Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Counting the Money Anyway | Main | "Black Folks We'd Like To Remove From Black History" »

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Gay rights

The most heartening part of this video is the large amount of booing:

Way to try and use philosophy to justify your prejudice. But fortunately his propositions do not hold up to much muster. Natural rights are not rooted in human nature in a biological sense but in a sapient sense. That is, we have rights because we are rational.

Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on February 23, 2010 | Permalink

Comments

How dare he have an opinion! boo hiss.

Ban free speech now!

We need fisting in kindergarten and HB 4530 will give it to us! To hell with parents we want those kids having SEX so Planned Parenthood can have more business!

Posted by: Floyd Looney | 2010-02-23 9:43:28 AM


dude, no one interfered with his right to free speech. Just how no one interfered with people's right to boo something that they don't like. Free speech does not mean you can say whatever you want and people have to listen.

Posted by: Hugh MacIntyre | 2010-02-23 10:54:55 AM


I watched a lot of that CPAC convention. I just don't get it. How stupid do you have to be to follow these people?

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-02-23 2:24:59 PM


Wow. So the guy who has the stage, was invited to speak doesn't have a right to say anything if the mob says so? They don't have to listen to him, but he definitely did have every right to speak.

Mob rule must be wonderful.

These idiots want to sexualize kindergartners, they should be shot.

Posted by: Floyd Looney | 2010-02-23 2:34:24 PM


FL,

Take a deep breath and re-read everything I wrote. Then point to the part I said he had no right to speak. I said he is wrong, and that I am glad people booed him. At no point did I condemn him for speaking his views (which is different than condemning someone for their views)

Posted by: Hugh MacIntyre | 2010-02-23 2:47:36 PM


Hugh, I understand Floyd's point which is valid. There are many ways and means used by militant activists to shut down anyone who does not accept their agenda, and this is a prime example of one of them. Therefore it is anti free speech although not one enforced by the state. It has become the norm on university campuses.

Posted by: Alain | 2010-02-23 3:41:49 PM


No, it's not. He said something stupid and got rightly shouted down. Quit crying about it.
Sexualized kindergartners? What the Hell are you talking about? This is about homosexuals not pedophilia moron.

Posted by: Cytotoxic | 2010-02-23 10:12:25 PM


Sorry boys. Booing someone on a stage does not violate his rights. How would you prevent the crowd from booing exactly?

Posted by: Charles | 2010-02-24 5:29:08 AM


Charles, it is called civility or civil debate, but perhaps you are not old enough to remember when it worked that way. When the objective is to prevent the person with whom you disagree from speaking, it is anti free speech. There was a lot more going on than a few boos. It is not a question of rights either, since one could argue that those booing had no right to do so. In just about every similar type scenario an infiltration of militant activists is organised to do what these people did. As I already stated it is now common practice on university campuses, and in Holland not embracing the official dogma can result in your death or being criminalised by the state.

Posted by: Alain | 2010-02-24 12:03:09 PM


It's a free country! People have a right to boo him. However, people also have a right to go to protest a gay rally and boo their speakers! Gee Hugh, you seem to think that the only two positions are pro-gay or bigot. How very PC of you(as PC as when you tried to excuse the Indian land grab in Caledonia)? I love how so-called conservatives like you(really just Progressive Conservative retreads) in Canada bend over and drop your draws at anything the gays, feminists, or abortion crew tell you to do! Oh wait, I can't bring up the pro-life position in Canada too controversial! Yet, gun rights and issues like the stupid registry aren't. The only hope for Canada are the real conservatives who bleed Reform Party.
The man had a position that like it or not represents half the U.S. population. According to Gallup, Americans are virtually split dead even on whether homosexuality is morally acceptable or not. There have been 31 statewide votes on gay marriage. Gay marriage supporters lost in all 31 despite outspending their opponents more than 2 to 1(plus both having the mainstream media run interference for them and using the opposition to gays must be bigoted line). Most Americans also oppose gay adoption. In addition, a recent poll shows that more Americans support "don't ask, don't tell" military policy then want to eliminate it. If you in Canada want your right-wing parties(like Libertarian and Conservative Party) to push the gay agenda fine! Just remember, America is different. It's our country. We, the American people will decide our policies, not you! Obama may want to take marching orders from international community but I don't. If gay marriage and other measures are ever extended to the homosexuals it will be when we decide, not on your calendar. This is still a religious conservative country at heart. Just because so many of your countrymen have been so willing to piss away your country's judeo-christian belief system don't expect the same here.

Posted by: Arthur | 2010-02-24 5:44:59 PM


Interesting comments, Arthur. I think you have probably hit on something, because after thinking about it if my memory is correct there has been no one posting (not commenting but posting) who has not been pro-dope, pro-abort, pro-homosexual or pro-feminist agenda. Of course these are all tenets of to-day's PC dogma taught to the younger generations.

Posted by: Alain | 2010-02-24 6:59:48 PM


Arthur,

It really doesn't matter if 50% of Americans think being homosexual is wrong. Homosexuals aren't hurting others and therefore you and your ilk have no right to prevent them from enjoying the advantages heterosexuals are afforded under the law. Better yet, I advocate you get the state out of the affair altogether. Let private institutions marry who they please.

Alain,

I actually am pretty disgusted with the way people are shouted down and booed because they have non-leftist opinions. And yes, you're right, I don't remember a time when it was different. Nevertheless, when speaking strictly of fundamental human rights, his were not violated.

Posted by: Charles | 2010-02-25 12:08:39 PM


Charles, we are saying the same but coming from different angles. I maintain that this is very much anti-free speech, just as much as when a state agency denies your right to free speech. In this specific case it is not a question of "right" since it is not a state agency involved, but the objective and the result remain the same.

Posted by: Alain | 2010-02-25 12:26:00 PM


Arthur, it is useless to discuss issues like gay rights or abortion with Canadians such as Hugh and Charles(Alain might be the exception though I don't know if he is Canadian or not).These men have grown up in a social liberal Canada where there has been almost no one to challenge the prevailing lack of morals. In Canada, sexual images and situations are shown on television that would be restricted to certain select cable channels in the U.S. Unlike the United States, there is no abstinence education taught in the schools. Instead, children are taught about sexual identities and preferences at an early age. Kids in primary schools are taught about having two mommies or two fathers. Condom distribution in the schools is a lot more accepted up there. The result is a society where traditional values like marriage are denigrated and sexual libertines run amok(in comparison to the United States where there is a constant tug of war between the two).
This difference was best shown by two recent polls(one Gallup and one Angus Reid) which compared the moral acceptability of certain topics among the citizens of the two countries. One example was having children out of wedlock. Americans found this morally acceptable by only a 51%-45% margin. Meanwhile, 79% of Canadians found out-of wedlock morally acceptable(with virtually no opposition).In the U.S., abortion was viewed as morally unacceptable by 56%-36%(which fits in with current polling showing most Americans are now pro-life). However, in Canada, the citizens found abortion morally acceptable by a 66%-22% margin. A third example is that sexual relations between an unmarried man and woman were found morally acceptable by a 57%-40% margin. Most Americans approved but there still was a significant base of disapproval. Yet, Canadians response to the same question was 87% acceptable with almost no opposition. Finally, the polling showed deeply divided on the acceptability of homosexuality by a 49%-47% margin while 66% of Canadians approved. Funny enough, the topic that Americans found most morally acceptable was the death penalty.
The reasons for this are 1.) the center-left Canadian Liberal Party has been more successful in winning elections and governing over the last 40 years than has the American Democrat Party. 2.) the Republican Party made a more significant(and ultimately successful) attempt to appeal to social conservatives. Leftists like Trudeau(1968-1979, 1984-1993), Pearson(1963-1968), Chretrien(1993-2004) were able to govern Canada for long periods of time against divided and relatively ineffective opposition. This allowed them to force their policies on the public. Meanwhile, since 1968, American leftists have only taken control under Carter(1976-1980) and Obama(2008-). Clinton quickly learned to govern as a centrist. Meanwhile, Republicans governed for 28 of the 40 years between 1968-2008. This allowed them to block much of the left's social agenda. At the same time, Republican presidents like Reagan and G.W. Bush(as well as most of the party leadership) made honest efforts to win the support of the large social conservative base. The results were best seen under Bush where the pro-life and 2nd amendment forces made their greatest gains. Unfortunately, Canada's main center right party(PC) was ruled by middle of the road guys like Clark, Mulroney(in the 1988 election< Mulroney's platform was to the left of liberal Democrat Mike Dukakis) , and Stansfield that were all to willing to go along with the Liberal social agenda. In turn, their failure to do this probably added to their electoral woes. Trudeau's popularity had fallen greatly by 1972. Most Canadians opposed his position on the death penalty. Prehaps if Stansfield had had the nerve to make the death penalty an issue, he could have won the 1972 election instead of coming up 2 seats(109 vs 107) short. Who knows maybe a pro-life Progressive Conservative Party could have won the elections of 1968, 72, 74, and 80 by obtaining the support of traditional minded Catholic voters who historically voted Liberal(Harper had some success with this in 2008). The point is that Canadian society is effectively brainwashed on social liberalism. Unfortunately, Canadian conservatives have too often lacked the courage to engage on these issues.

Posted by: Dave | 2010-02-25 3:21:14 PM


Dave,

First off, for those who don't quite understand the difference between what is and what should be, let me make this clear: I am referring to how things should be and not what the currently are.

You're not getting it so read a little more slowly. I'm not debating whether sexual orientation is moral or not. What I am saying is the majority has no right to violate the civil rights of the minority. In other words, imposing your morality on others through force and coercion is wrong. You can go around preaching about the immorality of homosexuals all you want. You can scream it from the rooftop. You can refuse to hire them and let them into your home. But you cannot use the government to oppress them. Get it?

Posted by: Charles | 2010-02-25 4:36:14 PM


Alain,

You can interpret it as anti-free speech and uncivil is you like. I do. However, there is no way these activists can ban speech without government force. There are simply too many forms of communication and media available to the individual. Are we in agreement?

Posted by: Charles | 2010-02-25 4:40:45 PM


Morals, who's morals? Why are your morals superior to someone else? Your morals are based on your upbringing. It doesn't make them right, or wrong. It makes them yours. Why should they be projected onto others? Even more odious is having government enforce your morals on others, just because the majority shares the same morals. And in lots of cases its the minorities morals that are projected on the majority. Morals should have no place in politics. Science and facts only, please.

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-02-25 5:05:50 PM


My word but the mention of morals gets quiet a reaction. Believe it or not morals are necessary for any civilised society to exist without self-destructing. The argument that no one or no group has the right to impose its morals on others is the road to self-destruction, since every society, even tribals ones, do exactly that. Having a moral vacuum does not equate to enlightenment.

As for the argument that the majority has no right to impose its morals on the minority, again I disagree. Actually in our moral vacuum we now have minorities imposing their "morals" or behaviour on the majority which is even worse. So unless one is a supporter of total anarchy with the objective of the destruction of civilised society, morals remain necessary.

On the topic of only science and facts in politics, what springs to mind is the global warming (now climate change) scam being paraded as science. I know that for some science has become their religion, a very unreliable one at that. Do not forget that what is the accepted scientific fact to-day is often discovered to be wrong to-morrow. I am not anti-science but I realise that science is never the end-all-and-be-all, since it remains limited to what we may have discovered at a given moment.

Posted by: Alain | 2010-02-25 7:09:08 PM


Anyone should have the right to speak in forum. The forum should have the right to boo down or cheer the speaker.

The question here is whether or not this was the correct forum for Ryan Sorba’s speech, or was the forum itself infiltrated and taken hostage by agent provocateurs?

The argument of the right to free speech is rendered invalid when a forum is strategically prepositioned by a militant minded special interest mob. As in this case there was no forum of ideas to discuss or debate, this was simply the censorship of free speech by an enormous special interest propaganda machine.

Posted by: Knight 99 | 2010-02-26 10:17:39 AM


Posted by: Alain>

“As for the argument that the majority has no right to impose its morals on the minority, again I disagree”.

You should have no problem having Islam’s morals imposed on you in the near future then.

Posted by: Charles>

“What I am saying is the majority has no right to violate the civil rights of the minority.”

Civil rights??

I doubt many people care whether or not gays have the right to marry or what they wish to do in the privacy of their own homes. It seems to me that the biggest fear of the general public is ultimately gay’s rights of access to children. As it is impossible to biologically (genetically) as a pair have children of their own, they can only legally adopt or influence through education the children of others.

Who therefore is infringing on whose rights, when now legally married gay men adopt small children that were not biologically their own for example? Whose rights are violated when certain gay lifestyle books are forced on schoolchildren in schools by people who are not their parents?


Posted by: Knight 99 | 2010-02-26 10:37:04 AM


Whats the problem with gay couples adopting children? There are so many children with no parents in the world, why punish them because you have moral issues with homosexuality. Do you think its going to rub off on them or something? As for the books, if you have a problem with them, take it up with the school. I'm sure they will try to accommodate your wishes for your kids. And if they don't, start yelling.

Posted by: Steve Bottrell | 2010-02-26 1:19:25 PM


Statistics....... to begin with.

http://www.narth.com/docs/sweden.html

Posted by: Knight 99 | 2010-02-26 6:15:34 PM


Oh brother, not these SoCon idiots. We've been hearing from these people about how Canada is Sodom and America will become its Gomorrah if the kids get access to condoms/sex ed/read comic books for decades. It was bullshit then just as it is now. The kids are alright and the gays have nothing to be ashamed of morally, unlike political SoCons.

Posted by: Cytotoxic | 2010-02-27 12:50:31 AM



The comments to this entry are closed.