Weblog Awards
Best Canadian Blog
2004 - 2007
Why this blog?
Until this moment I have been forced to listen while media and politicians alike have told me "what Canadians think". In all that time they never once asked.
This is just the voice of an ordinary Canadian yelling back at the radio -
"You don't speak for me."
homepage
email Kate
(goes to a private
mailserver in Europe)
I can't answer or use every tip, but all are appreciated!
Katewerk Art
Support SDA
I am not a registered charity. I cannot issue tax receipts.
Want lies?
Hire a regular consultant.
Want truth?
Hire an asshole.
The Pence Principle
Poor Richard's Retirement
Pilgrim's Progress
Trump The Establishment
Oh ebt, I can always count on you for a good laugh. Thanks. ๐
I realize this is a hot topic. Both sides can give as good as they get, but I’m going to demand that there be no personal insults, insinuated threats or profanity.
Whether you agree with Pride Parades or not, trashing the woman for her appearance is really low. You should stick to trashing her for her evident admiration for Laughin Jack.
(Plus, it says right on her that she’s beautiful!)
I’d do her.
I’m not so sure she’d do me though.
Every cat shall have its 15 seconds of fame:
http://drtony.blogspot.com/2005/07/catty-warhol.html
Instapundit
Kate: Personal Insults directed towards Jack Layton, and uhhh… the she-male, still acceptable?
I agree with the other comments that pride parades were engineered to cause a commotion… But most pride-parade battles were fought and won over ten years ago now!
Now I suppose we should all just resign to the fact that every year we get to see the same flesh-flouting floats, the same nipple clamps, leather outfits, and g-string along with the same POVs rehashed in news paper columns and other media.
In all reality, pride parades are now very much comparable to the annual family reunion. Ya know, that weekend in the summer where you hook up with your relatives that you never see otherwise, and can barely tolerate? Where every year you get asked the same dumb questions that go nowhere, eat the same potato salad, play the same game of lawn darts, watch the same uncle pass out from drinking too much, discover that the same cousin has yet another baby…..
They’re comparable because really, who looks forward to either one? They’re just another (unfortunate) annual occurance on the odometer of life.
— Steve in Ontario
er, Kate …
When a provocateur stirs things up with something provocative, people are sometimes provoked. The cow won’t go back into the barn, especially if she’s wearing a sailor hat.
Hey Kate
Did I go to far when I said Layton was Hitler in disguise?
I go off to work and you people go totally nuts!
Indeed this is one hell of a heavy topic. I know from experience. Back at university in 95-96, I actually had a sort of primitive blog in the form of a class email discussion list. Heh-heh… this topic was one I started people getting hot about. I started it all by launching into a criticism of Bill C-41 (1995) in which the Libbies decided to add the whole “orientation” thing to the list of things we cannot discriminate against. The implication of the Bill was to make such alleged discrimination an aggravating factor in sentencing. I argued this was unfair to regular, straight people and was actually discrimination against us. We don’t, therefore, have equal protections of law as a result of Bill C-41. I learned to retract and got warned a few times by the prof. This is how I know to be careful how I write on Kate’s blog. Looks like some people are learning it right now…
I was always bringing up topics in a stir-up-shit way just like Kate did today. Shock and controversy got people talking and interested in the new form of class participation. It earned me an A+ for the entire course, and considering I was really lazy with all the other assignments, I knew I had something hot going on! I took that opportunity to promote Reform to the people whenever I could. Why not?
I continued to blog like this for two or three more classes thru ’96. While I don’t have time for a blog of my own, I do immensely enjoy doing what I can around here.
Interesting: MP for Fundy Royal Rob Moore was in two or three of these classes. This was before he had any interest in politics at all, according to him. I wonder if… nah, I really shouldn’t pat myself on the back. I’m just pleased we have Rob in the House for us Conservatives! He’s doing a great job! Now, I hope to high heaven that Mr. Wallace, the local nominee for the Tories in the next election, in Saint John, beats the ass off of Paul Zed! Had Zed as a professor once, BTW.
BTW, whew! I was concerned my world was gonna go crashing down around me. Turns out the funny girl with Jackie L. was somebody else. WWhheeww!
Kate still rules! ๐
One of the underlying purposes for the Pride Parades is to deliberately overstate the homosexual “identity” in as much of an “in-your-face” manner as possible. After all, what ‘ordinary’ middle-class citizen won’t feel relieved if all they have to do is allow same-sex marriage to pass, as opposed to having the leather and chains set take over their streets? It’s a standard tactic for achieving a given result; put on an extreme demonstration, and then start talking up a ‘moderate’ position. It’s a lot like three card monte; make the sucker watch one hand, while the other hides the ace.
And by the way, everyone knows that Kate doesn’t wear glasses, so no one was really fooled by the picture; it was all sarcasm…….
Hey, why don’t we straighties get back at the other side by demanding the right to have these kinds of parades? After all, we’re proud of being straight, right? We’ll develop a style all our own that’s guaranteed to piss the other side off, yet they can’t do anything about it! That would be a sort of justice, wouldn’t it? Let’s walk around naked too! Do straight stuff!
And chant: “We’re here and we sure as hell ain’t queer, and there’s nothing you poopheads can do about it!” Or something like that…
Wait… on second thought, that sounds incredibly silly! Why stoop to the level of those anarchists, extremists, communists, nihilists… the list goes on…
I would suggest that laws against indecency in public that are always applied to us regular folks be equally applied to the parade participants. Example: No nudity of any kind shall be tolerated anymore that isn’t tolerated wrt people like me and Kate…
Does anyone dare disagree? I’ll be more than happy to debate this with any bloody moonie!
With my nick, I probably should not be commenting on this, but what the heck.
Here’s a question for you: why does the state need to recognise and define marriage?
The only reason the state cares about the legal definition of “marriage” is for taxation and for access to social benefits (or, more accurately, denial of social benefits if one is married).
Instead of the state getting involved, make all marriages of all types — between a man and a woman, between a woman and a woman, between two men and four women, whatever — a private contractual arrangement: all parties must enter into the arrangement voluntarily and willingly, and any party can leave the arrangement by the rules defined in the contract.
The only thing the state should require is that any minor children that result from the marriage are provided for, and the kids must be taken care of should the marriage contract be broken. Other than that one single requirement — the care and protection of minor children — the state has no business in deciding who can spend their lives with whom.
Would allowing multi-partner “marriages” be immoral? I don’t think so — as long as there is no abuse or harm, I don’t see the problem.
“But I would not want to live beside someone like that!” And why not? As long as the multi-daddied-and-mommied family next door isn’t out in the street performing lewd acts, what would be the problem?
For those curious: even though my nickname suggests otherwise, I’m straight and married. I’m opposed to gay marriage on two grounds: (1) the state has no business defining marriage, and (2) it’s an issue with which the professional victims in the gay community are going to beat us over the head for decades.
That said, I am all in favour of couples, same sex or otherwise, spending their lives together, and I believe that those partners have legal rights and responsibilities due to their relationship. However, that legal responsibility can be defined by a contractural agreement — the state does not need to define the relationship.
Anyway. Justathought.
Does anyone remember what happened to Sodom and Gamora?
“Lickmuffin” asks:
“why does the state need to recognise and define marriage?”
–You haven’t been reading the discussion at all wrt marriage? I recommend you do research in the archives regarding this issue on SDA.
“The only reason the state cares about the legal definition of “marriage” is for taxation and for access to social benefits (or, more accurately, denial of social benefits if one is married).”
–Not originally the reason, but the Liberals are only too happy to make it THEIR reason. For them, it’s about politics and money, not about what is in the interests of civilization and humanity.
“Instead of the state getting involved, make all marriages of all types — between a man and a woman, between a woman and a woman, between two men and four women, whatever — a private contractual arrangement: all parties must enter into the arrangement voluntarily and willingly, and any party can leave the arrangement by the rules defined in the contract.”
–Gawd… you gotta stop listening to the moonies, the Liberals and the MSM. You gotta think critically for yourself. Why must we as a country open up this important institution to just any combination of people? Why take a dangerous risk? Just say NO.
“The only thing the state should require is that any minor children that result from the marriage are provided for, and the kids must be taken care of should the marriage contract be broken. Other than that one single requirement — the care and protection of minor children — the state has no business in deciding who can spend their lives with whom.”
–You’re scaring the crap right outta me! Why not just let everyone do whatever the damn hell they want with children? Why should the state bother to protect the human rights of children? Why shouldn’t the people simply quit caring at all about what kind of society they want, or even if there should be a society? Why not embrace anarchy and chaos? Hell, let’s all go back to the Dark Ages, or, better yet, the Stone Age?
“Would allowing multi-partner “marriages” be immoral? I don’t think so — as long as there is no abuse or harm, I don’t see the problem.”
–Of COURSE you don’t see the problem. I didn’t think you would. And what makes you think YOU understand anything about “morality”?
“But I would not want to live beside someone like that!” And why not? As long as the multi-daddied-and-mommied family next door isn’t out in the street performing lewd acts, what would be the problem?”
–Why do you think the ONUS OF PROOF should be on the majority who believe in the original laws, morals, traditions, and follow them, all the while seeing that they work and that they’re FOR THE GREATER GOOD, NOT JUST IN THE INTEREST OF THE FEW WHO ONLY CARE ABOUT THEMSELVES? DON’T YOU REALIZE THAT THE NEEDS OF THE MANY FAR OUTWEIGH THE NEEDS OF THE FEW OR THE ONE?
I submit that the onus of proof of no-harm should be on the antisocial minority!
…With all due respect, friend.
Hey , does canada pension disability cover “homo nausia”?
I mean what if all the toxic hypocrisy of this pandering to rank narcissim, self serving
hedonist psychotic sex drives makes one physically ill…hey it’s as viable as homo relations being “normal”.
Ca I get on a subsidy for my failing to cope with hypocrisy?
We๏ฟฝre in serious trouble. How we going to continue existence?
She-male and he-female cannot do.
Thanks god for that not-miracle.
“One of these days readers will find that when they pass their cursor over some pictures, they light up.”
One of these days? How about most days…now.
Stephen McAllister notes:
“You haven’t been reading the discussion at all wrt marriage? I recommend you do research in the archives regarding this issue on SDA.”
I’m a recent arrival to Small Dead Animals and, to be honest, have not paid much attention to the SSM posts in the past. But I will look into what’s been posted here.
“Not originally the reason, but the Liberals are only too happy to make it THEIR reason. For them, it’s about politics and money, not about what is in the interests of civilization and humanity.”
Sounds like we’re somewhat in agreement here.
“Gawd… you gotta stop listening to the moonies, the Liberals and the MSM. You gotta think critically for yourself.”
I don’t listen to the moonies, the Libs, or the MSM. My position is the result of more-or-less independent thought, following a somewhat libertarian path. Note that I wrote “libertarian”, NOT “libertine.”
“You’re scaring the crap right outta me! Why not just let everyone do whatever the damn hell they want with children? Why should the state bother to protect the human rights of children? Why shouldn’t the people simply quit caring at all about what kind of society they want, or even if there should be a society? Why not embrace anarchy and chaos? Hell, let’s all go back to the Dark Ages, or, better yet, the Stone Age?”
You’ve misread my comment. I wrote that the care of minor children would be the ONE THING with which the state should be concerned. The state does not need to regulate the nature of the relationship between the parents, but it absolutely, positively needs to ensure that dependent children in the care of those parents are cared for and provided for. The state needs to ensure that those children are safe, healthy, and educated in one form or another.
The state should not be able to arrest someone because little Johnny has a daddy and two mommies who have agreed to live together as a family. As soon as that kid is abused or neglected, then the state has a case — but the state has no right to define how these people live their personal lives.
“Of COURSE you don’t see the problem. I didn’t think you would. And what makes you think YOU understand anything about “morality”?”
I think I lead a pretty moral life: I don’t deliberately do harm to others, I don’t deliberately do harm to myself, and I honour my responsibilities.
Perhaps we have a different definition of morality.
Explain to me the harm in this scenario: using the example above, little Johhny has one daddy and two mommies. Daddy is the biological father, Mommy 1 is the biological mother, and Mommy 2 is a third partner in the family. Little Johnny is loved by all three partners. L.J. is not physically, sexually, or emotionally abused. He’s well cared for materially. He’s well cared for emotionally. L.J. goes to school like all of the other kids, he plays on sports teams like all of the other kids — in all regards, he’s a normal kid.
How is this kid being harmed?
All of the adults in the family are equal partners — no one is “kept” and no one is there against their will. All financial assets are shared equally, as one would with a traditional husband-wife relationship. The legal relationship between the adults is defined by a contract. Should the marriage fail, the contract provides for such an event. At best, it would be no worse than an amicable divorce. Should it get worse than that for whatever reason, there’s legal recourse — the wronged party can go to court, just as one does in a disputed divorce. All three partners are equal in every legal sense.
How are the adults being harmed?
The family lives in a suburb of a large city, in a single-family home on a 50-foot lot, surrounded by neighbors. They don’t have sex in public and they are not “in your face” about the relationship with the neighbors.
How is the community being harmed?
Nobody is being abused or having anything done to them against their will — so I really don’t see the harm here.
Explain it to me.
“Why do you think the ONUS OF PROOF should be on the majority who believe in the original laws, morals, traditions, and follow them, all the while seeing that they work”
Do they work perfectly every time? Are you claiming that the traditional husband-wife concept of marriage NEVER does harm to the adults or the children born of the marriage? The traditional system works EVERY SINGLE TIME? Ha!
If a legal status that some citizens enjoy is being denied to other individuals, then I do indeed think that it is up to the society, through its government, to clearly explain WHY those rights are being denied.
“… they’re FOR THE GREATER GOOD”
What other intrusions into personal life are you willing to make for the greater good?
“DON’T YOU REALIZE THAT THE NEEDS OF THE MANY FAR OUTWEIGH THE NEEDS OF THE FEW OR THE ONE?”
When I read that, I’m not sure if you’re yanking my chain or not (which is probably NOT the best euphemism to use here, considering the subject).
I do not see the harm in adults who are capable of making their own decisions and taking responsibility for their own actions choosing to pursue relationships that defy traditional definitions. I do not see how individuals livig their own lives detracts from the “needs of the many”.
“I submit that the onus of proof of no-harm should be on the antisocial minority!”
Are you going to make that a requirement for every sort of relationship or lifestyle of which you do not approve? Would this be a requirement of, say, interracial or inter-ethnic (for lack of a better word) marriages? Would this be a requirement of people who want to have more than a certain number of children? Would you reuqire the onus of proof of no-harm for home schoolers? For people who follow a faith other than yours?
Note that I’m not trying to equate SSM with interracial marriage or homeschooling or religion; but in one sense, all of these things have something in common: all are a matter of choice.
“With all due respect, friend.”
Same here. Thanks for commenting.
Oh, man… I’m getting tired of this bloody neverending argument!
Would someone on the conservative side please take over so I can get some friggin’ sleep? I have confidence in my fellow right-thinking people. It’s a team thing.
Nighty-night, people.
Can’t help myself. One more thing: Again, Lickmuffin says:
“Note that I’m not trying to equate SSM with interracial marriage or homeschooling or religion; but in one sense, all of these things have something in common: all are a matter of choice.”
All are a matter of choice? So is terrorism. So is rape for the rapist. So is corruption for Liberals. So is haphazard thinking by people who choose to do drugs and make up bizarre thoughts. And the list is endless…
Do you think that any and all choices are equally good, Lickmuffin?
BTW, you gotta get a new nickname. I feel silly talking to somebody and thinking of something I like to do, but not blabber about in public like the silly weirdos in the parades… ๐
That’s all, folks, for today…
Are we Canadians sexually self-concious? insecure? or what?
Jack decides to go for the gay voting block. If that block is small, then this topic is fluff!
If that block is surprisingly large, then Jack may be a wise politician.
I say the gay block is small, this topic is fluff, and at over 70 comments, this is a mystery, or entertainment? 73s, TG
Is Jack’s hand on IT’S ass?????????
Ugggghhhhhhh
Stephen McAllister notes:
“Would someone on the conservative side please take over so I can get some friggin’ sleep?”
I’d appreciate having someone from the “conservative side” actually respond to the argument that I’m making here, rather than what Stephen is doing. Use the e-mail address in the nickname link if you want — just remove the spam-defeating ALL CAPS.
I think Stephen has completely missed my argument: I’m arguing for less state intervention in the daily lives of adult citizens. Stephen seems to think that’s a bad thing.
“All are a matter of choice? So is terrorism. So is rape for the rapist. So is corruption for Liberals.”
…
“Do you think that any and all choices are equally good, Lickmuffin?”
No, not all choices are equally good.
Terrorism and rape are explicit acts of violence. Liberal corruption is theft.
Is recognising the fact that the married couple of John and Jack Doe have the same legal benefits and responsibilities as the married couple of John and Jane Smith really as bad as murder and rape?
“So is haphazard thinking by people who choose to do drugs and make up bizarre thoughts.”
Make your ad hominem a little less obvious and I might be challenged to rebuff it.
Not much time, and don’t know when I’ll be able to respond again but Lickmuffin, your arguing a morality issue, which can go all over the board, and requesting an individual response.
That’s what’s wrong with all this. the society involved, as a WHOLE, should decide issues like this, as it affects the moral fabric and make up of the country. That’s not the way it was done. A few clowns rammed through a decision based on pressure from a special interest group. Any issue of this magnitude should be a ballot item.
That’s a girl – actually if you click on the picture, it takes you to a collection of her photos you can see in a slideshow, and she’s a pretty good photographer. Lots of nice pictures of blooming cacti, and there are some pretty pictures of the area around Vancouver. The one with Jack Layton is probably the ickiest one there, everything else is pretty tasteful.
Any two gays are free, and always have been free, to make any arrangements they want for their mutual support.
Any two gays are, and at least since the repeal of the blasphemy laws some generations ago, have been free, to go through any blasphemous parody of the marriage ceremony that amuses them, and to puff themselves up by vainly pretending that their relationship is as good as any damn “marriage”.
So this isn’t about gays at all. It’;s about the rest of us. The state will now use its full power to coerce everybody else into treating the vain pretensions of gays as true.
This isn’t about justice, or equality, or fair treatment of gays. It’s about gays stealing control of the power of the state and using it to bully their neighbours. Lie as the [deleted] demand or be beaten up!
ebt. Last warning. clean up your language.
Lickmuffin, I assure you I wasn’t implying that YOU choose to use drugs and make up bizarre thoughts out of the blue. Although it sounds like that, as an “independent thinker”, perhaps you sometimes do come to your opinions via imagination. I, on the other hand, come to my opinions via observation and experience.
Remember, knowledge “a priori” cannot be obtained. It must come “a posteriori”, ie. following observation and experience of reality. Not that there’s anything wrong with having a good imagination. It’s just that conservatives really prefer to discuss matters through the lens of objective, a posteriori reality.
We also believe that controversial issues shouldn’t be settled by one or a very few individuals who probably don’t have the best interests of the country in mind.
Therefore, I agree with Rob that the SSM issue should have been decided democratically via referendum, with full, complete and open discussion by all of society. It’s not about putting human rights to a vote, as the left puts it.
The left opposes any democracy from which they know they will not get what they want.
Again, with all due respect, friend.
Reading this it is difficult to imagine how gay people can imagine “conservatives” are grumpy people who need a little alone time before they can be elected. Kate said something about healers healing themselves. Straight people obsessing over Pride – overwhelmingly made up of boring Ikea shoppers in Bermuda shorts no matter what the parade itself suggests – might take that advice to heart.
If anyone here is writing from their imagination, I think it’s you, Stephen.
What makes you think I’m not conservative? Where’d you get that? Am I not a conservative because I believe in small government that stays out of personal lives?
I understand your need to dismiss me as a loon — you can’t answer the questions I posed in my second post: how are the individuals in an alternative marriage and the people in the community harmed by granting a legal status to the non-traditional relationship?
Tell me where the harm is in allowing adults to live as they want, as long as it’s completely consentual and non-destructive.
Just because it pisses you off is not a good enough reason.
I’ll throw you a freebie here: if government begins to subsidize non-traditional marriages with special social benefits, then hell yes, SSM is harmful to society and is discriminatory. But I doubt that the government is going to offer any special benefits for gay marrieds — my wife and I don’t get any special benefits in our traditional marriage, so why would anyone else?
Anyway. You’ve missed my point here: I’m arguing for less state intervention in daily life. I’m not defending bizarre relationships. What people do to themselves, as long as I don’t have to pay for it, is their business.
The fate of Canada is in their hands. Gawd ‘elp us !
By all means, Flea – let’s just shut the people up whom you don’t agree with.
As I have reminded readers in the past – though it seems to be a fact so obvious that doing so is somewhat embarrassing – no one here, myself included, is running for office, and for that matter, there is at least one Green party supporter on this comments thread who has been as critical of gay exhibitionism as anyone.
So, let’s stop large-P politicizing these disdcussions. It serves no purpose, other than reinforcing the insulting meme that only some Canadians are worthy of a voice in the discussion.
Agreeing to disagree is something that both the left, and the libertarian left could well learn to do.
For what it’s worth…
The “gay community” is a religious cult. No different than any other cults we’ve seen: at odds with societal norms, possesses a never-ending persecution mantra, lives by amoral rules that suite their leadership’s agenda and has a very active recruitment campaign.
My niece was actively recruited by the gay community a couple of years ago. My sister made the visit to Toronto to witness the wedding ceremony between her daughter and another much older woman who was essentially the “recruiter”. During a cab ride my sister was told by one of the recruiter’s acquaintances that she was very satisfied that she was able to “trick” my niece into the gay lifestye. And for a couple of years my neice tried really hard to be gay.
Alas, the marital commitment the recruiter made to my niece didn’t last as there was too many tempting and eager pots around to keep her fingers out of.
My thoughts on my niece’s experience are that not only are the obvious aspects of gay marriage different from the “traditional” definition but so are other important details like the value of commitment. There is nothing I’ve observed that connects people in a gay marriage the same as in a traditional marriage. Having to care for babies might be a critical determining factor in the differences (i.e. having think of someone else).
Anyways, my neice is really excited now that she’s been contacted recently by a GUY she really liked before her “conversion”…who knows, maybe someday she may opt for the traditional version of marriage and have kids someday. Any bets that it would outlast her first try?
Forgive me, Lickmuffin. This issue just annoys me basically because it seems to have been made the NUMBER ONE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE IN SOCIETY.
Sorry if I seemed to have implied you’re not necessarily conservative.
In response to your query as to “harm” in permitting and officially recognizing any and all kinds of relationships as equal to the traditional marriage which preexisted the concept of state, my answer is this:
I BELIEVE that civilization as a whole very possibly could be harmed and weakened by rejecting special status for traditional marriage- whose primary intent is to foster the proven-best-on-the-scale-of-society-as-a-whole upbringing of new human beings, children. I simply see this official sanctioning and even regulating of this type of family unit as being the most stable (until liberalized divorce laws, etc.), and we know that stability is in the best interests of all children and of civilization by extension. It is the fundamental responsibility of the state to act in the best interests of society as a whole, therefore the state acted to preserve and protect the traditional family unit which biologically is male/female, period.
Beyond the short-term well-being of children, we must also foresee ahead to the child’s adulthood. We know that childhood experience indubitably influences what kind of person the child becomes as an adult. The implication is that the more children who are brought up in stable, loving, traditional male/female biologically correct families, the more adults will continue that tradition and beget more stable, well-adjusted citizens as a result. Conversely, the more we simply allow people to bring up children pretty much any way in the world they see fit, like hippy-communist-polygamist-religiofascist-etc.-etc. relationships in all combinations and numbers, eventually the end result will be, I BELIEVE, ANARCHY, CHAOS, TERRORISM, AND WAR BECAUSE I BELIEVE WHEN HUMAN BEINGS ARE FREE OF ALL RULES AND LAWS AND CUSTOMS AND MORES AND TRADITIONAL IMPERATIVES, THEY WILL FALL PREY TO THE EVIL OF SELF-INTEREST. Do we want to risk this for civilization in the long run? The world has been evolving properly until recently, I believe, with the end of the Cold War, during which people the world over understood the need to maintain stability and strength and focus on what is important or else the world would have ended up bathed in silent white light and plunged into the great unknown.
But, my friend, you are certainly free to wear the ever-popular rose-colored glasses. I and the vast majority choose to see the world through a clear lens.
I hope that answers your question. If not, that’s ok with me. In Canada, it’s ok to disagree. I ultimately will trust in democracy. If SSM were approved in a fair, open referendum, I would have no choice but to concede defeat. What about you, sir?
I acknowledge that yes, sometimes things happen beyond people’s control that leads to children ending up with one or even no biological parents, like war, terrorism, car accidents, etc. But that doesn’t mean we have to pursue the wholesale dismantlation of traditional marriage and traditional families. We have to be compassionate and supportive of people who find themselves in unfortunate, sad circumstances, definitely, but the key as I and the vast majority of people see it is what is in the interest of society as a whole must be protected and promoted.
But, sir, I do not imply that you don’t have a right to your opinion, even if it goes against what most people believe deep down.
Martin B.’s story doesn’t surprise me, because I understand human nature from observation and experience.
There are many people who are selfish and manipulative of others and there are people who are altruistic and trusting. Put them together, and it sure as hell is not going to work out.
If the state regulates matrimonial relationships (liberalized divorce laws are a disaster for most marriages), the selfish people will not likely dare to take advantage of younger, naive people in this serious way whether of the opposite sex or not. This is in support of my lengthy explanation in my post above this one.
I wonder how many more examples like this one in which people were manipulated by others into believing they were gay (most common is the actually unproven claim that some are born that way- all I’ve seen were hoaxes by self-claimed scientists claiming to have scientific proof, like the human-cloning lie we witnessed recently whereas the claimants refused to release their claimed proof) and then realized they weren’t; that they were just extremely confused and looking for any kind of comfort or answers, even easy ones (such is human nature- we’re imperfect beings, after all).
I believe the Vast, Left-Wing Conspiracy has been silencing via censorship in the MSM, etc. people who would like to come forward and tell their real-life stories about switching sides back and forth and realizing it’s all a matter of choice, though seemingly complex enough psychologically for many to actually remain on the other side of the fence of preference.
For the record, I have nothing against people’s private choices. I’m not the one who has been making a big deal out of the issue over the years, but the whole thing recently became serious enough that citizens should feel free to discuss the matter civilly, respectfully, without fear of censorship or persecution or retaliation of any kind from the state or from individuals.
I agree with Kate. I accept the fact that some people agree to disagree with me and my politics. I also hold the belief that just as people didn’t accept blacks or as it once was common to not allow women to get married that the prejudices some people hold against gay people will diminish with time. My evidence for this is to just look how much things have changed in 20 years and then postulate through another 20.
But I had to laugh when I read about someone being ‘recruited’. Is that belief still really tossed around by some heteros? Also you can’t ‘trick’ someone into being gay or bisexual anymore than someone could ‘trick’ me into being straight. If someone slept with your daughter, neice or sister, it was because ultimately she was gay or she wanted to try sleeping with someone of the same sex. Now she may have been ‘tricked’ on an emotional level which is sleazy no matter what sexuality you’re looking at. Unlike Ellen’s show — gay people do not get toaster ovens for ‘converting’ people so rest easy.
I’m going to disagree with you here, too, Todd. Though I have enough friends who are gay to know better than to buy into the notion that one can “recruit” someone into altering one’s basic orientation – I also know that a lot of kids are extremely vulnerable and open to suggestion during their teen years. If it were not possible to “recruit” a heterosexual into homosexual activity – particularly in a society that is exceedingly permissive and officially non-judgemental – it would not be possible to recruit kids into drug use, into religious/political cults, gay prostitution – into any manner of behaviors that they ordinarily wouldn’t do on their own.
If SSM was going to be a done deal, one provision that its advocates should have demanded was the raising of the age of consent to 18. Allow kids to be protected, albeit imperfectly, from predators or “recruiters” by the legal system until they have moved beyond that “rebellious” age in which they are so vulnerable to suggestion and influence.
If you think that trying to supress one’s homosexual orientation is harmful, consider dealing with a troubled teenager who had been convinced he was “gay”, only to realize later that he’d been had.
Just curious Kate — what is the incentive for a person to ‘recruit’ someone into being gay? Or are you getting confused with trying to get someone to sleep with you that you are attracted to which is the same thing as a man trying to sleep with a woman or a woman trying to sleep with a man?
There’s a difference?
Exactly. There isn’t. So I guess it’s no different nor worse than an older hetero guy trying to score with a young girl.
I’m not surprised with the response to the words “recruit” and “trick” that were used to describe what happened to my niece. I guess either people don’t believe the description of
my neice’s experiences or can’t believe that the gay movement has any agenda or motives on an individual level.
I lived in the house where my niece grew up and witnessed first hand her crushes on school boys and heard her fawn about actors like Christian Slater and that blond guy from “The Princess Bride”. Therefore, I was really shocked when I was told she had converted to a gay lifestyle and committed totally to a same sex marriage.
I do believe that the gay movement has cult-like qualities, illustrated by observations of my neice’s experiences. She was living far from her family and had pretty low self esteem, much of it resulting from a weighty problem she carried all her life. She was very vulnerable and was under considerable stress of just trying to make a go of it. Anyone making an offer of a “better way” wouldn’t have been ignored. There’s something about a guaranteed roof over her head, food and friendship in the face of desperation that makes people very pliable.
My generalizations are certainly open to attack but not the specifics. Can anyone explain how someone’s behavior can change so dramatically over a short period of time that the person becomes almost totally unrecognizable to a close family member? Isn’t that the sort of thing we hear about in interviews from family regarding members of the Branch Davidians or the Unification church?
Is it impossible to believe the gay movement hasn’t taken advantage of the young and vulnerable? Is the NAMBLA organization just a humorous joke amongst friends? Maybe I’d understand that better if I knew why people with shaved heads wearing beaded white sheets like to congregate at airport terminals and bus stations to hand out pamphlets extolling their version of love and a better life.
Martin,
Trust me when I tell you that there is not an organized gay movement that is out there to win over people. Elton John and Rosie O’Donnell aren’t our generals in some far off command bunker ordering their pansy troops to gather up new recruits.
Often people when they come out DO act very differently. Their whole life they are hiding a part of themselves and finally when they feel they can be free about it, they ‘break free’ and enjoy living the truth, rather than a lie. If, and only if, you have spent 20 + years hiding a secret inner part of yourself and finally feel like you can show that to your friends and parents, then speak about it. If not, then trust me on this one, since I’ve been there.
But my point is really that your niece starting a relationship with a shady gay person is no different than her starting a relationship with a shady straight person. If someone was stringing her a line, they were stringing her a line regardless of their sexuality.
And NAMBLA no more speaks for me or 99.99999% of the gay population than the Klu Klux Klan speaks for straight people, kapiche?
“Trust you”, Todd? Hey, why not, it’s not like you lie all the time or anything.
So there’s no organized gay movement? All the pro-gay websites that discuss agenda items must all be works of fiction then. If no agenda exists, then it’s only the rare disgruntled gay individual wanting to break out of his or her marginalized existence that is responsible for things like federal Bill C-250 that makes the Bible hate literature, or a B.C. lawsuit against a church for not allowing it’s building to be used for same-sex ceremonies or the Human Rights Commission complaints against Bishop Fred Henry for communicating church beliefs to his flock. Any resemblance to an agenda pushed by an organized movement is purely coincidental… There, there baby, it’s o.k. to go back to sleep now…there’s no need to worry about freedom of religion (so long as it accepts the gay lifestyle).
As for the “shady” lady my niece got mixed up with…is she really so different from other gays in her beliefs and behaviors? Is it rare for a gay person to hit on a person they know is straight? Or from a straight background but vulnerable? Time will tell if gays treat marriage in a similar fashion to traditional couples or if it’s really just a “for fun” experiment. My observations so far tell me it’s the latter.
Time will also tell if my niece had been hiding her gay feelings for 20+ years of her young life while acting visibly quite interested in the opposite sex during her teenage years. Maybe she was originally gay between her baby to pre-teen stages and merely tried out being interested in boys when everyone else she knew was. She then reverted back to the gay existence she always felt was there when the opportunity thrust itself into her face. I don’t know for sure. But maybe she was tired of rejection, flattered, curious, confused, immature and desperate.
As for groups like NAMBLA…I’m sure they don’t speak for you. But how many members of the gay community believe the same things? 5? 500? 5000? Isn’t that like what happened to my niece but at a much younger age (if her vulnerability was taken advantage of)? Isn’t that what cults do?
I never said there wasn’t a gay movement. There are several and all speak to their constituencies. There is not one all encompassing gay movement that you seem to think there is.
As for comparing being gay to a cult — well, everytime I turn on the TV, listen to the radio or look outside, I see heterosexuals doing heterosexual things. Practically all the movies at the theatre have straight sex scenes and I’ve been pushed by heterosexual society to be straight. So, am I being brainwashed by a cult?
Anyway, none of us are going to change our opinions so I guess the debate is over. I respect your opinion but I think that gay people are just not as scary as you seem to think they are.
ebt, when you have some rational debating points, raise them ok? Otherwise, don’t waste my broadband connection.
I have no ill feelings towards gay individuals personally (except those that prey upon people like my niece). I am for the most part a live and let live person. However, it’s the federal government’s thought police policies that’s giving me goosebumps and raising the hair on the back of my neck.
When core institutions like church and marriage are being legislatively changed in Canada because of belief conflicts with politically powerful people and those changes do not reflect the will of the majority then our country has taken more than a few steps down the path to Orwell’s 1984. The will of the majority is the basis of democracy…so what is happening inside Canada with regards to the gay marriage issue is a subversion of democracy.
Debate has been always cut off when opposing viewpoints were expressed and worse, expressing those viewpoints is becoming labled a crime. No general vote was been allowed, probably because the majority was deemed too simple minded to understand and make the “correct” choice themselves. But the end does not justify the means…if we are to be a free democratic people (ALL OF US) then we must respect the process of allowing full participation by everyone and freedom to express ideas with equal access to public forums.
I believe there is a real crises in Canada’s democracy and forceful pro-gay policy is only part of it. It’s clear that there is a very strong organized gay movement with their own belief system that has conflicts with the belief systems of other citizens (example – many Christian Canadians). Those conflicts are reflected in the battles to change our institutions and our individual freedoms.
I don’t want to wake up one day with an electronic tracking bracelet on my right arm flashing a message that I was late for my Liberal Party of Canada obedience and propaganda acceptance class. Others may say that there isn’t a strong gay “religious” movement trying to subvert other more traditional movements…but that doesn’t reflect what I see happening right before my eyes.
I have no ill feelings towards gay individuals personally (except those that prey upon people like my niece). I am for the most part a live and let live person. However, it’s the federal government’s thought police policies that’s giving me goosebumps and raising the hair on the back of my neck.
When core institutions like church and marriage are being legislatively changed in Canada because of belief conflicts with politically powerful people and those changes do not reflect the will of the majority then our country has taken more than a few steps down the path to Orwell’s 1984. The will of the majority is the basis of democracy…so what is happening inside Canada with regards to the gay marriage issue is a subversion of democracy.
Debate has been always cut off when opposing viewpoints were expressed and worse, expressing those viewpoints is becoming labled a crime. No general vote has been allowed, probably because the majority was deemed too simple minded to understand and make the “correct” choice themselves. But the end does not justify the means…if we are to be a free democratic people (all of us) then we must respect the process of allowing full participation by everyone and freedom to express ideas with equal access to public forums.
I believe there is a real crises in Canada’s democracy and forceful pro-gay policy is only part of it. It’s clear that there is a very strong organized gay movement with their own belief system that has conflicts with the belief systems of other citizens (example – many Christian Canadians). Those conflicts are reflected in the battles to change our institutions and restrict our individual freedoms.
I don’t want to wake up one day with an electronic tracking bracelet on my right arm flashing a message that I was late for my Liberal Party of Canada obedience and propaganda acceptance class. Others may say that there isn’t a strong gay “religious” movement trying to enforce behaviour modification on individual Canadians…but that doesn’t reflect what I see happening right before my eyes.
Oops…posted nearly the same message twice…my apologies (the second one is a little better polished).
Martin…
And I see a strong Conservative, primarily religious-based movement trying to dictate to me how I should live my life based on their religion which isn’t mine. Seems as though we both feel that ominous groups are forming against us.
But on a personal level, I’m not asking anyone who doesn’t want to come to my wedding to come and I’m not forcing you to buy me a wedding gift. We’ll agree to disagree and you won’t even notice a difference when my partner and I have our ceremony.
No, that’s when I won’t notice a difference. It will be when I see you at the required Liberal Party of Canada social re-education class as a presenter.