12-12-2003 09:10									#1
	Vilification is over the top Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Social conservatives are here, and not going away
Vilification is over the top. If gay-marriage opponents are the fringe, then the fringe is mighty wide

CHARLES W. MOORE

quote: For folks quick to accuse those who disagree with them of hatred and bigotry, left-liberals are awfully good at dishing out the name-calling and vituperation, as we've seen during the past week or so in the feeding frenzy of outrage-***-schadenfreude over former Canadian Alliance family-issues critic Larry Spencer's comments on homosexuality. Words like "homophobe," "redneck," "fringe extremist," "bigot" and "troglodyte" have thickened the air. The famously homosexual NDP MP Svend Robinson called not only Spencer, but the entire Alliance caucus, (and by implication anyone who opposes the gay political agenda) "Neanderthals." "It's a bit like picking up a rock and exposing the creatures underneath it to the sunlight and watching who scurries away," Robinson is quoted saying. This is nothing new. Earlier this fall, Tory MP Scott Brison, also gay, called his caucus colleague and former interim PC leader, Elsie Wayne, a "vile cow" for her negative critique of gay advocacy. NDP MP and former party leader Alexa McDonough accused Wayne of "spewing hatred," describing her views as "screaming intolerance." By contrast, you'll search in vain for any such outbursts of ad hominem contempt or condescension in Larry Spencer's remarks. Indeed, Spencer said that he would welcome Scott Brison as a caucus colleague. "He's a great guy and he's got a lot of great ideas. If he can live with us we can live with him." The liberal left jumped enthusiastically on any pretext to denounce the Canadian Alliance as a bunch of rabidly bigoted Western whackos, but at least three of the five current parliamentary parties have sitting MPs who vocally oppose the political gay rights program. The Tories have Wayne, for one, and the day after the Larry Spencer story broke, David Kilgour, Liberal MP for Edmonton Southeast and secretary of state for the Asia-Pacific region, told the Edmonton Journal that he opposes gay marriage in part because once the government makes same-sex marriage legal, it will have no logical reason not to allow three people to get married. "And, I'm afraid, and I'm not the only one afraid of this, it could lead to mothers marrying sons and all kinds of things," Kilgour said. Toronto-area Liberal MPs Dennis Mills and Tom Wappell, along with several other backbench Liberal caucus members, have a long history of opposing the gay-rights agenda, which torpedos innuendo that such opposition can be conveniently dismissed as western Bible-belt extremism. Then there's the geezer theory. Larry Spencer is 61 and Elsie Wayne, 71. The National Post's Colby Cosh penned a smarmily patronizing op-ed suggesting that opposition to the homosexualization of society and sexual libertinism in general is largely a phenomenon of over-the-hill and slightly dotty oldsters unable to adapt to moral evolution in society. "It is hard for younger people to understand that conspiratorial explanations for (sexual propriety's) collapse might present themselves as natural to an older mind," Cosh condescended. Well, I'm nine years younger than Larry Spencer, came of age in the 1960s, and am a former hippie and a card-carrying member of the rock-and-roll generation, albeit not the MTV generation, have never been west of Ontario, and I'm steadfastly opposed to the gay political agenda, not only because I'm a traditionalist Christian, but also out of reasoned conviction. I think that the assertion that same-gender sexual relations are natural and normal is nonsensical. I'm currently on the cusp of geezerdom, but I held these same convictions in my teens and 20s. And so do a lot of Canadians younger than I am. Kilgour has noted that two-thirds of his Edmonton constituents oppose gay marriage, and a new national COMPAS poll finds that 63 per cent of respondents said they would strongly or somewhat support keeping the current definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Are these people all fringe extremist nuts and bigots? If so, the fringe is mighty wide. The evident fond hope of gay activists and their lib-left fellow-travelers that time is on their side, that all they have to do is wait for the ignorant old bigots and homophobes to die off before they achieve their objective of pan-sexualist utopia, just ain't going to happen. While tolerance of those we disagree with is a keystone element of civilization, acceptance and approval are something else entirely. For devout and faithful Christians, approval of gay sex is a non-starter and will remain so. And Christianity, outside of Western liberal nations where it's in a slump, is the fastest-growing movement on the planet. To paraphrase another group's slogan: "We're here; there are a lot more of us than you imagine; and we're not going away." Agreement is impossible, but we somehow have to accommodate each other, and that accommodation has to be a two-way street. Charles W. Moore is a Nova Scotia-based writer and editor. © Copyright 2003 Montreal Gazette

http://www.canada.com/montreal/mont...2F-77DD40A78DB1

Without the usual diaribe, is this reality to you?

	12-12-2003 09:33									#2
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

EDIT. Double post deleted.

	12-12-2003 09:34									#3
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The really important question is:

Where is the banana option?




Actually, I agree that there is far too much name-calling in public life. I vote yes.

	12-12-2003 09:52									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Sorry for the no banana opition, I have to admit I am nonconformist to tidy, antiquated, reasons for brown shi(r)ting. Hence, much to some people's chagrin I remain the rock.

quote: Actually, I agree that there is far too much name-calling in public life. I vote yes.

I did not vote, but would agree with you, I left out the opition to vote both. Now that ticks me off

	12-12-2003 09:52									#5
	Suffering from ads?

Let me get this right:

Conservative Christians, hiding behind their religious doctrine, get to call homosexuals sinners, hell-bound, abominations, sodomites, perverts, or any of the colorful euphemisms they want. But if gay rights advocates object to such characterizations and call these folks on them, it's the activists who are villifying people? Right.

Considering the past century so of how homosexuals have been treated in Western countries, and what they're still be called today (Right-wing Christians still have a pleasant habit of equating gays with child molestors, after all), I have as of yet little sympathy for the fundies.

Me thinks me doth hear the tiniest violin in the world playing...

	12-12-2003 09:56									#6
	Inflate your Upload Space

Oh, to answer the poll, yes, there's far too much villification in politics, but Conservative Christians like Moore need to look to the planks in their own eyes before tending to the motes in others in this regard. Look who started it.

	12-12-2003 10:43									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I think you have made his point rather well.

So when does it finish? You have made it clear THEY started it, who is person enough to finish it...

It is inevitable that the wheels of justice and government will rubber stamp a balance. But at what cost to society? They have such a wonderful track record. I wish people would stop and think about that...

This issue is akin to any other change enmass in any civilization, country, society, etc. So when are we as a planet, race, country, people, etc... Going to get it right?

Reflect on what you have said and read it again, then read the article again. You have rights and freedoms as do they, respect them, respect yourself.

I read from your post that you are in a battle to disrespect them, religion in general and thier right to belief. I see your desire to be recognized in the legal aspect of marital rights. So be it no one I bet disagrees, take a poll...

But I see this war, this disrespect for those religious people who would want the word "marrage" kept close to thier heart, thier teachings, thier belief. Is this a bad thing? Can you not still be "married" under the same god (s) without the word? Of course you can, so why the attack on them? Titfor tat? Seems a wate of resourses to me? Anyone else?

So why not compromise? Why not come up with a distinct wording to recognize your individual status, Quebec did, so have other minorities. After all we are not all the same are we?

Minorities in our rights and beliefs. The differance is some destroy others to have thier say and in turn they destroy them for thier own right. Who wins?

NOOOOOOOOO BOOOOOOOODY as the Bad Boy says NO BODY. So when do we learn?

How much damage do we have to do to each other before we become civilized?

Seems too simple...

Last edited by blackice on 12-12-2003 at 10:48

	12-12-2003 10:48									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I consider myself in many ways a social conservative

I am in favor of marriage, of mongamy, of two parent families, I am not in favor of abortion (and seek to ban it after the 3 week (if not before))

but I am for gay marriage (although I would prefer to call them gay unions)

gays need a social structure that supports them, supports their kids, and helps them live a happy and successful life

Jon Miller

	12-12-2003 10:55									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Look who started it.

Who started it is totally irrelevant. What really matters is who is going to finish it by acting like an adult and simply not responding in kind.

	12-12-2003 11:23									#10
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov Let me get this right: Conservative Christians, hiding behind their religious doctrine, get to call homosexuals sinners, hell-bound, abominations, sodomites, perverts, or any of the colorful euphemisms they want. But if gay rights advocates object to such characterizations and call these folks on them, it's the activists who are villifying people? Right. Considering the past century so of how homosexuals have been treated in Western countries, and what they're still be called today (Right-wing Christians still have a pleasant habit of equating gays with child molestors, after all), I have as of yet little sympathy for the fundies. Me thinks me doth hear the tiniest violin in the world playing...

Yeah, right on! If we protest degrading slurs, we are OBVIOUSLY "misunderstanding" the good intentions of those people who hurl such slurs.


good post, Boris

	12-12-2003 11:31									#11
	Support Apolyton

quote: (Although I would prefer to call them gay unions)

I bet those darn religious people say the same thing...:0)

quote: gays need a social structure that supports them, supports their kids, and helps them live a happy and successful life

So do fathers who have suffered court ordered separation of their children, and there is the chagrin...

Stare down the pipe of the government driven distraction. The gay people's fight did not start with the government, nope. Society was the enemy... The gay rights movement looked to the government for their rights. In turn their justice.

Where are we now.

Focus, because as it stands the average person as several polls suggest, are leaning the other way now. The government, no the judges...

Supreme Court says judges can ride herd on politicians

quote: By KIRK MAKIN JUSTICE REPORTER Friday, November 7, 2003 - Page A1 The Supreme Court of Canada launched the judiciary into a bold, new realm of decision-making yesterday, ruling that judges may actively supervise how governments carry out their orders. The 5-4 ruling in a minority-language-schools case revealed a deep cleft within the court on the question of when judges must show deference to legislatures. The majority said judges can police enforcement of their orders in appropriate cases in order to prevent government inaction from trampling on constitutional rights. This is especially true of minority-language-rights cases, they said, where a linguistic minority can end up being assimilated by the time bureaucrats finally respond to a court order. "Deference ends where the constitutional rights the courts are charged with protecting begin," Mr. Justice Frank Iacobucci and Madam Justice Louise Arbour wrote. "The rule of law can be shallow without proper mechanisms for its enforcement." However, the court minority protested vehemently that judges cannot depart from their proper role in a democracy and start micromanaging the legislative and executive branches. Judges who meddle in the day-to-day management of public administration risk upsetting "the balance that has been struck between our three branches of government," Mr. Justice Louis LeBel and Madam Justice Marie Deschamps wrote for the minority. They rejected the "so-called reporting order" of Mr. Justice Arthur LeBlanc of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court as being intrusive, unclear, seriously flawed and wholly inappropriate. "The devil is in the details," they said. "His remedy undermined the proper role of the judiciary within our constitutional order and unnecessarily upset the balance between the three branches of government."

Dictate our democracy here.

So where are we herded?

Court: Homosexual sex not adultery

quote: 3-2 ruling based on traditional definition of extramarital activity Posted: November 8, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern © 2003 WorldNetDaily.com Married women are free to have extramarital sexual relations with other women, says the New Hampshire Supreme Court, without being at fault for the break-up of their marriage. In a 3-2 ruling handed down today, the jurists decided the definition of adultery doesn't include homosexual sex, but requires heterosexual intercourse to have taken place. The decision comes in a contentious divorce case. David Blanchflower, of Hanover, N.H., originally filed for divorce from his wife, Sian, on grounds of irreconcilable differences. He then amended his petition, asserting his wife's "continuing adulterous affair" with Robin Mayer, a woman from Brownsville, Vt., caused the irreparable breakdown of their marriage. An "at fault" finding benefits the husband in the division of the couple's property.

Does any of this seem a bit extreme? We are from what I have seen fairly rational people, no?
So why are we letting the government spend billions upon billions of our hard-earned pay for an obvious right.

Oh and by MAJORITY vote I bet a different name for the union… the union between same sex and all the rights and obligations that come with it? You bet ;0)

Seems too simple does it not? So next time your taxes go up write your opinion down on any subject you feel strongly about. Write it to your rep in fed and other governments. I BBAAAAHHHH BAHH bet You could save a dollar or two and ram it right back at them in parking tickets …

I really think this guy has it right you?

	12-12-2003 11:39									#12
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

that decision is just perpetuating the false view that women can't be gay, that a female-female relatinoship just can't satisfy and doesn't count as a relationship

you see this often with guys, who would leave their girls in a second if they kissed another dude, but pressure their girls to have sex with women (they do this because they do not beleive that another woman is any challenge to them)

somepoint people are going to wake up to the fact that homosexual relationships are just as much relationships as straight ones

(I don't know if gay relationships are similiar)

JOn Miller

	12-12-2003 11:41									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Yeah, right on! If we protest degrading slurs, we are OBVIOUSLY "misunderstanding" the good intentions of those people who hurl such slurs.

And the wheel goes round and round, who benefits?

Use your imagination... Break the mold man...

	12-12-2003 11:43									#14
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: somepoint people are going to wake up to the fact that homosexual relationships are just as much relationships as straight ones

People do...But like any other enmass social change it has to be accepted by all without harming another...

You simply can not kill off all Bill Smith's because you want the name for yourself...

Nor can you kill the Bill Smith because he said he was going to do it.

No you have to compromise, right now the same sex union has the ok from the mass. Use that to rubber stamp the uniqueness of their union.

The rest is simply counter productive.

	12-12-2003 11:53									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

actually I would prefer the state to only deal with unions

gay unions and heterosexual unions (would be exactly the same)

Jon Miller

	12-12-2003 11:57									#16
	Get a bigger avatar today!

actually come to think about it, I am not sure what I think

either marriages for all, and state involved in marriages

or marriages for straights, and unions for gays, and state involved in it all

or unions for all, state involved (with marriages being someithng independent done for cultural/religious reasons)

Jon Miller
(I actually did not read much of anything in this thread except that gay marriage is involved)

	12-12-2003 11:59									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: that decision is just perpetuating the false view that women can't be gay, that a female-female relatinoship just can't satisfy and doesn't count as a relationship

I have never heard that one. Do tell more.

quote: you see this often with guys, who would leave their girls in a second if they kissed another dude, but pressure their girls to have sex with women (they do this because they do not beleive that another woman is any challenge to them)

I am not sure these two things are related? I personally can relate to having a two woman in love with me an each other in a relationship. On the other hand I could not kiss a man.

I am sure their are women who think the same, but again societal teachings alter, or accentuate these natural instincts. Would you not agree?

	12-12-2003 12:02									#18
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: (I actually did not read much of anything in this thread except that gay marriage is involved)

Nough said :0)

	12-12-2003 12:07									#19
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Well have it food for thought, I would hope without the retoric.

I was just folding socks and reading the social weather report. I figured it fit with my over all posting theme and had the impulse to post for opinions.

You know the feeling... come'on admit it Jon. From time to time you too see your reflection in the pond. :0)

Night all

	12-12-2003 13:41									#20
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Just screaming at each other is non productive. I think the issue of gays has to be taken up seriously by the various religions. I would hope that gays would get their local clergy involved to urge their respective churches to reexamine their dogma base on a new understanding that gays are born that way. Their condition simply cannot be a sin.

	12-12-2003 14:48									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Oh boy, conservative christians and homosexual activists. Two groups I love to hate. Neither should be given any weight whatsoever in the debate about this issue. Let real people who are capable of more than hyperbole and insult lead the debate.

	12-12-2003 15:05									#22
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: And Christianity, outside of Western liberal nations where it's in a slump, is the fastest-growing movement on the planet.

I was under the impression that the fastest growing religion was Islam.

	12-12-2003 15:13									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by cyclotron7 I was under the impression that the fastest growing religion was Islam.

Then it's true. We are losing the War on Terror.

	12-12-2003 15:15									#24
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Conservative Christians, hiding behind their religious doctrine, get to call homosexuals sinners, hell-bound, abominations, sodomites, perverts, or any of the colorful euphemisms they want.

Do we now? Any quotes of supposedly conservative Christian politicians saying any of these things?

And BTW, the supposedly 'right-wing fringe party' of Harper canned these last remarks, saying that they don't reflect the beliefs of the party.

Now, if you want to go the route of Svend Robinson and tar the entire party of Conservatives for the comments of one deposed member then go right ahed. Obviously his party must favour the Palestinians over the Jews, and all of them endorse homosexuality.

Finally, let us suppose you found a politician saying all of these things, your haste lumps in some correct comments with incorrect ones.

Why is it wrong for a politician to say that as a Christian, he believes gay people who have not repented of their sins are going to go to hell? Why is it wrong for him to call them sodomites? Why is it wrong to call them sinners?

Freedom of religion has to include the right to speak what you believe, particularly when this opinion is unpopular. You can't just lock the believers away in their churches, and call that fair treatement.

Homosexuality is a sin. Nothing you say will change this, and nothing of what our government does to endorse this will change it either.

	12-12-2003 15:16									#25
	Support Apolyton

Villification is way over the top, and scary. Any of you historians out there correct me (I am biased towards military history - peace is a condition we infer by the abscence of war ) the last time it got this bad was in the 1850's, at least for the United States. This bad implies large groups of people, with opposed ideas, villifying the opposition on a large scale over a prolonged period. I'm interested in the spin for other countries.

	12-12-2003 15:22									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Sikander Then it's true. We are losing the War on Terror.

Not the first thing I thought of, but, there you go.

	12-12-2003 15:34									#27
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: I would hope that gays would get their local clergy involved to urge their respective churches to reexamine their dogma base on a new understanding that gays are born that way. Their condition simply cannot be a sin.

First off, there is no proof that homosexuals are born that way.

Secondly, suppose I were an alcoholic. Would it make it any less sinful for me to get drunk? No. So why should we treat practicing homosexuals differently? The key is not in the proclivities, but in their practice. It cannot be a sin to like men, but it is a sin to have sex with them.

	12-12-2003 17:51									#28
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by blackice I think you have made his point rather well. So when does it finish? You have made it clear THEY started it, who is person enough to finish it...

I don't see Moore or yourself stepping forward to finish anything. You think that "finishing it" for gays would be to roll over and accept legal restrictions on their relationships...where's the equity in that?

quote: It is inevitable that the wheels of justice and government will rubber stamp a balance. But at what cost to society? They have such a wonderful track record. I wish people would stop and think about that... This issue is akin to any other change enmass in any civilization, country, society, etc. So when are we as a planet, race, country, people, etc... Going to get it right? Reflect on what you have said and read it again, then read the article again. You have rights and freedoms as do they, respect them, respect yourself.

Respecting someone else's freedom to believe something due to their relgious doctrine is a far cry from respecting their enforcing said beliefs on the rest of the populations. The gay rights battle isn't about forcing you to believe anything, it's about forcing public policy to treat gays equitably and end institutionalized discriminations.

Conservative Christians, however, are foisting their religious view of who is good and who is bad on everyone. Allowing gays to marry isn't saying Christians are somehow bad or lesser. Prohibiting it is doing that for gays. The same goes for all sorts of laws. I can't recall gays ever advocating laws to ban heterosexual sex. Social conservatives, on the other hand...

quote: I read from your post that you are in a battle to disrespect them, religion in general and thier right to belief. I see your desire to be recognized in the legal aspect of marital rights. So be it no one I bet disagrees, take a poll...

Disagreeing with Christian beliefs in regards to homosexuality isn't disrepecting their right to believe anything. This is the mindset among Christians that is so mind-numbingly frustrating: "We can say whatever we want about YOU, because it's our religion. But if you challenge what we say, you're trampling our rights."

There's no right to have one's religious beliefs enshrined in public policy.

quote: But I see this war, this disrespect for those religious people who would want the word "marrage" kept close to thier heart, thier teachings, thier belief.QUOTE] And for those gays who feel the same thing, love their partner and want to keep it close to their heart? Based on their belief? Considering the entire Christian objection here is that gay relationships aren't as valid as heterosexual ones, ergo not fit for "marriage," again--who is villifying whom? [QUOTE] So why not compromise? Why not come up with a distinct wording to recognize your individual status, Quebec did, so have other minorities. After all we are not all the same are we?

Seperate but equal...yes, we've heard that before.

quote: Minorities in our rights and beliefs. The differance is some destroy others to have thier say and in turn they destroy them for thier own right. Who wins?

As I said, I don't like the villification. Extremists on both sides throw around too much rhetoric. However, the balance is still, IMO, heavily weighted towards social conservatives in this regard, so expecting gays to step up is simple hypocrisy.

	12-12-2003 17:56									#29
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Do we now? Any quotes of supposedly conservative Christian politicians saying any of these things?

I wasn't aware this was a "Canada Only" thread, and if it is I will leave it to Canadians. But I can find you tons of comments from American leaders.

quote: Why is it wrong for a politician to say that as a Christian, he believes gay people who have not repented of their sins are going to go to hell? Why is it wrong for him to call them sodomites? Why is it wrong to call them sinners? Freedom of religion has to include the right to speak what you believe, particularly when this opinion is unpopular. You can't just lock the believers away in their churches, and call that fair treatement.

Religious beliefs are a right, but there is no right that they can't be criticized, nor is there a right to enshrine them in law. You're free to call gay people sinners and hell-bound, but I'm just as free to call you a bigot and immoral for saying such things. See how that works both ways?

Just because you can hide behind your beliefs being based in religion doesn't mean it isn't villifying rhetoric. Being in the Bible doesn't give any creed undue weight.

quote: Homosexuality is a sin. Nothing you say will change this, and nothing of what our government does to endorse this will change it either.

This is your belief, and nothing you say will change the fact that many, many people disagree with you. And in a secular country, while you're entitled to the belief, you're not entitled to force it on others, or entitled to be free of criticism for the belief.

	12-12-2003 18:05									#30
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Absolutely, attack the argument, not the arguer, and there are plenty of problems with the anti gay marriage argument that nobody with an ounce of critical analytic capability should feel the need to resort to childish name calling that helps no-one.