Thursday, December 07, 2006

Hatred on the Right

The vitriol coming out of the Blogging Tories over today's vote is both predictable and sickening. I've said many times that the best part about the Blogging Tories, and indeed the blogosphere in general is that it provides a grassroots-eye-view of how conservatives really think, the things you won't hear during an election campaign. It serves as a reminder that this issue won't truly be dead until the Conservatives accept it, or at least get over it. So what do our modernity-challenged friends have to say?

"Marriage is dead," proclaim the Toronto Tories, whom I'm sure will now either never get married or will proceed to divorce their wives as soon as possible, because the idea of two men enjoying the love and nurturing they can provide for each other in a stable marriage is simply too horrible a thought for straight marriage to endure. (They also erroneously claim that Stephane Dion opposed gay marriage last time; he obviously didn't, as he was in cabinet, and the entire cabinet supported C-38.) "All we wanted was a debate on the issue and a free vote!" they whine. Well, guys, you got your debate (32 years of it) and your free vote, so obviously you want more than that. Why don't you just come right out and say it - you want gays to be second class citizens; your problem with gay marriage isn't the "marriage" part, it's the "gay" part. Period.

"Marriage has never been about love," says marriage expert Shane over at ThePolitic. Really? Never? (I think my recently re-married mother, who deeply loves her new husband, would disagree.) Oh, wait - in the very same post, he then admits that over the past 30 years (actually, it's been a bit longer than 30, but nevermind that) marriage has changed. The purpose of marriage is no longer what it used to be; it is now about love. People today marry because they are in love, not because they want to secure property or have children - this self-evident fact completely decimates this entire argument.

What does Shane have to say about that? Well, in his great wisdom, Shane provides us with this piece of advice: "What if the married couple doesn’t want kids? From a humanist point of view, if you don’t have kids and never plan to, then don’t get married! Why would you want to? What is the point? To tie yourself down to one person? To limit your freedom for what? There is no point in being married, from a humanist perspective, without some reference to offspring."

Yeah. When you get married, you sacrifice your freedom. There is "no point" in getting married to the person you love unless you plan to pump out some children. What a crass and disrespectful way of seeing marriage. Call me an idealist, but I've always seen marriage as two people who love each other deeply committing to love and care for each other, "In sickness and in health, 'til death do we part." Silly me - it's not about caring for each other at all (even though that's right in the marriage vows!) it's about nothing more than a biological process. And these guys have the nerve to say that we who support equality don't respect the sanctity of marriage!? Such misplaced sanctimony.

The comments section over at Defend Canada is brimming with hate. "And the best one can do, which is what I will do, is teach one's children never to accept the concept of same-sex marriage." How nice, trying to force your children to hate the same people you hate. "Future children our (sic) counting on your continued political activism so THEY can still remain sanely grounded in reality." Right, because same-sex marriage will make our children insane. Is there any line these people won't use?

Here's a good one: "slippery slope doesn't even begin to explain where this is going. for those unaware, sex ed classes have been (for a couple years now) teaching that homosexual activity is not only normal, but is lots of fun." Oh no! Our schools are teaching that gay people aren't dangerous freaks! It's a slippery slope! And in response to that from the proprieter of the blog: "I can tell you right now - that if I have children anytime soon, I will be fully investigating the cirriculum before sending them into that nonsense." Wonderful; so you'd deny your children a decent education if the school they are to go to teaches that gay people aren't freaks? Wooow.

And then there's this, which covers all the usual bases, except child molestation: "I'm disgusted by the fact that homo's get to dictate my life. I'm disgusted by them always in my face with the special rights they covent. Put the issue in the next election. Let the people decide who gets to get married and who gets what. Ill bet $1000 that voters tell fags they can't marry." Lovely! Moving on...

I'll leave off with Kitchener Conservative, who incidentally is already accusing the leader of the opposition of being indecisive even though he is only in the middle of his first week on the job! (These guys work fast, eh?) "Changing the traditional definition of marriage was a political wet dream of the Liberal Party and the left to keep it wedge issue for many years," says he. Right, it has nothing to do with equal rights and all that other passe stuff. Then again, I can imagine why a conservative wouldn't attribute equal rights as the motive behind this change - I'm not sure the phrase is in their vocabulary. Moving into the comments, "It seems that the absolute left thinks this an ethical superiority issue, with no regard to the ethics of the impacts which will be forcing the majority of this nation's children to undergo sexual education that MUST be inclusive off all sex acts, not merely those necessary for reproduction." (I didn't write that sentence, I just copied it; direct comments about its horrendous grammar to its original poster please.) Yup, because teaching in sex ed that gay people *gasp* have sex *GASP!* will damage and destroy children forever. Here's a newsflash - the vast majority of grade-school age children both know that gay people exist, and have a pretty good, if banal, idea of what they do in bed. The idea of including homosexual sex in sex ed. is to eliminate misconceptions that children almost certainly have about... oh, fuck it, nevermind, anyone who needs to have this explained to them probably isn't rational enough to get it anyway.

To top it all off, this is apparently where same-sex marriage is leading: "I can't wait to see what happens when the US parks a dozen or so BAttleships in the Canadian Arctic. What then?" Riiiiight.

"We have no idea whether or not children reared in a same-sex environment will turn out okay." Except that we do, a fact which is constantly ignored by anti-gay activists. "Any Christian supporting SSM is what truely disappoints me. Those who shrug their shoulders and believe Jesus would be fine with it. That's what get's me. Those not yet accepted Jesus I can understand... but those who have been born again I hold to a much higher standard." The message: those who support same-sex marriage aren't good Christians.

I'll end with a comment from someone who called himslef "traditionalist," which made me laugh:

"Marriage should be defined based on past religious tradition.

This being the case, the vast majority of religious marriages throughout history have been polygamous in nature. So based on religious tradition, we should legalize polygamy.

Oh, but wait...thats not what you want is it?

Maybe you should state your true opinion on this issue: the government should define marriage as traditional Christian's would like it defined.

Fact Check:
According to the Ethnographic Atlas Codebook (you can search this in google and find the data yourself) derived from George P. Murdock’s Ethnographic Atlas recorded the marital composition of 1231 societies from around the world, between 1960-1980. Of these societies, 186 societies were monogamous. 453 had occasional polygyny, 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry."


At 12/07/2006 8:10 p.m., Anonymous Anonymous said...

The whole religious convictions thing is just utter nonsense. Marriage is a Pagan rite.

So the religious have two options, convert from their current religion to Paganism or support gay rights.

If they can't do either then their religion is total bullshit.

At 12/07/2006 8:12 p.m., Anonymous Anonymous said...

I find your little rant amusing. Would you care to write an article that intelligently debates the points that I have brought forward minus the ad hominem?

I have written several articles, all of which are based on the premise that 1.7% of the population should not be dictating what is neccesary sexual education in schools.

And you can be sure that I stand by my words that I will not accept having children force-fed a sexual education that is not necessary.

The only necessary sexual education in public schools is:

a) sexual reproduction
b) safe sex

I have taken my position on the absurd ideas of one of the SSM proponents that all manner of sexual activity should be shared with budding teens.

No offense, but you shoudl get off your high horse long enough to realize that kids, our kids development is the responsibility of parents... and while homosexuals may take part in all sorts of sexual activities - those activities are ADULT activities that kids don't need a how to lesson on.

Unless you can prove to me how instructing a 12 year old how to take part in anal sex is useful from a developmental perspective, then your rant to me is typical.

Typical B.S.

If you are gay, then perhaps you don't care about what kids are force fed.

If you aren't gay - and you are of a responsible age - and yet you still don't mind providing your child with that type of information - then I truly think there is somethign the matter with you.

Children are impressionable...they don't need to be ushered down a path that could lead them to sexual confusion.

If i understand homosexuality correctly it starts with innocent attraction and feelings as a child.

You tell me how teaching anal sex is going to foster that child? If I have a child that becomes gay - I am more worried about foster a caring environment for that child to express himself before I ever worry about teching him anal sex.

Give up you mock outrage. Yes there are idiots out there that say stupid things, but I as far as I am concerned your limited focus on the issues the websites you have quoted shows you aren't interested in solutions..

you are only interested in put up or shut up.

At 12/07/2006 8:13 p.m., Anonymous Anonymous said...

Marriage is a Pagan rite.

Utterly ridiculous... Marriage is religious...everything else is legal...

At 12/07/2006 8:23 p.m., Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes marriage is religious. It happens to be a Pagan religious rite and NOT a Christian rite, that is until the Christians decided to steal all the tapestry from the Pagan religion, in an effort to co-opt Pagans into their church.

Marriage isn't the only Pagan tradition that was stolen by the Christians, the yule tree is another Pagan rite co-opted by the Christian church.

So for Christians to claim that marriage is now somehow their tradition is totally ludicrous.

When did society start to respect plagarism?

At 12/07/2006 8:24 p.m., Blogger Clear Grit said...

So the religious have two options, convert from their current religion to Paganism or support gay rights.

They could do both. :D

Utterly ridiculous... Marriage is religious...everything else is legal...

Uh, yeah, and pagans were/are... religious!

If you are gay, then perhaps you don't care about what kids are force fed.

You're right. I am gay, and I don't care what kids are force-fed.

Actually, I do care what kids are force-fed. I care that impressionable kids are routinely forced to believe that there is a place called Hell where they and their loved ones will go and burn and scream and cry forever, if the kid touches his naughty place. I care that impressionable kids are told, before they even have a chance to form their own opinions, that gay people are evil and filthy and freaks of nature. I care that impressionable kids are force-fed religion from the day they're baptized without even so much as a modicum of respect for THEIR religious freedom... by the very same people who trumpet religious freedom as the be-all-end-all of society, but only so long as people are free to practice their religious convictions, of course; the very same people who then cry and complain when public schools try to undo the damage they've done to their kids by teaching them that, no, gay people aren't freaks of nature, and aren't deserving of scorn.

I am interested in solutions. The solution is equality - and we have it now. Don't think you're going to take it away without a fight.

At 12/07/2006 8:33 p.m., Anonymous Anonymous said...

Clear Grit,

lol. Some how I can't see them doing either.

By the way, I'm straight but I believe in equal rights. Ez for me though, I believe Leviticus is a crock. I mean what kind of a guy hates both seafood and gays?

At 12/07/2006 8:41 p.m., Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Blogging Bories are just mad because they have realized that Harper played them for fools, and threw them the sop they wanted, all the while he hoped and prayed for its failure.
Harper is the last person who wants to be seen as a denier of rights in a progressive country like Canada. Harper keeps his eye on the prize (ruler of Canada) and will throw anyone under the bus who gets in his way, even his base.
The Blogging Bories are mad as hornets, and likely embarassed as well. Looks good on them!

At 12/07/2006 8:41 p.m., Blogger Kitchener Conservative said...

More yawns from the left.

If you actually read my posts, you'd know that I believe strongly that same-sex couples must have spousal rights, the same as hetrosexual couples.

Sorry no hate here, I just don't like bad laws crafted to put a wedget between people.

At 12/07/2006 8:55 p.m., Blogger Kitchener Conservative said...

"Then again, I can imagine why a conservative wouldn't attribute equal rights as the motive behind this change"

I wonder if that's why Jean Chretien and the Liberal Party fought in court for so many years.

"Changing the traditional definition of marriage was a political wet dream of the Liberal Party and the left to keep it wedge issue for many years," says he. Right, it has nothing to do with equal rights and all that other passe stuff."

If you read it properly, I said this because the Liberal Party could have settled the issue without changing the traditional definition of marriage, therefore the issue would have been closed for good and people of religion would not have had a gripe about it.

Most of what I've read from the right is not that they hate gays, they just felt the government trod on their religious rights in order to give gays spousal rights.

Spousal rights is something I've said all along that gays must have. How many times do we hear about a gay partner this doesn't receive any benefits when their spouse dies or a gay partner isn't consulted on important medical issues.

At 12/07/2006 11:54 p.m., Blogger Clear Grit said...

I just don't like bad laws crafted to put a wedget between people.

Then why do you support driving a wedge between gay and straight people.

I wonder if that's why Jean Chretien and the Liberal Party fought in court for so many years.

It's 2006. Jean Chretien hasn't been prime minister for three years.

the Liberal Party could have settled the issue without changing the traditional definition of marriage

No, they really couldn't have. This is kind of an either/or deal.

At 12/08/2006 12:03 a.m., Blogger Miles Lunn said...

The Blogging Tories are exactly the place Canadians need to go if they want know why the Tories shouldn't be in office. With few exceptions, the vast majority are to the right of George W. Bush as hard as it is to believe. On the contrary Liblogs contains a wide range of viewpoints ranging from centre-right classical liberal types like myself although to centre-left types who are borderline socialists, otherwise representing the broad middle of the spectrum, where most Canadians are.

At 12/08/2006 3:44 a.m., Blogger Chairm said...

The day before the vote on the motion, Dion had whipped the vote of his caucus by first emphatically declaring in a press conference (or scrum) that if this motion were to pass he would require all of his MPs to vote against subsequent legislation that would repeal the enactment of SSM.

Like the MPs of the NDP and the Bloc, the Liberal MPs did not have a truly free vote.

In 1999 Dion, along with 266 other MPs, voted on a resolution that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman. He and the Liberal government at that time vowed to defend that affirmation which they unequivocaly declared was constitutional.

What, precisely, changed between then and now?

See: Opine Editorials.

At 12/08/2006 12:37 p.m., Blogger William E. Demers said...

I'm not religious. Marriage is dead, in the sense that it is no longer what is used to be. It has been modified by the state and expanded to have different meanings.

Also, the CBC was reporting that Stéph voted against the SSM motion and that is where I got my information.

My post was not against rights for people with different sexual orientations, which you seem not realise.

Also sex IS essential for reproduction and that is why we are all here.

Let's stop denying the obvious. It takes a man and a woman to reproduce and the purpose of the family unit is to bridge one generation to the next, to quote a Liberal MP, Minister McKay.

I'm not opposed to same-sex unions, but don't call an apple and orange. Read 1984 if you haven't. The Liberals are slowly inventing their own Newspeak.

At 12/09/2006 8:47 a.m., Blogger Clear Grit said...

It's absurd that you would compare the extension of equality to gay people to anything in 1984 (a society in which, incidentally, homosexuality was outlawed, as it is in the vast majority of totalitarian societies).


Post a Comment

<< Home