not a negative thing. :)

     

  • At Wed Sep 27, 11:29:00 a.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "That's great, but again I was trying to dig a little deeper than the last few decades. I was trying to find out on what principles you (and others) believe laws and behaviour should be based if (hypothetically speaking) there were no Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

    Still no resonses, eh? Not that I was actually expecting one as that would require honest introspection.

     

  • At Wed Sep 27, 11:51:00 a.m. EDT, Blogger Christian Conservative said…

    Perhaps everyone can see the snare you've placed on the ground, and maybe it's just that no one cares to step into it?

     

  • At Wed Sep 27, 12:16:00 p.m. EDT, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Perhaps, but it's only a snare that can catch the dishonest. Those with integrity can answer the question with no problems whatsoever.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home