The Shotgun Blog
« The Left Wing Media's Racism | Main | Massacre »
Saturday, November 20, 2004
A Canadian conservative culture: too little, too late?
"I see Canadian conservatives are still stuck writing 'shocked and appalled' letters to the editor, while our opponents own all the newspapers -- not to mention the tv stations, schools and courts.
"Here again our cousins south of the border put us to shame. Right-wing Americans produce a non-stop stream of popular polemics -- in magazines and bestselling books, on radio and the Internet -- and get results (witness the defeat of every single gay marriage proposition the night of the last Presidential election).
"Then again, maybe Canadians don't even care enough to stop this juggernaut. The results of our last election don't leave me with much hope. As long as that 'free' health 'care' keeps on dribbling out of that rusty old pipe, we don't seem to mind much what the government and courts get up to..."
Posted by Kathy Shaidle on November 20, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d834361e5a53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A Canadian conservative culture: too little, too late?:
Comments
So long as you keep equating conservatism with anti abortion and prejudice against gays, you'll keep losing my vote. I'm a small government guy, not part of the religious right....
Posted by: m0nkyman | 2004-11-20 6:47:27 PM
I think most of us believe the government and media have too much power and control to do anything, got any suggestions
Posted by: Barb | 2004-11-20 7:02:29 PM
Well monkey man are you saying one must be religious to be anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage?? And if someone is against gay marriage they are automatically prejudiced against gays?? Oh such a broad minded world you lefties live in. Not.
Posted by: MikeP | 2004-11-20 7:15:13 PM
Pretty sad when basic morals and ethics are the responibility only the religious. It's not predjudice against gays it's predjudice against perversion.
Posted by: Barb | 2004-11-20 7:17:18 PM
I am religious and support gay marriage. Kathy and I have disagreed in this general area in the past. What I would love to see happen in this forum is a discussion about the limited role of government in mediating such disagreements and building a Canada where religious beliefs were truly protected under the Charter and the rights of those who do not share this or that specific religious (or secular!) belief are protected whether or not other Canadians believe such people to be engaged in "perversion". Until we can have such a discussion we are doing the Librano's work for them.
Posted by: Ghost of a flea | 2004-11-20 7:40:39 PM
I don't necessarily disagree with that Flea. It would be nice just to have a discussion where one is not labelled either a bigot or a member of the religious right for being anti-gay marriage.
Posted by: MikeP | 2004-11-20 7:51:28 PM
These gay/abortion debates are boring and frankly they miss the point. Gay relationships and abortions have always existed in every society on earth, and no government could ever succeed in banning them. But it's not about allowing or disallowing something, it's about subsidizing them - with tax breaks and pension benefits for the one, and free government funded clinics for the other. The real issue is, what is it that causes people to think that government has any place getting involved in their personal family arrangements?
Canadians accept government interference, and are not raising hell about what bugs them, because of a wide streak of passiveness that I think existed in Canada since the beginning of (white man's) history. New France was of course a completely closed shop, a non-entrepreneurial government boondoggle from start to finish. Witness the harsh treatment of Radisson and Groseiller, for the unforgiveable offence of opening up new trade routes. It was the 17th century version of launching a new satellite TV service without getting permission of the CRTC (read: paying off Liberals and hiring their cronies).
But even the New England Yankees who came afterwards and settled in Upper Canada, were not exactly the rebellious type, if you know what I mean. There is one story from Lyndhurst, Ontario where an iron deposit was discovered. The Loyalists didn't want to get in trouble by building their own mine and smelter, so they wrote to York to get permission from the government. The government bureaucrats had no idea if this would be a good thing or not, but they were afraid of getting in trouble with their superiors in England. So the request came back: Denied.
At almost every step, colonization and homesteading in Canada was done under the control and protection of the government, and often with substantial subsidies. Whereas in the USA, there were many times and places where frontiersmen literally burst out of their home states and started to colonize large territories before any government official showed up. I think that these fundamental differences explain the different attitudes of Canadians versus Americans, i.e. why anti-big-government conservatives are relatively scarce up here.
I hope nobody reading this is thinking, "but that's what makes Canada superior to the USA". Cause it ain't. Government cronyism, patronage, and incompetent bureaucratic "planning" was never an adequate substitute for self-reliance and private initiative, and never will be. And unless you're able to find a lot of healthy, prosperous Indians somewhere in Canada, I really don't want to hear an argument about how much more benign our regulated, "peaceful" colonization was than the Americans.
But it could be worse - in much of Latin America for example, they inherited an unhealthy combination of ethnic/class prejudices (white v. indian), bad colonial government, Roman Catholic passivity and Marxist sh*t-disturbing tendencies. That's why their best and brightest are immigrating to America in the millions, but Canadian emigration is only in the tens of thousands.
I do think that Americans are not as self sufficient anymore as they used to be, and the growth of government at all levels down there is out of control. But it seems to me that a critical mass of Americans still believe in free markets and self sufficiency, even as these elements are being robbed from them. When their governments hit the wall (and all Big Governments do eventually), then the Yanks at least will have the right attitude to understand the problem and get over it. Whereas I'm afraid that Canadians will just sit on their asses waiting for someone to buy out their mines/mills/forests, give them a job, and tell them what to do.
Posted by: Justzumgai | 2004-11-20 8:42:39 PM
MikeP: I would like to see the same though we disagree on the issues. Let us have that debate without calling people "perverts" - as was less than usefully offered by another commenter - or dismissing the concerns of gay people and I think we can get someone. One side of this debate sees its rights and traditions eroded by the courts and under assault everyday in the popular culture.
The other side has one tenuous and partial rights to marriage only because of (intentional) inaction and irresponsibility on the part of government. If this conservative forum cannot engage in reasoned debate without name-calling then I see little hope for compromise when policy is being set by the folks over at Rabble.ca.
Posted by: Ghost of a flea | 2004-11-21 5:27:46 AM
Clearly I am typing too early in the morning: I hope we can "get somewhere" rather than someone and some rights have been recently "won" rather than one!
Posted by: Ghost of a flea | 2004-11-21 5:30:29 AM
I feel obliged to put in here that nowhere in the book Divorcing Marriage was anyone refered to as a "pervert" etc. The authors explain that for the most part (one of the authors is gay themselves) they are not "against homosexuality", even though they don't necessarily buy into the "we are born that way" theory. Homosexual acts violate the authors' religious beliefs, but then so do lots of things.
They are opposed to law being made at the judicial rather than the Parliamentary level.
I agree with Ghost of a Flea that we need to cut out the name calling. Just to be clear: What I'm calling for in my review isn't an escalation in polemical assaults on homosexuals, but an increase in the volume and passion with which conservatives criticize the government and the courts.
I found the book SO polite and mild-mannered that I don't believe it will accomplish anything. Very Canadian if I may say so.
(And if I can put in a very freshman level comment here: slavery has always existed, and still does exist in spite of laws against it, and that doesn't make it right.)
Posted by: Kathy | 2004-11-21 7:54:29 AM
Ghost; Let me see if I have this right. You want to "have you cake and eat it too".
You claim to be religious and also for gay relationships. You want open discussion as long as the "govenment" protects your side view point. You want an no name discussion exclusive of words like "perverse' and "perversion" and yet the slathered use of the word "homophobic" is never an issue with the gay left.
It just so happens that in order to have an open discussion there has to be a general acceptance of the other person's point of view and if one side happens to see screwing someone of the same sex up the *** as "perverse" or using a rubber toy to get sexaul pleasure a "perversion", then you have to accept these as terms applied to a known condition or situation.
There are many of us who relish in being called a Christian and are very, very concerned the direction that society's general breakdown of good order and rapidly growing acceptance of perversion and sinfull practices are taking "Canadians". Although so many main stream people do not regularly or never attend church does not mean they cannot see the relative uselessness of govenment protected point view if the opposed point of view will never "see the light" either. If in order to have an open and frank discussion, there cannot be a "white washing of the perverse" in order to aviod hurt feeling and damaged self esteem, and well, you just can't have it both ways and your crotch is going to get snaggged and sore sitting on the fence.
Posted by: Lyle | 2004-11-21 8:35:12 AM
Wretchard has a wide-ranging post that may be relevant to this debate, tangentially at least:
http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004/11/through-glass-darkly-oliver-stone.html
Worth reading in its entirety, regardless.
Posted by: Charles MacDonald | 2004-11-21 8:52:05 AM
I'm gay and once flirted with gay marriage with my French Canadian room-mate, but it didn't work. The flowers had been ordered, the hall rented and the service was to be held right in downtown Montréal at the Cathedral of "Mary Queen-Of-The-World". We had even positioned a sky-cam over the nave.
My world was full of rainbows!
Then one day he came in, and in a boorish and insensitive manner, announced that his train had to be longer than mine; in fact, longer than Lady Di's! I was so incensed I took a much-cherished photo of Judy..................(Rebbick, that is).........and smashed it over his head!
"You can't do that", I screamed, "it'll clash with your beard!"
I'm older than most people here and have worked in the past for AIDS groups and such. I've always been in favour of civil unions, but never of marriage. Like any crafty old-queen survivor, my rationale is one prompted by utter narcissistic selfishness: I'm bright enough to realise that, as a gay, my long term interests are BEST served by promoting the traditional definition of marriage. Expanding that definition could well have some very unexpected and very unpleasant consequences a few years down the road. Consequences, such as polygamy, that would signal a long slow downward spiral for women's rights.
Ditto for gay rights, rights that first and foremost allow me a measure of self-deprication, a quality virtually absent in queers!
Posted by: John Palubiski | 2004-11-21 8:55:11 AM
Kathy: I am not sure the slavery comparison is a big step up from that other commenter's perversion remarks... No, just because something has always been around does not make it right. But just because something just not meet a particular interpretation of scripture does not make it wrong. For one thing, you are Catholic and I am very Protestant. Our understanding of scripture cannot be reconciled. So what do we do? Have another Thirty Years War? Or find some way to talk to each other? I think we have managed the latter and would be delighted if we could continue to encourage other people to do the same.
Look people, I am not "having it both ways" or "sitting on the fence" by calling for an acknowledgement of disagreement that avoids name-calling and such. And I have already noticed how little respect my Christian views get around here and need no lectures on the abuse of such views. Why, it is almost as if a particular kind of "Christian" needs an hypothetical "radical gay activist" to justify their inability to, like, have a conversation.
You already know how little respect the views of evangelical Christians and devout Catholics receive in the mainstream media and in the halls of power. Many here have also made it perfectly clear they disagree with "homosexuality" in ways which I find offensive and against Christ's message. Well, who freaking cares what any of us thinks? Certainly not our permanent Liberal government or, dare I say it, the folks running the Conservative party. We need to find a way to protect the rights of social conservatives to disagree, to not have to publish materials of which they do not approve or to have their children indoctrinated in views that contradict their reading of scripture. But equally those same social conservatives are going to have to make a decision: are you going to fight a losing rearguard action or are you going to face facts that - heaven forbid - not everyone agrees with you?
There. Now those of you who wish to throw schoolyard taunts, make jokes about people's behinds and explain how everyone else being wrong makes you the soul of Christian charity can go back to doing so. Meanwhile, the agenda is * still * being set over at Rabble.ca and thus far the best rhetoric we have to offer in alternative is nothing more than the caricature the Prime Minister used to hold on to power yet again.
Posted by: Ghost of a flea | 2004-11-21 9:54:31 AM
And it's "Flea", btw. Not "Ghost". Cheers.
Posted by: Ghost of a flea | 2004-11-21 9:54:58 AM
Ghost: Seems we have touched a nerve here so let's us take from the top.
1. Yes, interpeting the scriptures to warp them to suit somebody's particular brand of Christianism is wrong, period, end of statement. The Bible was neither written on a whim or to promote "discussion" of what the writers really ment a few thousand years later. I am sure had they felt the need to open discussion on their works they would have added some postscript giving permission bend, blend and rewrite history to suit your own purposes.
2. Christians and Catholics are ridicued by today's society simply because they demand that society tow the line according to the scripture. Not because they see fit to manipulate God's word to suit some the flavor of the month perversion. You threw school yard taunts at me, well in my opinion dear writer, reducing the scritures down to the lowest common denominator is the act of a school yard bull (you?) who knows the wrong they do but have not the will or desire to change or resist temptation.
3. Yes, people do disagree. The discussion disaster we face today is Christians are bound by the "Law" not to speak out and that my fellow man is really sticking on my craw. Christian schools are bound by the "Law" to accept persons who act outside the faith. Churches are forced by law to accept gay ministers or face discrimination charges although such acceptance is radically contrary to the beliefs of those particular covants. We are today wait with baited breath the ruling of our highest court on gay marriage. Does that sound like discussion to you? Millions of Christians totally reject the "Law' enforced smashing of the Ten Commandments and do not speak their piece because of they will go to jail. I ask, just who the hell need protecting here anyway? It is not and I repeat not gays or sinners who are at bay, but the foundations of religion its self.
3. You speak of fighting a rear guard, you bet we are. The world is absolutely full of fake Christians who go to church on Sunday and bend the scriptures to their desires the other six days. Need examples? How about a good Italian or Sicillian professed to be Catholic, Mafia bosses who pray on Sunday and then break the "thou shall not kill" and murders on Monday. How about some sleezy good Christian Liberals who make the Church appearance (Chretian and Martin)and then break the "thou shall not steal" by lining their pockets (adscam, HRDC) the rest of the week. Lord I could go on forever. This of which you speak is just one in a hundred more examples.
4. I make no jokes about the unhealth sexual practise of anal intercourse. Millions of people are on the death list as a result of indiscriminant sexual practices "thou shall not commit adultry" and I see this as no joke.
5. And,the only Rabble setting the agenda in my opinion, are those who cheat, lie, steal, murder or cause the death of others, fornicate at will, and gag those who object with threats of jailing for defending God's word.
I would love to give some rhetoric, but I have a family to support and I can't do it from inside Spy Hill.
Posted by: Lyle | 2004-11-21 11:31:37 AM
An oldie, but it seems appropriate for the given discussion, and Lyle's comments.
Dear Dr. Laura,
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die?
i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.
Posted by: bob | 2004-11-21 11:53:43 AM
Bob, the doctor is in!!
I'll leave your ruminations of olke Leviticus to a theologian. The passages you cite are well known and I,ve seen 'em many times before. They're of little helpto anyone.
We live in the fading shadow of Judeo-Christian values. It is precisely this set of values that has allowed gay culture to emerge and prosper. Think of it; from Richard The Lion-hearted to Gertrude Stein gays have contributed much to The West. Have you taken a look at other cultures inspired by other religions just to compare? Why are we complaining so much?
If gays wish to maintain this state of affairs, then they'll have to look up from their navles and being caring for and nurturing the larger society. Otherwise, the whole enterprise will simply tank.
The proponents of gay marriage just won't make the effort to think things through. Many of us may want marriage legalised, but in life you sometimes can't get everything you want.
Societies, much like the natural enviroment, can only take so much abuse and neglect. When it comes to the future of our culture gay marriage looms like greenhouse gas. Gays need, more than anything else, to put a little water in their wine and tro take a sober look at some of the potential consequences of their demands.
Why, for instance, have Canada's Muslim communities remained largely silent on the issue?
As many here probably know, the treatment afforded to gays in, say, the Middle East is atrocious, with many discussions about gays revolving around nothing more than methods of execution.
What stands behind this silence, this passive complicity displayed by individuals normally violently hostile to queers? Could the adepts of the Koran, even rabid ones like Elamsry, be holding their tongues only because they know that by opening up the definition of marriage, the possibility of polygamy moves that much closer? Are gay activists so blind and blinkered and fanatatical that they would actually compromise women's rights?
Dr Laura thinks so.
.
Posted by: John Palubiski | 2004-11-21 1:01:40 PM
"Why, for instance, have Canada's Muslim communities remained largely silent on the issue?"
That's an excellent question, John. As I was recently gobsmacked to learn, Mohammedan clerics in Iran and Egypt take a surprisingly liberal line on sex changes and the consequential legal issues:
http://headheeb.blogmosis.com/archives/026361.html
So, it's not simply that the Koran and Islamic dogma preclude them from adapting to other aspects the modern world.
I find your perspective quite refreshing, John.
Posted by: Charles MacDonald | 2004-11-21 1:28:54 PM
John,
You rely on the slippery slope argument. I think Coyne has a pretty good take on this:
http://andrewcoyne.com/archives/003886.php
You also rely on the notion that Liberal values are, or have the potential to, harm society.
When I see statistics indicating that the highest rates of divorce are in so-called "Bible Belt" States, while the lowest rates are in so-called "Liberal" States, it makes me very skeptical of any claim that gay-marriage threatens the institution of marriage, nevermind threatens society in general.
Posted by: bob | 2004-11-21 1:28:57 PM
Sorry, bob, no dice. You've simply revealed your Biblical illiteracy, as does everyone who relies on such corny, Grade 10 tropes.
Again and again, Jesus distinguished between Custom (which is passing) and the Law (which is eternal). The Old Testament passages you cite applied to the Hebrews thousands of years before Christ and refer to customary practices only.
Please leave the scriptural jujitsu to the experts.
Posted by: Kathy | 2004-11-21 2:48:09 PM
Bob: It does you no good to quote as such to me or anyone else, knowing full well you attempt to mislead. My last word on this is it is not me you need to convince as I am not you maker. In due time, you WILL have to justify your actions to a higher power and how you live and how you presume to look down others will have a lot to say about your passing on. In my opinion Bob, "Be afraid, very afraid".
Thanks for the discussion. Lyle
Posted by: Lyle | 2004-11-21 5:43:02 PM
Two articles in the fall edition of The National Interest catch my eye as I take a break from absorbing the melancholy self-medication of the John Kerry sympathizers in the Toronto Globe and Mail. Charles Krauthammer's essay , "In Defense of Democratic Realism", has the succinct line, "..International support does not confer superior morality upon any action-other nations are acting out of self-interest, not priestly wisdom." Then James Kurth in his piece titled, "The Late American Nation", nicely sums up the latest American manifestation of what Malcolm Muggeridge famously called 'the great liberal death wish' when he concludes his essay with this phrase, "..the natural tendency of the American elite culture will continue to work its way, and that is to bring about the abolition of the American national culture."
There is plenty of elite priestly wisdom at work north of the American border among the Globe's columnists. Mistaking disappointment at the defeat of the Democrats for the genuine insight of the anointed is a familiar priestly excess, one at which the sanctimonious Heather Mallick is adept.
Charles Krauthammer and James Kurth ought to jointly examine the self-selection process of journalists, here and there, who morbidly enumerate the imperfections of democracies undertaking military action while simultaneously being cosseted inside the protective shield of that democracy's military and advocating its dismantlement.
Absurdity is one explanation but dilettante thickness is another more plausible reason.
Posted by: Barry Stagg | 2004-11-21 10:39:10 PM
To Charles macdonald: Yeah, I was aware of the situation in Egypt and Iran concerning transexuals. However, that issue is something quite separate from from the larger debate on gay rights.
A couple of years ago in Egypt the authorities raided a gay Nile cruise and arrested everyone. Many recieved prison terms and were harshly treated.
Perhpas some Islamic cleric see sex changes as less evil that homosexuality because it allows them to skirt questions concerning gays.
Anyways, one thing seems to remain a constant; women's rights are closely connected to gay rights, and so any attempt to weaken the former will have a large impact on the latter. One of the major keys to maintaining the status of women, and therefore that of gays, is to ensure
that the definition of marriage as "one man, one women" remains on the books.
The women's movement and SOME elements of gay advocacy groups may have arrived at a crossroads.
Leviticus notwithstanding...
Posted by: John Palubiski | 2004-11-22 6:48:30 AM
"When I see statistics indicating that the highest rates of divorce are in so-called "Bible Belt" States, while the lowest rates are in so-called "Liberal" States,"
Bob this claim is bogus.
www.powerlineblog.com
Posted by: MikeP | 2004-11-22 2:50:38 PM
"Bob this claim [regarding divorce rates] is bogus."
Mike refers to this Power Line post, which uses 1994 data:
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/008687.php
But here's another article on the same subject:
http://tinyurl.com/6s8hb
"As researchers have noted, the areas of the country where divorce rates are highest are also frequently the areas where many conservative Christians live.
"Kentucky, Mississippi and Arkansas, for example, voted overwhelmingly for constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage. But they had three of the highest divorce rates in 2003, based on figures from the Census Bureau and the National Center for Health Statistics.
"The lowest divorce rates are largely in the blue states: the Northeast and the upper Midwest. And the state with the lowest divorce rate was Massachusetts, home to John Kerry, the Kennedys and same-sex marriage.
"In 2003, the rate in Massachusetts was 5.7 divorces per 1,000 married people, compared with 10.8 in Kentucky, 11.1 in Mississippi and 12.7 in Arkansas.
"'Some people are saying, "The Bible Belt is so pro-marriage, but gee, they have the highest divorce rates in the country,"' said Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, co-director of the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University. 'And there's a lot of worry in the red states about the high rate of divorce.'"
Posted by: Russil Wvong | 2004-11-22 5:40:41 PM
Here's my little take on everything.
Christians.
If you were living in a country you loved, and your parents or grandparents had fought to keep it free, and another religious power was voted in saying, "Sorry, you can't be Christian anymore because it goes against our religion," I'm sure you would be outraged.
That's how I feel. I'm not Christian, and I don't believe in many of the things Christianity holds in high regard. So, why exactly do I have to live under a government that's making laws based on a religion that me, and thousands of other people, don't follow? Isn't that like trying to force you Christians to believe in Buddhism?
I pay my taxes, I don't kill people, I don't steal, I don't do drugs or drink. But because I'm not Christian, suddenly all of this doesn't matter? Because 'YOU' believe that gays shouldn't get married, or because 'YOU' don't believe in abortion, suddenly the government is supposed to get involved for your cause?
Hey, I believe that Harry Potter is real. So, I'm going to go get a ton of other people to get the government to make a law stating that all muggle born children have to go to Hogwart's school. No ifs, ands, or buts.
What makes you think you have the right to dictate other people's lifestyles? I don't like Christianity, but you know what, I believe that everyone has a right to believe what they want. It's not up to me, my morals, or my personal opinion to say what you can do. I don't like Christianity, so I don't follow it. But on the other hand, I don't condemn it and tell others, "You CANNOT be Christian, because MY God says so."
If you don't like it, then don't do it. If you think homosexuality is 'perversion' then don't be friends with someone is gay. If you don't like abortion, don't have one.
Canada is a democracy, and we pride ourselves on having freedom of speech, and for the most part, freedom of action.
If you don't like it, move somewhere where you will be able to have an only Christian society where none of us Non-Christians can ever get in the way.
Posted by: Cass | 2006-01-06 3:42:42 PM
Cass: leave the muggles alone, you mugglephobe!!! And if we don't agree with you, we should move elsewhere ? Very enlightened of you...
Posted by: MarkAlta | 2006-01-06 6:32:57 PM
I know. Muggles are like a disease :P
Ok, I read over my last paragraph, and realized how rude that sounded.
Ok, so let me rephrase.
I meant to say that, if you don't like gay marriage, and the way our government is handling the concept, then why not move?
For example, if the Christian Heritage Party was voted in for BC, I would move to Alberta. This is because I don't think many of their platforms benefit me or my family.
If you so strongly cannot stand gay marriage, and it bothers you THAT much, then why live here? If that is the main point you wanted your government to stand strong on, and they let you down, then they are not following what you believe to be Canada's top priorities. There are many countries around the world that have made gay marriage illegal, including our neighbors to the South.
If you think our country is drowning in a vat of perversion and un-holiness, then why stick around?
And anyways, why does it even affect Christians? It's not like many Christians are even homosexual, so why exactly should it matter to them whether gay marriage is allowed? Because it alters the definition of marriage? Big deal. It's not like your God is bound by earthly problems anyways.'He' knows the difference, and 'He' is the only one that matters, am I right?
The world is always changing. It took women hundreds of years to get to vote, as with Aboroginals. Both these things were thought of as controversial, but look how they have affected our lives positively. Gay marriage and gay rights, are the next step. We can put it off as long as we want, but if democracy is going to survive, then these issues need to be solved without religious guidance.
Posted by: Cass | 2006-01-07 6:47:33 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.