But, how can this be…
In the U.S., religious people who say they devote “a great deal of effort” to their spiritual lives are 42 percentage points more likely to contribute to charity than secularists who have little or no religious faith. Moreover, religious Americans do not just give to their churches: They are also significantly more likely than secular Americans to donate money and time to non-religious charities such as the United Way.
Brooks also found a strong and specific correlation between political ideology and charity. In both the United States and Europe, conservatives who believe in limited government are far more likely to make charitable contributions than are liberals who think government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality.
cross-posted: Cjunk
lookout: From your presumably safe, collaborator, appeaser, PC position (are you French, by any chance?), your smug taunts at people whose lives could be seriously jeopardized by exercising their apparent rights of freedom of religion and expression ring very hollow.
Huh? Collaborator? Surrender-monkey? What are you talking about, lookout? Exactly who are these people whose lives are potentially under jeopardy — SDA readers? If that’s who you mean, you are seriously over-exaggerating.
“Lives are seriously jeopardized…” Hahahaha….
A’dam, read the HRC thread. And check out samizdat and repressive governments.
And, now, it’s time for you to practise what you preach. I’ll be out for most of today, but when I return,I’ll check here for some information about you.
How about your full name, your street address, and your email address?
Go ahead.
johnGalt wrote “I abhor the religious domination of right wing politics” As do I of left wing politics by religious domination. Not many years ago the UCC was known as the NDP at prayer.
“What gives you the right to say that these gods don’t exist but that your Jehwah does”
Its called free speach, johnGalt. It comes from the concept in Christianity where the Apostles wanted to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ but were met with deadly opposition. The spiritual heirs of these men decided it was better to allow all mankind to voice an opinion than one official voice that all must adhere to. It is at the root of our prosperity. I wrote a rather long post about it above go read it.
BTW the Creater’s name is Yahweh not Jehwah. The word means “I AM”. He is a self aware being who decided for His own purpose that He would share His existance with all that He created. It is He in for whom all things exist. It is He through whom all things exist It is He in whom all things exist.
The fear of Him is the beginning of wisdom. Check it out you will be amazed at what you discover.
Lookout: How about your full name, your street address, and your email address? Go ahead.
Well, now you’ve peaked my curiosity. Everything you need to contact me can be found on my personal website.
Gary;SWEDEN ! You mean to say that you would group SWEDEN with those other bunch of murderers?Why the hell didnt you pick CANADA as it would make as much sense.
Joe:
Thanks for your reasoned arguments.
May I add: merely being ‘nice’ is no more a path to inner peace than smiling all the time.
Niceness without the substance of wisdom is a hollow satisfaction.
Canadian Observer,
I can take care of myself thanks. I made a pointed and perhaps glib point that members of a particular hate group are mostly religious (Protestant), oponents to SSM are mostly religious and the warmonger Bush is a Christian. Please try to disprove these facts…I’ll wait for as long as it takes! Instead of disproving my statement, the Salem Witch hunters come out in a pack and turn it around that I am the hate machine. Whatever, small minds and all. And just to put an excalamation mark on their behavior, in walks A’dam and JohnGalt without any provocation, the jackals are on them like flies on you know what. If they are so secure in their belief system it should be like water off a ducks back! The only relief in sight for my brand of Conservatism is that this small minded lot is growing smaller as a demographic as more people in Canada reject organised Religion. Thank EL
The other John here.
I agree with ET in that it is not necessarily Christianity that makes one charitable, but rather the attitude of free self-reliant people who feel an obligation to help out others who are having trouble. The Godless Ayn Rand was a big fan of private charity. I suspect that is because the private folks won’t put up with the scammers for long.
Socialists are indeed the epitome of entitlement and that comes from government. Let the down and outers see them for their free stuff.
The problem with that is that socialist governments instantly institutionalized those hand outs and thus create never-ending expectation that those who are willing to prostrate themselves to the front-line government intake people can get a low level, life long retirement plan going with medial, dental with no responsibilities ever.
Thus a social sub group of welfare scammers and tax cheats flourish under benevolent Socialist regimes such as we have in Canada.
Plus, if they don’t get too drugged out or obese, they can even work under the table and not pay any tax. This is a common scenario in Canada.
It is in the interest of those of us who know that the best cure for most ills is a job, to help others get prepared and get a job asap. That way they are less likely to fall into a life of crime or drug use.
It’s quite simple really. Most people are reactionary, by nature, so it follows … if you treat people as though they were irresponsible children, that is how they will behave. Just look at our native Indians for a great example of what I just stated.
gary – you are making factual and logical errors.
When you declare the ‘most members of the KKK’ are religious – you’ll have to provide proof both of this assumption and second, that their religion is the ‘ground cause’ of their membership in the KKK. You can’t do this.
All you can logically and factually claim is
IF the KKK member belongs to a religious group, then, it will be a Protestant denomination.
You’ve got the ‘IF’ to deal with, ie, need for proof of religious filiation. And, you can’t reverse this IF-THEN statement. You can’t say that IF they are Protestant, THEN they’ll be a member of the KKK. That’s a logical fallacy. I doubt you know this.
You can’t say that people who are opposed to SSM are primarily religious, for you are committing yet another logical fallacy – begging the question. You are assuming without proof that opposition to SSM is, in itself, wrong. That’s a false assumption.
Then, you can’t state ‘warmonger Bush’, because that description is invalid. It’s your personal conclusion about him. Not fact.
Equally, you’ve repeated the ‘modus ponens’ logical fallacy that you made with the KKK. You can’t reverse the IF/THEN statement and claim that because Bush is religious, then he is a warmonger. Invalid.
All you are doing in your posts, is ranting on and on – with your personal opinions.
I’m very sure you won’t reply, as you don’t interact with logic and facts.
By the way – there is no way that you are a Conservative, as you claim. All your opinions are firmly within the left, Liberal/NDP socialist paradigm. If you still want to claim that you are conservative – then please inform us exactly what views you hold that can be defined as conservative.
Your insulting rejection of the US, of Bush, of helping other peoples, is not a conservative view. Your support for SSM and the disappearance of the family – is not conservative.
Your rejection of not merely religion, but your intolerance of other peoples – is not conservative.
So- I’m puzzled. You keep claiming that you are conservative, but I can’t see even one attribute of that ideology in you.
adam – I repeat my support for marriage being confined to heterosexual couples. Civic unions can be for same sex unions. I repeat my support for the nuclear family as the best way to raise the next generation. Gender is not simply a social construct but is innate – and must be nurtured within a gender-distinct environment. I’m against same sex adoptions for that reason. I think children need both genders as part of their nurturance.
John:
Throughout history, the state had absolutely no proven nterest in charity.
That responsibility was left to the churches. Through voluntary donations of roughly 10% and the duty of compassion individuals saw as a religious duty toward other human beings, much of the misery humans suffered through was allayed to some degree.
In the last century, after declaring through legislation that charity was a state responsibility, it went about confiscating 50% of an individual’s earnings largely to finance its expensive venture.
So, now we have a compassion industry which cost the average individual five times as much as it did before.
To legitimize this exorbitant expenditure, the state had to discredit the church and it did so through the education system.
Religion is the opiate of the masses, they declared, while putting the populace on a heroin that was five times as costly.
Give me the young and soon they will be mine, they declared.
And so, here we are today.
Are we any better off by squandering our riches on the parasite class?
A lot of things have been said about “religion” on this thread, primarily in the context of Christianity. Perhaps this can be approached from a somewhat different point of view.
Mircea Eliade said:
The horizon of archetypes and repetition was transcended, for the first time, by Judeo-Christianism, which introduced a new category into religious experience; the category of faith. It must not be forgotten that, if Abraham’s faith can be defined as “for God, everything is possible”, the faith of Christianity implies that everything is also possible for man. “Have faith in God. For verily I say unto you, that whosever shall say unto this mountain, be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe in those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith…” Faith, in this context as in many others, means absolute emancipation from any kind of natural “law” and hence the highest freedom that man can imagine; freedom to intervene even in the ontological constitution of the universe. It is, consequently, a pre-eminently creative freedom. In other words, it constitutes a new formula for man’s collaboration with creation — the first, but also the only such formula accorded to him since the traditional horizon of archetypes and repetition was transcended. Only such freedom (aside from the soteriological, hence, in the strict sense, its religious value) is able to defend modern man from the territory of history — a freedom, that is, which has its source, and finds its guarantee and support in God. Every other modern freedom, whatever satisfactions it may procure to him who possesses it, is powerless to justify history. We may say, furthermore, that Christianity is the “religion” of modern man and historical man, of the man who simultaneously discovered personal freedom and continuous time (in place of cyclical time)… In this respect, Christianity incontestably proves to be the religion of “fallen man”; and this to the extent to which modern man is irredeemably identified with history and progress, and to which history and progress are a fall, both implying the final abandonment of the paradise of archetypes and repetition.
Gary, if you’re still around, did you notice that the most intense criticism of your hateful attitude came from fellow non-believers?
I didn’t realize that there are so many of us infidels frequenting SDA. Who says that the godless are necessarily communist!
Greg:
I believe the concept you’re describing is wisdom, a concept that learns from and at the same time, transcends the natural world and the laws of man.
The Beatles once wrote: Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.
Those who criticize the carrier of wisdom ie religion and more specifically the Abrahamic mission to counter hatred and ignorance through love and wisdom practise a type willfully blindness.
They believe they can counter their fears and anxieties by being nice or smiling pretty, but ultimately that strategy will fold like a two-dollar tent through temptation.
ET: adam – I repeat my support for marriage being confined to heterosexual couples. Civic unions can be for same sex unions.
ET, you’re dodging my arguments. You appear most concerned about the healthy upbringing of future generations. What does this have to do with SSM, which is a union between adults, and may or may not have anything to do raising children? If you are concerned about the children, then whether their queer parents in question are married, in a civil union, or living common-law should be beside the point.
I repeat my support for the nuclear family as the best way to raise the next generation.
“Best way”? Where are your facts to support this opinion? You’ll have to provide some evidence for that – otherwise, it goes into the hogwash bucket.
Gender is not simply a social construct but is innate – and must be nurtured within a gender-distinct environment. I’m against same sex adoptions for that reason.
Again, where are your facts to support this opinion, that gender is innate and must be nurtured in a gender-distinct environment? Again, you’ll have to provide some evidence for that – otherwise, it goes into the hogwash bucket.
I think children need both genders as part of their nurturance.
This too is your opinion, not fact. Where is your evidence to support this? I can readily cite studies showing that children raised in caring same-sex households develop as normally as those raised in caring opposite-sex households. Relevant groups like the APA and others have also released position statements supporting this argument. Please, show us your facts, ET. Otherwise, I conclude that your statements are hogwash, i.e., spurious and totally unfounded.
A’dam:
Allow me to check in with my opinion.
I have no problem with the concept of civil unions, since the state has never done well as an aribert of moral questions.
I will support the concept of same-sex marriage and in fact, will lead the Pride Parade, when you or anybody else can give evidence that a same-sex act will help perpetrate the human race and that the union can produce the miracle of life.
The concept of marriage was around long before there was formalized statehood of any type.
Therefore, the school of wisdom claims squatter’s rights on the obervation that the human race was being perpetrated as a result of sexual union between a man and a woman.
Marriage is what it is because it is a recognition of that fact.
Ignorance of these facts is no excuse for the ignorance of your opinion.
Set you free,
I think we are saying the same thing.
Does the KKK still exist? Have they hung any poor black people lately? A white supremist group that hangs black people for being black are not Christians, nor Protestants. Can’t some people tell right from wrong; it would seem obvious to me that those who do wrong in the sight of God are not of God, though they may profess to be. I would suggest that it would be better to open the Bible and read, so to not be so ignorant as to what it says and to what Christians actually believe.
St. Mattthew 8:21 “Not every one that said unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.”
If you do not do God’s will, you belong to Satan; it is a harsh reality. Gary, who is your master?
Fortunately, God will forgive the sins of a sinner, and we are all sinners.
adam- the fact that the nuclear family is the best way to raise the next generation is based on precedence; it’s been the primary method since – the beginning. That’s a lot of thousands of years. Obviously, it must have some merit or intelligence would have moved to a different method.
I am confining the term and legal obligations of marriage to a heterosexual union, because that is the focus of the next generation. I think that a common law relation may involve legal obligations to the children; if it does – fine. If it doesn’t, then, ‘not fine’. My concern in this is the support and nurturance of the children.
If homosexuals and lesbians want to confirm their partnership – it can be a civil union. What’s your problem with that?
There are a lot of psychological studies on nurturance and I’m not going to bother posting them, but, the overall consensus is that both genders, as parents, is the ‘best way’ to raise a child.
Again, we are, as a species, comprised of two genders. This gender identity is both innate and socially nurtured. Children need this second aspect, the social nurturance, from both genders in the parenting behaviour.
I’m sure you can cite studies that show that children in same sex households are ‘just as’ or even ‘better than’ opposite sex households. However, these studies are peripheral and the mainstream is – that children are produced by sexual interaction and are best nurtured in a family of opposite genders.
I have absolutely no intention of googling the massive literature on the subject; you can do that yourself. However, the conclusions are hardly only my personal opinion.
Well Joanne after reading Gary’s postings I tend to think his god is his feelings, passions and base urges as is the case for everyone who is not making a conscious effort through the enablement of the Holy Spirit to rise above that sewer. Unfortunately it would seem by his posting that Gary has rejected to One who is able to lift him from his baseness. However I can never underestimate the power of the One who made us all to bring Gary, kicking and screaming, to the place of humility and repentence where he too shall discover the free grace that is priceless.
SSM is a ruse.
Let me explain…
I believe the majority of Canadians,despite their views on homosexuality,were willing to concede state recognized unions for gays and lesbians.Live and let live,and all that.
Gay’s and lesbians would have received every right offered to hetero couples under our laws.But that wasn’t good enough for them,was it?
No,they pushed hard for it to be called ‘marriage’because that was an important piece to their overall objective….Why?
Because it was an immense step forward in the agenda to NORMALIZE homosexuality in our society.
Gay agendists already have access to our school curriculums,teaching young children that having two moms or two dads is’as normal’as having a mom and dad.They already have preferred status on the politically correct “protected special interest group list”.Disagree with any part of their lifestyle,and you MUST be a hateful,bigoted prick.
If you think it was tough being a youngster and exploring your sexuality a couple of decades ago,try it when society completely blurs any distinction between the traditional roles of men and women and repeatedly tells you gay is OK.
The emotional and social minefields we are seeding for our youth will be devastating in their effect.
ET: I am confining the term and legal obligations of marriage to a heterosexual union, because that is the focus of the next generation…My concern in this is the support and nurturance of the children.
And what of those queer couples who want to marry but have no wish to raise children? By your conditions, they pose no threat to the integrity of the next generation. On what grounds would you deny their right to marry, even as heterosexual couples who have no wish to raise children take their marriage rights for granted?
If homosexuals and lesbians want to confirm their partnership – it can be a civil union. What’s your problem with that?
So long as the state has a hand in “marriage” as a civil matter, such a status should be equally available to all her citizens. A civil union would be a type of “separate but equal” policy, and cannot be justified in terms of secular equality before the law.
However, these studies are peripheral and the mainstream is – that children are produced by sexual interaction and are best nurtured in a family of opposite genders.
Completely wrong, ET. These studies are not the periphery, they are the mainstream. So much so that, following respective surveys of the available literature, the Canadian Psychological Association, the Canadian Department of Justice, the American Psychology Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Medical Association, the Child Welfare League of America, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Anthropological Association, the American Bar Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the North American Council on Adoptable Children, and the Australian Medical Association, to name but a few relevant scientific and professional groups, have issued formal position statements concluding that same-sex couples are as capable parents as opposite-sex couples. The “overall consensus” is not that “both genders, as parents,” but rather that caring, present co-parenting, regardless of sexual orientation, is “the ‘best way’ to raise a child.”
But hey, what do all these groups know, right? Their statements are merely based on the available scientific evidence. What’s “dozens of formal literature reviews by relevant experts” compared to “your personal general impression of the research findings”?
However, the conclusions are hardly only my personal opinion.
You’re right. Others who share your opinion include Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, Exodus International, and the Pope. Guess what they all have in common?
I have absolutely no intention of googling the massive literature on the subject
Conveniently letting yourself off the hook of actually citing a single piece of evidence to support your position, despite the fact that you’ve taken Gary to task on this very thread for failing to provide evidence to support his claims.
Maybe you should google the massive literature, ET, for your own edification. Or are you afraid of what you might find?
Sorry A’dam but studies from the “soft sciences” aren’t worth the paper they are written on. The studies have one purpose – obtaining the predetermined objective. I’ve dealt long enough with kids from broken home same sex homes etc to know that there are quantifiable differences in child rearing methodologies and situations. Within a few minutes I can tell if a child is being raised by an intact family, divorced family or even raised in a day care as opposed to one stay at home parent. The level of insecurity aggressiveness and assertiveness rises quite sharply as each ‘abnormality’ in parenting enters the child’s life.
yeah, research is good and comforting to some. Now, if you could just do something about gay marriage being a grotesque parody, well, you’d really have something. Unfortunately, you can’t change that, except with a massive bout of specious intellectualization.
What the heck, if it makes it easier for these people to deal with a massive gender disfunction, I don’t really care. I still object to dragging children into this travesty, however.
Yeah, that’s right, Joe, all research from the “soft sciences” (a.k.a. social sciences) are biased and worthless (that would include economics, education, law, political science, and ET’s own academic field, anthropology). The fact that the American Medical Association, American Association of Pediatrics, AAFP, the Aussie Medical Association, etc., all endorsed the pro-same-sex parenting position after their own literature reviews would of course undermine your already flimsy argument, and so will be ignored.
Your own personal limited life experience, on the other hand, now that’s what we should base public policy on!
dean spencer – fox: What the heck, if it makes it easier for these people to deal with a massive gender disfunction, I don’t really care.
Ah, yes, the “gays are freaks” argument. The full spectrum of SDA expertise and intellect is finally on display. For those moderates among you wondering why the Conservatives can’t seem to break into majority territory, look no further than guys like dean, the best thing to happen to the headless Liberals.
You are right A’dam my personal experience is indeed limited. 27 years working as a Christian minister dealing with the dregs of society is too narrow a focus compared to the vast knowledge stored in the dusty tomes on library shelves I admit. Funny thing though my experience includes the single mom sitting on her couch with tears in her eyes as her son is being arrested – again and the ten year old with a record of car theft. Need I go on? How about my experience of counseling the single dad, fresh out of jail, hooked on drugs as he watches his kid vandalize the neighbourhood. How about my helping the 15 year old girl pregnant for the second time? But then that was just last week.
Now I will be the first to say that not every societal ill is the result of bad parenting but I am not so stupid as to think that parenting has no influence on the outcome of the child. BTW I used to read the articles (can’t be bothered now) coming from the academics and sadly smile at the nativity and cringe when I think that some wet behind the ears social worker is going to try that next.
adam- the social sciences research is ‘soft’ and qualitative. It can’t provide validity to your conclusions.
Furthermore, research in this field is compromised not only because it is qualitative rather than quantitative but the bias of the ‘researcher’ affects the conclusions.
Plus, the data base is too narrow and limited; this type of research has only been carried out in the past few decades; that’s not enough time for any validity.
My research field is not only none of your business but it isn’t anthropology. I don’t discuss my work here – and the obsession that some have with exploring my fields – is wierd, to say the least. I don’t post anything about myself and don’t post anything about other people on this blog; all that matters is the issues being discussed.
“Because it was an immense step forward in the agenda to NORMALIZE homosexuality in our society.” by Canadian Observer
…and destroy Christian values in the process….if they just wanted to NORMALIZE homosexuality, they would have been happy with the civil union route, but they weren’t….they wanted marriage. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman under God. If a man and a woman are married, but they do not consummate the marriage, they can get an annulment, instead of a divorce, but homosexual couples cannot consummate a marriage, it is physically impossible, so they will live happily ever after in a state of perpetual annulment invalidity….may make for an interesting divorce argument though.
ET: adam- the social sciences research is ‘soft’ and qualitative. It can’t provide validity to your conclusions.
But you made (vague) reference to exactly the same body of social sciences research to support your position — when you wrote, for example, that, “the mainstream is – that children are produced by sexual interaction and are best nurtured in a family of opposite genders. I have absolutely no intention of googling the massive literature on the subject – you can do that yourself.” How can it be that this massive literature employs research methodologies that are sufficiently valid and reliable to support your arguments, but suddenly not sufficiently valid and reliable to support mine?
Likewise, when you state that “Men and women are psychologically different; children need both nurturances in their lives,” are you not presuming that some body of psychology research findings underlie, and give substance to, this position? Without resort to qualitative research methodologies, how did you determine that men and women are “psychologically different”?
Plus, the data base is too narrow and limited; this type of research has only been carried out in the past few decades; that’s not enough time for any validity.
True, the data is still narrow and limited, but it is growing, and the evidence to date suggests a clear trend of “no difference” between same-sex and opposite-sex parenting. Also true that it’s only been carried out for a few decades, but that is enough time for at least one generation of children to be raised to adulthood in a same-sex household — so the insights culled from that research is indeed temporally valid.
Oh, and you still haven’t cited any compelling evidence showing that, all else being equal, same-sex parenting is inferior to opposite-sex parenting.
My research field is not only none of your business but it isn’t anthropology. I don’t discuss my work here…
June 25, 2007 10:23PM: “My area is anthropology – and specifically, biosemiotics or information processes in physical and biological and complex adaptive systems.”
Cheers — and do some research rather than rant at people.
Joanne: if they just wanted to NORMALIZE homosexuality, they would have been happy with the civil union route, but they weren’t….they wanted marriage.
And if Black Americans just wanted to NORMALIZE blackness, they would have been happy with the seats on the back of the bus, but they weren’t…they wanted access to any seat on the bus (i.e., they wanted full equality without separateness in the eyes of the law).
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman under God.
You do realize that marriage didn’t originate with Christianity, right? And you do realize that plenty of non-Christians — some even secular atheists — marry entirely out of love (or money or obligation or desperation or loneliness or…) and not for the purposes of procreation, right? So rubbing these two thoughts together in your head, you’re mentally capable of concluding that it’s possible in our day and age for people to marry for reasons entirely unrelated to your Christian God, right?
You of course will try to dismiss everything I’ve said. But try to dismiss this. That’s right, baby, it’s the law! We won, you lost, nah nah nah nah nah nah nah!
Canadian Observer: If you think it was tough being a youngster and exploring your sexuality a couple of decades ago,try it when society completely blurs any distinction between the traditional roles of men and women and repeatedly tells you gay is OK.
Yes, that’s right, CO, it’s all part of their nefarious plan to Gay Your Child. Is it working, CO? Is your son a dandy fruitcake yet? Is your daughter a flaming lesbo-punker? Are you?
adam- qualitative and quantitative research on marriage as a nurturing institution for children has been carried out for years- and there’s no comparison to the few decades of ‘research’ – much of it biased and soft, on SSM nurturance. My reference wasn’t simply to the soft sciences but to all research – and the best research focus is actually biological and also statistical, not qualitative, psychology.
The fact that I gave my field in the list that kate asked us our backgrounds – doesn’t privilege you to focus on it in any thread. It’s none of your business and not germane to any issue. You were trying to insult me by the reference to ‘soft science’. You have no idea of my research and again, it’s none of your business and not germane to the issue. When kate asked, did you provide your fields? Who remembers or looks it up? I don’t obsess about what other people fields are; I don’t care; I focus only on the topic being discussed.
Your theme that unless SS and OS have the same ‘rights’ in society – it’s an act of discrimination similar to skin colour – is invalid. Yes, SS and OS are genetic traits but that doesn’t mean that unless both traits have similar rights it’s an act of discrimination.
Someone who genetically, can’t be a firefighter; because they don’t have the muscle power is not discriminated against. Somone who, genetically, is not a mathematician, is not discriminated against when they aren’t hired into the math dept. Someone who, genetically, can’t sing in La Boheme, isn’t discriminated against when they are refused such a ‘right’.
As far as nurturing the next generation, I stand by the thousands of years experience that children need bonds with both genders as parents.
The fact that something is a law now doesn’t make it valid or based on anything other than whim – such as the gun registry.
ET: You were trying to insult me by the reference to ‘soft science’.
Actually, it was Joe who derides “studies from the ‘soft sciences.'” I was pointing out that he ought not to tar with such a wide brush, as he may not know who he insults in the process.
Yes, SS and OS are genetic traits but that doesn’t mean that unless both traits have similar rights it’s an act of discrimination. Someone who genetically, can’t be a firefighter; because they don’t have the muscle power is not discriminated against. Somone who, genetically, is not a mathematician, is not discriminated against when they aren’t hired into the math dept. Someone who, genetically, can’t sing in La Boheme, isn’t discriminated against when they are refused such a ‘right’.
For obvious reasons, “physical strength,” “good arithmetic skills,” and “perfect pitch” are rightfully considered as necessary preconditions to able firefighting, math teaching, and opera singing. “Ability to procreate,” however, cannot rightfully be considered as a necessary precondition to either entrance into civil marriage or the raising of children.
Also, Canadian citizens do not possess the inherent “right” to be firefighters, math teachers, or cast members in productions of La Boheme for the equally obvious reason that people who actually possess “physical strength,” “good arithmetic skills,” and “perfect pitch” do not self-identify into distinct social groups according to those traits, nor does society in general make such a categorization. Not so for racial/ethnic background, not so for age cohort, not so for sex/gender, and not so for sexual orientation. At the same time, as fellow Canadian citizens, gays and lesbians possess the full set of rights and privileges implicated in any state-administered institution, including “civil marriage.” An equivalent institution that differs from marriage in name only — i.e., civil unions — are unsatisfactory for the specific reason that it would constitute a “separate but equal” policy. Insofar as “civil marriage” — as distinct from “religious marriage” — remains a distinct legal status acknowledged and administered by the state, that same status must be available to all adults, irrespective of sexual orientation.
“Civil marriage” is not a privileged status limited only to those couples who intend to raise children together; it is a state-level recognition available to all Canadians.
ET: As far as nurturing the next generation, I stand by the thousands of years experience that children need bonds with both genders as parents.
Also, it is a logical fallacy to assume that because something has worked well in the past and present — even if it has thousands of years of experience behind it — that therefore (1) it is the only option that should be allowed in the future; or (2) other options are necessarily inferior, and should be prohibited.
Citing data showing that heterosexual parenting is good is not “proof” that homosexual parenting is bad. For the latter conclusion to be valid, you need to cite compelling evidence showing specifically that homosexual parenting is bad. I’m still waiting on that.
I happen to agree with the inadequacy of the ‘soft sciences’ to provide quantitative research analysis. And I’ve said that many times.
Is being a lesbian/gay person ‘all’ there is to that individual? I totally reject your group identity categorization. And that includes all your group lumping together – ‘race’ (no such thing), ethnicity, language etc. I focus on the individual.
There is no need whatsoever for a lesbian or gay person to move into a group home. After all, someone who is gay can be an opera singer, mathematician, firefighter.
The function of marriage, as an economic and nurturing system, is the reproduction of the species. Marriage isn’t a private agreement. It isn’t for the emotional satisfaction of two individuals. It is a social institution. And therefore, it ought to be confined to OS. So, I agree with the ‘separate but equal’ function of civil marriage for SS.
You and I are obviously not going to agree – so, I think we’ll have to ‘agree to disagree’.
ET, I appreciate your sound defence of man-woman marriage. Thanks.
ET: Is being a lesbian/gay person ‘all’ there is to that individual? I totally reject your group identity categorization…I focus on the individual.
Ironically, that’s also what gays and lesbians ultimately want too — to be treated as individuals who have as much right to marry whom they want as other (straight) individuals. And yet, it’s you who’s focused on a single of their myriad personal characteristics — specifically, their sexual orientation — and would desire to use it to deny a large segment of individuals within our society the right to marry.
Your logical inconsistencies are astounding, ET. You arrogantly claim to “focus on individuals” yet pronounce without an iota of factual evidence that all queer adults are necessarily inferior parents to their straight counterparts. In doing so, you divide the world into two groups — straight and queer — and presume that a single characteristic — sexual orientation — can portend an individual’s parenting ability. You are in practise the exact opposite of what you pretend to be in words.
While simply anecdotal I remember a family to whom I ministered. They had two young children and were struggling to make ends meet. One day Mommy announced that she now had a girlfriend and was moving in with her that afternoon. The couple did the right thing and tried to keep things friendly for the kid’s sake. However the betrayal was more than Daddy could stand and he became a bit bitter towards his ex and let her take care of the children. Soon the behaviours began and soon after that the trips to the psychiatrists. Medications were indicated and when they didn’t work stronger medications were used.
The children became little more than zombies so I asked if I could take them for a few weeks. As soon as they moved into our home we took them off the medications (carefully I might add) and the children resumed normality. They went to school without the previous violence evident. They took part in sports and normal family activities with out difficulty. The fateful day arrived when they were reunited with their Mommy and Daddy. The simple sight of Mommy in the driveway was enough to incite a violent outburst that took me completely by surprise.
The psychiatrist who told the parents that the living arrangements of the parents really had no bearing on the children has rightfully earned my scorn.
“That’s right, baby, it’s the law! We won, you lost, nah nah nah nah nah nah nah!” by A’dam
I take it A’dam that you are a homosexual male, and your comment proves my point. Just remember sweetie-pie, the division of chattels works the same way for both heterosexual and homosexual legal unions – welcome to divorce court baby.
I hope you weren’t too offended by my comment that homosexual couples are physically impossible to consummate a marriage…..sorry-o.
Men and women have being marrying for eons, but that is just the point, MEN and WOMEN have been marrying each other. And I wasn’t talking about the motives behind why men and women marry each other; I was speaking to the legal aspect of what constitutes a marriage and that is being able to consummate it, which homosexuals cannot do, so it does not matter which way you spin it or how fast, it will never be fundamentally legit, regardless of any laws. It is right up there with people wanting to marry their pets….they may be able to do it one day and receive the same benefits as anyone in a heterosexual marriage under the law, but it will always be a deviant behaviour.
I’m not going to give sanction to homosexuals or to their marriages, because I would be condoning what I believe is sinful and aiding them in their fall from grace. And guess what, you don’t have to be a Christian to against homosexual acts and marriages. Men who marry women and vice versa are married; men who marry men and women who marry woman are not married, I don’t care what law says they are, and when people get the right to marry children, I’ll feel the same way…..and don’t think it will never happen – no one, not very long ago would have thought same-sex couples would ever be able to marry either, and look what’s happened. We are all getting sucked right down into a black hole, and there is no light at the other end.
Black Americans have been normalized since creation…what a disturbing example to use.
The fags are just sick. turdoh should be dug up and have a stake put thru his heart for what he has done to this once great country.
Nice 140 comment thread! Lotsa “yeah but!” from lotsa Lefties trying to deflect attention from the discovery (!) that Lefties as a group talk the talk but don’t walk the walk. Whereas Christians do.
Wow, what a surprise! Color me shocked that the Left, who’s main tool in public life is the Big Lie, won’t pony up for what they say they want.
Has anyone considered that the americans have more money than Canadians and Eurowennies after the enormous burden of our taxes are considered?
The americans also don’t assume that all problems are the governments to fix and Canadians and Eurotrash do.
Warwick, with respect, your observations about the US may be true but have no bearing on the issue at hand, which is that Christians give more than other groups.
1) Maybe Americans have more money. However, from that group of all Americans, those who give the most are–Christians.
2) Americans may pay fewer taxes, but that means all Americans pay fewer taxes, not just Christians. And who still gives the most to charities? It’s–Christians.
True, Warwick, the first rule of philanthropy is ya gotta have some before you can give it away. I’m sure I’d feel much more generous if HALF MY INCOME wasn’t being taxed away. Currently I only give to the Canadian Warplane Heritage, but then I’m not a particularly good Christian.
Still, the fact remains that even in America the Christians are giving it away and the Lefties just talk giving without doing it.
Typical.