Michael Coren says he’s been receiving death threats:
I receive death threats and abuse on a regular basis. My address and phone number have been placed on the Internet by gay militants and people told to harass and assault me. Jokes were made when my father died, insults made about my family.
I have been told by editors and publishers that I will never work as a writer in various places because I defend marriage. But I will not react in kind and I will not surrender. I do, however, want people to know that there is hatred at work.
As a staunch advocate of gay marriage, I am upset at the notion that Coren would be threatened for his views. He’s entitled to express them, just as we on the other side of the fence are allowed express our views.
So much for ‘tolerance’.
Death threats and name calling are evidence to the fact that a position in support for SSM cannot be argued on an intellectual basis. The only arguement I’ve heard is it’s about basic human rights and “how’s it going to harm you?”. Intellectually weak at best and clear evidence that those in support do not understand what “rights” are.
“Death threats and name calling are evidence to the fact that a position in support for SSM cannot be argued on an intellectual basis.”
I’m willing to give it a shot. Try me. I promise not to call you names or try to kill you. 😉
Gimme your arguement.
Anointiata Delenda Est said…
Another deep, deep post, W.
If you believe in the perfectibility of human behaviour, you’ll go for UN, EU, prescriptive constitutions, communism, indeed – even Islam. Positive discrimination, multiculturism, diversity training, the rot in academia are additional manifestations of this belief in perfectibility, and worse – perfectibility NOW. Its slogan is “They should do something about it.” Its method is coercion.
If you believe in human fraility as an element of the human condition, you will go for pragmatism, individual action, separation and balancing of powers. In a word, it’s freedom. In two words, Original Sin. Its slogan is “We’ll trust you for a while, and then review it”. Its method is democracy.
The West is rolling across the world. Of all the empires the world has seen, the American empire must be the only one where the subjects could not buy it fast enough – just check out the baseball caps on the Iraqi kids.
But when you buy the West, you buy its great dilemma – you are free, but free to do the right thing.
When free people see clowns such as Annan, Chirac, Schroeder attempting a King Canute on the tide of freedom, they will assign them to very cramped enclaves patching up collapsing dikes.
ADE
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
http://www.fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com
My personal belief is that the state has no place in the marriage business. But since it IS, the ability to get married is the ability to gain the state’s legal recognition of your right of association. The CPC proposal makes it explicitly clear that not all Canadians will enjoy the same right of association by virtue of their sexual orientation should the CPC gain political office.
While I can see restricting a person’s right of association when failure to do so clearly poses a danger to society (e.g. Homolka and the Khadr family), I’ve yet to see someone make the case that a bunch of poofters with a thing for latex and Sponge Bob pose the same dangers.
My view on gay marriage is, I don’t give a damn, either way. Fankly, I believe I’m in the majority here. People just don’t care about this issue here in Canada. The politicians use it in one way or another, and its a big one in the states, but not here.
However, comedic pronounciations of the word ‘marriage'(as in “Princess Bride”) are of great value to me 🙂
Sean – Sorry, but I don’t agree with your logic. That being said, you don even accept the premise that marriage is a “right” so how can I argue “rights” if you don’t accept it as being one. It is a right, though, as the state grants licences and you must meet certain conditions to be given the license. Whether you chose to accept that or not. And as it is a state granted “right” one must proceed from that point unless one can give a convincing arguement as to why it should not be a “right”. A few sarcastic comments do not meet that standard.
Vin, is ‘not being married’ a right too? You might want to ask yourself why the state discriminates against heterosexuals by declaring them to be in a ‘common law marriage’ if they have been living together for more than three months?
I will try to answer your question after I get back from lunch — let me think on it for a bit.
It is, indeed, a bwessed union…
And if it’s a union that you and your partner want to enter into, regardless of who you and your partner are, I say go for it. I applaud you.
In response to Vin’s post about arguing all of this on an intellectual basis, I’m thinking that you can’t, really. It’s rooted in love. Love is an emotion. I’m thinking that part of the problem is that, those who shouldn’t be doing so, are trying to intellectualize the emotion.
Does that make any sense at all?
Sean – one more things – since granted you did agree that the state has made it a “right”. Many “rights” are discriminitory by nature. Gay marriage actually weakens “rights” and freedoms. One only needs to go to the dictionary to find the definition of marriage. When government can simply change the definition of fundamental language associated to certain rights to fit their own fancy, than none of us has any rights worth the paper they are printed on. For example, I am a white male and I cannot benefit from some set out “right” for females or certain minority groups (not questioning the legitmacy of those). These rights are set aside for these specific groups, unless we start changing the fundemental definitions. Slowly rights become watered down and begin to erode away and the government controls these rights based on what definition they wish to assign them. This is not to say that homosexuals cannot have some sort of union process, they just can’t have a marriage as it has long been established what marriage means and whom the “right” pertains to.
Actually, Coren has been exposed to the fringe…anyone who would feel justified in threatening someone for an opposing viewpoint is a sociopath….probably their personal lives aren’t in any better order than their twisted sense of free expression and open dialogue.
The greater evil is that I see this acceptance of shutting down debate is a growing trend on the lib-left as it takes on more and more radical and debased orthodoxies that are at odds with democratic will of the majority.
It really is about word theft, not about human rights. It’s not more sinister than that, and all the SSM people should relax.
Look, we call that thing at the end of our leg a “foot”, and that thing at the end of our arm a “hand”.
Why do a small minority of people get to decide that they will change the meaning of any word?
Assuming that there are full rights for gay couples, what’s the problem?
Some things exist only because there is a tradition. Why don’t gay couples start their own?
They remind me of a kid who cries just because another kid has something in his hand. When the other kid drops it, they want the NEXT thing the kid picks up too.
No one has a right to demand a change of meaning of a word. Anyone has the right to coin a new one.
BTW: for the SSM foamers, SSM is not a right…it is a state entitlement that falls outside the jurisdiction of the federal government.
Civil union is not only possible but a legal gurantee as per the constitution and the charter….and it is the provinces responsibility to deliver it.
Any alleged need to change the federal definition of marriage is purely partisan BS…even the courts said so. As long as gays have a separate but equal civil remedy (civil union) there is no discrimination.
Changing the federal definition of marriage disregaurds the rights of the majority which they are bound to serve.
Any sense in posts above is reduced to this: The STATE has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. Period.
It is the idea of LEGISLATING the DEFINITION of marriage that is at once THE problem.
Gays already have the right of association. And the right of succession, if that is their choice, in a CIVIL union.
The militant among them demand that this go further. For what purpose could that possibly be?
The SSM issue is not to allay rights that do not exist already in the gay community it is to force, politically, the DENIGRATION of those who are NOT gay.
As the Conservative policy platform states, this is NOT the same as recognizing individual rights to live as one pleases and have the rights that all individuals have, it is to REMOVE rights from another segment of society in favour of a disapproving MINORITY.
The government and the courts have no business in this business.
No small minority can demand that the meaning of a word be changed.
“My view on gay marriage is, I don’t give a damn, either way. Fankly, I believe I’m in the majority here. People just don’t care about this issue here in Canada. The politicians use it in one way or another, and its a big one in the states, but not here.”
JUNKER: Sorry, pal, but you are in the minority with that opinion. Polls have consistently shown that almost 70% of Canadians do not wish to redefine marriage. End of story.
If you and Sean are suggesting that the remaining minority of 30% get to have their way regardless, I’m suggesting that’s neither democratic, nor just.
…Further to my last comment:
Why are you and the government so afraid of the will of the people? What’s wrong with debating these things in the arena of ideas?
Isn’t it just a bit arrogant to assume that you are the smartest people in the room and close down all discussion and dissent?
How is it I was asked for my opinion on voting protocols in a recent provincial referendum and I am either not consulted or ignored entirely when those issues that are fundamental to our society are on the table?
Why is it OK for Paul Martin and his Liberal cronies to ignore/downplay the recent Supreme Court of Canada decision on healthcare and yet hide behind/promote their rulings when they agree with them?
Just wondering…
EBD – My point is that no-one can or should for the sake of some cause. If fundamental definitions can be changed in one “right” they can be changed in all. “Rights” then belong to the whim of the government and true freedom dies. In the case of the SSM debate – homosexual marriage is an oxymoron – they completely contradict the other.
I can’t help but notice with admiration that, as usual, by the time I formulated my thoughts and pressed “post”, SNOWBUNNIE had already distilled the conversation to it’s pure logical essence.
Good work, S.
Vin has it right, that’s why it’s important for them to find there own term. It is the continual destruction of our basic rights and freedoms were fighting here.
I consider it my fundamental human right that everyone in this country call a “hand” a “foot”.
I shall not be oppressed.
EBD … take your foot out of your mouth…. 😉
Sorry, ya left it wide open.
Take your HAND out of yours. It’s not called a foot anymore. Or do you want to oppress me?
AHHHHH … I’m so confused … :-\
The state DOES have a role in marriage, because marriage is an economic issue (taxation, succession, pensions etc).
Marriage is not a human right, which is limited to the right to life, liberty and equality under the law, but is a social value. That’s why the Supreme Court refused to rule on it and handed it back to the legislature. Marriage is an issue to be decided by the society. Paul Martin is lying to Canadians when he claims that ‘the court has spoken’ and ‘it’s the charter’. SSM has nothing to do with human rights.
Marriage is not equivalent to the ‘right of association’. You can associate without being married; and marriage has nothing to do with love, despite one poster’s claims.
And, since gays already have these rights in a civil union – then, why ask for marriage?
I feel that the SSM will not protect religious institutions from having to perform SSM marriages etc. The Liberals say that they will include such protections; they can’t..
And, as another poster pointed out, differentiation, which can be viewed as discrimination, exists in all aspects of life. The senior who gets a cheap movie ticket; the student who gets a special train fare; the professor who gets a special education reduction for computer purchases..and so on.
I dont care about the SSM issue. Sorry. In Mexico everyone has to have a “civil union”. Then, if they choose they can get a “church marriage”.
We should just let each province decide since it is a provincial issue anyways to get out of the marriage business. Then the word “marriage” can be defined by the churches. Period.
Now let’s get on with saving our country from much worse.
Bravo, HappyDaze!!
The Liberal government wants to push through same-sex marrage because it’s another step toward making Liberal values synonymous with Canadian values and further entrenching the Liberals as the ‘natural’ ruling party.
The fact that Canadians don’t have ANY private property rights and the government reserves the right to ‘expropriate without compensation’ is somewhat more worrying then it comes to rights..
I think they should hold a nation-wide referendum, and if the law isn’t passed before an election, the CPC should make a referendum on SSM a plank in their platform.
SSM is simply a convenient stick to beat conservatives with. I sincerely doubt that the Liberals really give a crap about the “rights” of gays to marry.
What concerns me further to that is the apparent lack of Conservative homosexuals. Is there a right of centre homosexual group in Canada?
It seems to me that the lack of above would indicate that as a result of the lack of political polarity withing the gay community, that gays in Canada are simply an arm of the Liberal party of Canada. One whose demands must be met in order to provide Liberals with continued support.
What disturbs me about that is that they are free to attack as a political entity based on their sexual orientation, but they are not allowed to be attacked based on the same. It seems to be open season on the beliefs of other groups (ie Christians) entering the political arena.
Is it believable that gays do not have conservative views? I don’t think so. That none speak out against Liberals on any issue says that the homosexual community is a single issue special interest group and nothing more.
When I see some frank and open disagreement among gays with regards to this issue, I will believe that it is actually about something more than tarring and feathering the CPC.
You guys are gay.
Gotta run, my handball game starts in 20 minutes!
HappyDaze, Blueright and Myself. The three lone musketeers of dissent.
There are 30 posts to this topic already. While Libscammers are running off with our country much energy is being invested here.
I respect that so many are interested in SSM, but take a few moments to Email the Gov.General and demand she do her sworn duty, then C’mon back and screem about SSM with a clear conscience. 73s TG
Martin’s coverage of women and gender relations in North Korea is also worth noting. Although Kim Il-sung appears to have been at least in part a feminist, in that he sought to bring women’s education up to scratch and elevate their status by involving them in the workforce, he nonetheless possessed a virtual harem of young women selected purely for the purposes of entertaining him and Kim Jong-il. Kim Il-sung’s interest in young women was not just for pleasure, but for rejuvenating himself through absorbing a young virgin’s ki, or life-force, during sex. As such, it was extremely difficult being an attractive teenage girl in North Korea, lest the authorities (schools, in practice) recommend her to recruiters of the so-called “happy corps” (entertainers), or “satisfaction corps” (sexual services). Remarkably, parents were often happy for their daughters to be selected for these corps, for it would confer on them enhanced status, and therefore money. Pleasure girls retired from the corps at 22, after which they were often married off to other members of the elite. The two Kims’ easy-going sex lives were in sharp contrast to the stricter social mores of North Korea’s conservative society, yet another example of the leaders not practicing what they preached.
The Kims’ North Korea
http://www.atimes.com
*****************
Socialism/Communism in North Korea.
I propose that Kate asks the question at her next Mensa Meeting, or is that now Peoplesa Meeting? She holds the credibility here. Seriously, she might be able to get some views that we have not considered.
Then she could give us an overview.
cheers 🙂 majere
“It seems to me that the lack of above would indicate that as a result of the lack of political polarity withing the gay community, that gays in Canada are simply an arm of the Liberal party of Canada. One whose demands must be met in order to provide Liberals with continued support.”
Even if this is so, what does it matter? Its a tiny group of people.
Believe me, I’m no fan of what comes across as a very self centered attitude from these people, but I still don’t give a damn.
There are important issues to discuss.
I do like the idea of national referendums on certain issues though. They throw all sorts of important decisions on ballets in the States, and let the PEOPLE decide. Wish we did that in Canada.
Re:
Re: Clear
You are quoting the people that ‘responded’ to the poll. Very much irrelivant to what I said. I believe your average Canadian doesn’t give a damn.
Junker I disagree respectfully. I know people that dont read a newspaper or look at news at all, who are very upset that their province now has SSM. Gays may think this puts them in the mainstream of society but the very people who always associated gays with immoral behaviour havent changed their minds. SSM just goes against all that is right to them.
EnshrineMarriage.ca states: “The fact that two people say they love each other does not, in itself, justify a right to the benefits conferred by the state on married couples. The only justification for a state interest in the privacy of love flows from the connection between the political fact that the state has a fundamental concern for its own survival and well-being, the biological fact that all human beings require someone of the opposite sex to create life, and the social fact that children have a natural claim to the love and support of their own mothers and fathers. Marriage is a child-centred, not an adult-centred, institution. No one has the right to redefine marriage so as intentionally to impose a fatherless or motherless home on a child as a matter of state policy.�[emphasis mine]
JUNKER:
A poll is a poll is a poll.
If they contact 1000 people at random and almost 700 say they don’t want marriage redefined, then you can pretty much assume (within a margin of error) that represents the overall mindset of the Canadian public.
You might want to ask yourself why there is no talk of poll data on this subject. You can bet your ass that if 70% of Canadians wanted it we’d be hearing about it every flipping day.
Stop trying to curtail discussion with ridiculously glib comments like ” I believe your average Canadian doesn’t give a damn.” The whole idea that “nobody cares” and we should just move on to “something more important” is not supported in any way by the facts and merely a MSM/Egale ploy to push the agenda.
One more thing, JUNKER:
If you truly believe that the average Canadian doesn’t care about SSM, why don’t we have a referendum on it?
But then I think you already know the answer to that question…
Check around on Can.sites and see what the average gays think about this.
Most are astounded and some are laughing at us, and see no reason or sense in marriage.
the ssm debacle is one more arrow in the fuhrers arsenal for an amoral, malleable and controlled pop. This is what makes this issue so important, i suppose.
“That being said, you don even accept the premise that marriage is a “right” so how can I argue “rights” if you don’t accept it as being one.”
Choosing who you can associate with is a right. The state took that right, tagged a bunch of conditions, penalties, and rewards onto it and called it marriage.
I’m fine with the idea of a referendum. Let’s put it to the people and see what they come back with.
When’s the last time we’ve had a nation wide referendum? I’d be glad to see on SSM, as well as a plethera of other bigger issues.
Marriage is a cultural construct. In different cultures it occurs in different ways. Statistically, monogamous heterosexual unions were in the overwhelming majority in most cultures and societies. The church came along and gave these unions its “blessing” according to it own standards.
I am an evangelical pastor and (surprise, surprise) I have no qualms with society defining marriage differently than I or my church.
If another religion or church down the road chooses to “bless” marriages that I would not, that is their business.
Let us keep our freedom to define what we will bless or not bless according to our own beliefs.
Martin has a real problem on his hands,SSM is
being fought as a Human Rights issue and so is the Heath Care access ruling out of Quebec.
If he defend SSM he can’t then over ride the Courts and make Health care a social value and not a Human Rights claim as to negate the Charter
protection,and if he fears losing an election he must use the “not withstanding clause” on both Human Rights challenges.
How ironic,Martin and Chretien stacked the SCOC with Liberals think they bought the Election and could hide behind the Charter when it suits them.
Now those same lackies just took away the Liberals “One Issue” election promise that works to slander any compitition by “Defending health care tooth and nail,not like the two tier system the enemies of Canada want”.
This while Martin’s very own private Doctor runs for-profit clinics,and lets not forget Jack layton,I didn’t hear him refuse to get special access to a hospital for his recent operation.
As for SSM,if the Charter deems two men sharing a room to be a Married couple,then I’ll go live in a garage and be declared a Car so I can use the Charter to stop paying income tax.
The whole SSM debate revolves around a faulty assumption. That assumption is that there are only two sexes. Male and Female, but this ignores the “Other” category. Our sex is not defined by the space between our legs. It is more about the space between our ears and hormones. The idea that a marriage is between a man and a woman ignores the fact that a marriage is really about bonding, such as a marriage of ideas.
What people need to understand is the acceptance of the gays and lesbians is relatively new in our society. It takes a society time to accept new concepts. It is, in general the older generation that is having problems with accepting “gay/lesbian marriage because they only see two sexes.
When children see a female fish turn into a male, or when they see a young female in Brazil turn into a male at puberty they start to understand that defining your human sex is more than what is between your legs.
say it all you want, it’s still wrong.
Marriage is between a man and a woman, and is intended for creating and raising children.
NOTHING ELSE IS MARRIAGE, simply play acting. Call it something else and nobody will care.
Got it?
People are the same as fish, there’s an explanation – would those fish be “suckers” by any chance”?