<p>Logo–as I said, bad behavior is what hurts others: robbing and killing come to mind.</p>
<p>I am shocked that you would indicate to your gay child that he is now second-class. That you wouldn’t fight to allow him family happiness such as you have had. He may be a wonderful person who heals people, who invents a vital product. Yet he is not worthy of your total approval. I really don’t understand. And I can’t talk about this anymore!</p>
<p>I couldn’t keep my children from “family happiness” if I wanted to, and a marriage license doesn’t provide it either. One could say that cheating on tests usually doesn’t hurt anyone else, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t wrong. Changing the definition of marriage has an impact on the entire society and is therefore everyone’s business.</p>
<p>logos, as far as I know, individuals are not born cheaters or bank robbers. People are born gay. It isn’t a lifestyle “choice”, and one doesn’t “practice homosexuality”, anymore than it is a choice or a practice for you to be heterosexual. It is who they are. </p>
<p>Gay marriage has been legal here in Canada for a few years now, and you know what? The sky hasn’t fallen, my marriage and family are not threatened, and the impact on the entire society has been only positive. Allowing individuals who love each other to express that love in a committed relationship is a good thing, not threatening or damaging to anyone.</p>
<p>Allmusic,</p>
<p>I appreciate your respectful dialogue and my intent is to reciprocate in kind. I understand that the extreme left is behind many anti-Semitic and anti-Israel statements but the article I linked also contained illustrations by current and former Democratic leaders including:<br>
If you want to characterize all these people as extremists, so be it.</p>
<p>Alwaysamom,</p>
<p>I’m glad gays are treated well in Canada. Perhaps there is hope that someday the Canadian government will also afford Canadian citizens like Chris Kempling the right to free speech:
<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Kempling[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Kempling</a></p>
<p>For anyone who is really interested in a well-researched critique of the possible effects of gay marriage on society, I would recommend the writings of Stanley Kurtz who publishes in the National Review. Archives of his articles can be found at nationalreview.com. He has been writing on this topic for years, and has looked closely at research of the effects of gay marriage on the welfare of children, concentrating most especially on Scandinavian countries. His arguments against gay marriage are very well-reasoned and rational.</p>
<p>DRJ, since you’re a fan of wiki, perhaps you should read the section about freedom of expression in Canada. </p>
<p>Canada
The constitutional provision that guarantees Freedom of expression in Canada is section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.</p>
<ol>
<li>Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: … (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
Due to section 1 of the Charter, the so-called limitation clause, Canada’s freedom of expression is not absolute and can be limited under certain situations. Section 1 of the Charter states:</li>
</ol>
<p>The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. (emphasis added)
This section is double edged. First it implies that a limitation on freedom of speech prescribed in law can be permitted if it can be justified as being a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society. Conversely, it implies that a restriction can be invalidated if it cannot be shown to be a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society. The former case has been used to uphold limits on legislation which are used to prevent hate speech and obscenity.</p>
<p>In April 29, 2004, Bill C-250 was passed which includes as hate speech propaganda against people based on their sexual orientation. It is now illegal to publicly incite hatred against people based on their colour, race, religion, ethnic origin, and sexual orientation. However, under section 319 on hate speech, a person cannot be convicted of hate speech “if the person can establish that the statements made are true.”</p>
<p>An example of the limiting of obscenity is that case Forget v. Quebec (Attorney General) 1988, (2 S.C.R. 90) decision in which the Supreme Court invalidated the Charter of the French Language also known as Bill 101. One of the reasons it gave for invalidating it was that it was not a reasonable limitation under sec. 9 of the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms and under section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This decision was one of the first cases after the section 1 Oakes test was established. Bill 101 was subsequently put into effect though by invoking the notwithstanding clause of the Charter.</p>
<p>Other laws that protect freedom of speech in Canada, and did so, to a limited extent, before the Charter was enacted in 1982, include the Implied Bill of Rights and the Canadian Bill of Rights</p>
<p>The right to free speech should not, in the opinion of many, mean the right to be hateful.</p>
<p>HH, I was wondering when someone would mention Kurtz! To say that his arguments are well-reasoned and rational is a stretch, for even the most conservative scientists. He’s done no research of his own. He’s written rambling articles on the subject and has yet to show any proof of causality. Not an iota. He is someone who is not, in the least, respected in the world of psychiatry, psychology, or medicine, let alone the world of anthropology, which he pretends to practice.</p>
<p>Alwaysamom,</p>
<p>Canada’s free speech laws mimic those of the UK and both nations have every right to adopt the laws they believe are correct. I do not mean to denigrate the laws of either country, particularly since the marvelous principle of common law emanates from the fine English legal tradition. If your point was that people should be able to adopt laws of their choosing, perhaps you will be consistent and agree that America can ethically choose different laws on gay marriage than Canada has chosen.</p>
<p>By the way, what do you think was hateful about Chris Kempling’s letter?</p>
<p>Why is it that anyone who does not like the actions of gay people or does not want them to get married is crucified by the left or at least by the people on this board as being “gay bashers” or “hating gays”</p>
<p>alwaysamom: I’m glad that a person doesn’t have to do “research of his own,” or be of the “world of psychiatry, psychology, or medicine,” or the “world of antropology,” in order to put together a well-reasoned, well-researched opinion, because if that were the case, very few of us would be able to have opinions, would we? ;)</p>
<p>His reasoning resonates with me and I think it’s interesting particularly because he does not come from a religious starting point, if I remember correctly. I also do not find his essays rambling, if I may be so bold as to express an opinion. :)</p>
<p>There is no <em>definitive</em> research which proves that people are born gay. Even Mr. Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, an ardent gay activist supporter, alluded to that fact in his column last week (someone posted it in a previous post on this thread, if you want to look it up).I believe Mr. Robinson said something along the lines of: “the research TENDS to support the IDEA that people are born gay.”</p>
<p>I just looked up Kurtz’ bio: a Ph.D. in Social Antropology from Harvard and field study in India doesn’t cut it with you, alwaysamom? :)</p>
<p>Mark Steyn has published his take on Foleygate and it’s quite humorous … at least I think it will be to half the people here. I especially like this part:
<a href=“http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/87789,CST-EDT-STEYN08.article[/url]”>http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/87789,CST-EDT-STEYN08.article</a></p>
<p>Hereshoping: you said “There is no <em>definitive</em> research which proves that people are born gay.”</p>
<p>While I agree with you, I find myself wondering what kind of definitive research would prove this for you? Genetic manipulation, perhaps?</p>
<p>I stopped thinking people “wanted” to be gay when I read about the electroshock therapy and other barbaric methods used by the military on gay men during WWII. If you can’t torture a man out of wanting to have sex with another man, that’s a pretty good indication that it’s not desire as much as hard wiring. Of course, that’s an opinion, and not “proof.”</p>
<p>alwaysamom,
As HH already pointed out, the research doesn’t prove that homosexuality is purely biological, and there are many former homosexuals who would oppose that belief. And, as DRJ4 has stated, Canada or any other country has the right to vote to redefine marriage in their country. Unfortunately, as we’re seeing in the U.S., it’s the courts that imposed that verdict.</p>
<p>Here is a link an article in which Stanley Kurtz directly addresses the issue of the state of marriage in Canada:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/sep/060925a.html[/url]”>http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/sep/060925a.html</a></p>
<p>dmd77,
If you could look at a young child’s brain or DNA and correctly determine that they would grow up to be homosexual, I would find that pretty compelling. Or, if identical twins were always both either homosexual or heterosexual, I would find that persuasive. I personally believe that some people are more naturally inclined toward homosexuality, just as some people are naturally inclined to aggressiveness (I’m not correlating the 2, btw), but I believe that environment plays a larger role. Here is another link with information that I find credible:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.drthrockmorton.com/[/url]”>http://www.drthrockmorton.com/</a></p>
<p>The argument that homosexuality must be inborn or otherwise it wouldn’t exist is illogical. Pedophilia has a low cure rate; would that lead you to believe that it is biological?</p>
<p>I “tend” to believe people are born gay too, dmd77 (perhaps a combination of genetic disposition and environment); I just get annoyed when people try to pretend that it has been proven.</p>
<p>Whatabout the people who have gone to clinics and have been “cured” of homosexuality…although these generally are religious clinics</p>
<p>HH, you’re correct in that there is no scientific consensus on the influence of biology on one’s sexual orientation. However, most scientists will agree that there are likely to be a number of biological factors in utero which combine to influence sexual orientation. It’s rare, even among researchers to believe the nurture over nature argument today. If you truly believe that it is not something which is present from birth, and is a lifestyle or choice, perhaps you could explain why on earth anyone would make that choice.</p>
<p>As for Stanley Kurtz, my comment about his lack of research was in direct reply to your claim of his “well-researched critique”. He promotes himself as an ‘expert’ on the subject, and I wanted to point out that he is not well-respected in any of the communities where he tries to peddle his ideas. That’s a very different situation than you, or I, or anyone else on CC, participating in a discussion. Kurtz undergrad degree was in comparative religions, and yes, his PhD is in social anthropology. However, many of his colleagues, in addition to the American Anthropological Association, discount the accuracy of his work.</p>
<p>drj, no, my point was not that countries cannot enact laws of their own choosing. My point was that civilization has not crumbled since gay marriage was legalized, as is often touted as an eventuality by opponents.</p>
<p>logos, I don’t believe that there is any such thing as a ‘former homosexual’.<br>
Yes, Canadian courts in several provinces had indeed ruled on gay marriage, and rightly so according to the Charter, before the law was enacted in Parliament. You make it sound like courts make this stuff up! They were simply following the laws as they stood. I will not dignify your comparison of homosexuality and pedophilia with a comment, except to say that your views sadden me and I hope, for your children’s sakes, that you never have a child who is gay. I know, and have worked with hundreds of gay boys, girls, men and women since I was in college. I have never met a single one who chose to be gay. As I said before, it isn’t a choice. Who in their right mind would make that choice when there are so many people who think like you do, in this world?</p>
<p>I don’t know where you got the idea that I believed homosexuality was a “choice.” Perhaps I didn’t express myself clearly: I said that I tended to believe it was inborn; perhaps a combination of biology and environment.</p>
<p>As for Kurtz, apparently he is respected enough by some “communities,” and as usual you offer no proof of any of your assertions, just like you did not offer proof for the one you made previously that (to quote you): “people are born gay.”</p>