I am in favor of same sex marriage. I don't know why it was an issue in the first place. But for the love of God, would they quit parading around proclaiming their sexual preference? I. Don't. Care.
Ok, so maybe it does bother me. We read in the news all the time about how homosexuals are concerned with having the same rights as straight folk which is fine and dandy with me. But, I don't see too many "Straight Parades" on 17th Avenue.
Today while at the Pride Parade, which I stumbled across while shopping 17th Ave, my jaw dropped when I saw a series of men being strung along by a rope. Seriously - we need men in bondage out parading around at noon on a Sunday? I didn't find this to be all that appropriate - and I am sure parents with kids didn't either.
It is one thing to be in a bedroom with that stuff, it's another thing to be in public showing it off. If the gay citizens of Calgary are so concerned with being treated as an equal, maybe they should start acting like it. Or, maybe the straight folk need to start some parades and ask the Mayor for their own month (see: Mayor's Proclamation for Pride Month).
For somebody who has come out and out to say that they?re in favour of same-sex marriage and equal rights, you seem awfully intolerant to the fact that they have the right to make a stand as a minority! Regardless if you do care or not, there is a simple solution: look away!
I mean, if the Chinese can have 3rd Avenue in Chinatown sealed off for Chinese New Year, and the Sikhs can have a large swath of the area around the Dashmesh Centre in the Northeast for the Varanasi Parade, then I?m sure any minority ought to have a right to parade around to show themselves off to the community at-large.
Don?t forget: Calgary is still a very conservative town, with deep-rooted prejudices. GLBT folk are still having a difficult time coming out and doing these things in this town...heck, it exists anywhere. The cowboy attitudes of this town is very prevailing, and there needs something to bring them together...even if it?s for a few short hours.
But if you really don?t care, then I can propose only one solution: look away. Let the GLBT folk have their parade, heck, it may help one of those questioning kids lining 17th yesterday come to a realization!
John for starters, the whole idea of gays dancing around in whatever little they can find is totally wrong. I dont mind gays, but when they come out and do something like that, on a sunday of all days, the day that families are arriving home from church and there kids are having to see this, give your head a shake and think that people dont want to see this kind of display on city streets. I'm all the way straight, and i dont dance up and down a street telling people that. If your gay, leave it to yourself...
Oh Megan, perhaps it is you who ought to give yourself a shake....you say equal rights but not equal freedom of assembly or speech? If you really didn't like it that much, then don't look. How hard to understand is that? It's the same principle in which other cultures use to hold their parades and festivals.
To tell people not to do it just because it grosses you out is just totally selfish. Let the GLBT folk do what they feel is needed: If anti-SSM marriage folk have a right to hold their ralles, don't the GLBT community have that same right to show themselves off? The word minority is rather widely based here in Canada, as I recall.
Let me repeat: if you don't like it, then don't look and ignore it. I'm sure the folks at Pride Calgary wouldn't mind if you didn't look. It's great that you are pro-SSM, but it doesn't mean that you can say that people don't have the right to do what they feel is necessary. If it ain't your cup of tea, then just choose to look away.
Also, I WAS at the parade...and I've been to the one in Sydney, Australia. And believe me, compared to the amount of men in nut-huggers here, you're in for a real shock if you go to another one in say, Toronto or San Francisco. Believe me.
I didn't say that it grossed me out. Seriously - did you read the piece I wrote? I said that maybe on a SUNDAY AFTERNOON isn't the best time to have these sorts of functions. Kids - children, are out strolling the way with their parents. Bondage is not a Sunday afternoon event on 17th Avenue. Why is it necessary to tell everyone you're gay? It's not. I don't tell people I'm straight. It's just not really necessary.
If I don't like it - ignore it. I would LOVE to ignore it but it blocked the way for me to get downtown. Hence the reason I made a comment.
John, I think you're totally missing what I was trying to say. So really, having this discussion isn't going to work until you realize my point.
Why is a parade necessary? It will be for as long as the gay and lesbian community is not afforded the same rights as the rest of us. While Megan has not suggested this, her piece in addition to some of the posted comments have pondered the necessity of the parade; I believe the reason to be clear. I also fail to understand the issue that some readers have taken with the parade being held on Sunday - which day would they prefer? It is not as if the Pride Parade was a clandestine operation that nobody knew about - the event is well organized and well publicized, going on several years now. Which day would the author and readers prefer? Tuesday morning at 2 a.m.? In order to shield "the children" from the exploits of the gay community? Finally, some of those that have posted a comment have equated men being strung along on a rope with "PERFORMING sex acts in front of people of a different orientation". While it certainly could be argued that the gesture was a clear display of sexuality, calling it a "sex act" is a bit off the mark. Well, perhaps not - depending on what kind of action one is used to. Beyond that - reducing the scope of the Pride Parade to that singular issue and then basing an argument in favor or against the parade on it, is drastically short sighted. Do not suggest (those who have commented) that you have just taken issue with bondage in public - with the exception of John everyone has mused the validity of the parade, right from the title of Megan's post. I don't care that you're straight, Megan. But a lot of people care - in favor or against - about the orientation of members in the gay community. Perhaps you would parade as well if entire groups, communities and even the laws of a nation took issue with who you were attracted to. One may consider that the intent of the display in question may have been more than just to "shock" you at the sight of men in their leather skivvies; it may have been to remind you that there are still those among us who would choose to say that "who you are is against the law".
If the gays want to complain about equality, maybe they should have to go through some of the things that the Japanese had to go through during the war. They would then have a case about equality. Or what the Blacks had to go through in the States. When they are forced to sit at the back of the bus, or drink at fountains marked "Gays only" will they have a legitimate complaint. How are they not "equal" now?
Steve, I did not suggest that Megan was against equality. But in her own words, she did say "But for the love of God, would they quit parading around proclaiming their sexual preference?". I suggested that a comment such as this, in addition to posts like yours, questioned the need or validity of a parade. So that is what I addressed. Perhaps you should F---ing drop it, as you eloquently suggested.
While Megan may not have raised the issue of equality, it is inevitable when discussing this situation that it WILL be raised. So yeah, let's discuss it, because it's at the essence of the matter.
I am also quite pleased that you inferred that my question of gay equality was tantamount to the asinine issues you mentioned. When Megan has just taken issue with readers misquoting or not reading her posts accurately, your rhetoric is timely.
"Dude". Your fathers family SHOULD have demanded equality, because that is what is inherent in simply being a HUMAN BEING. Respect truly can not be legislated, but the consequences of whom one chooses to love apparently can.
I'm very proud of you for having a Blog. Kudos to you for inventing a verb.
I have not "reframed the discussion" to inject my own "applause lines". When the author and others have suggested that the gay community "rock on in the privacy of your own home - leave it from the streets", I have COMMENTED (as the function has been enabled) on the possible reasons why a gay person might not want to keep it behind the curtains.
I was unaware that commenting was strictly to ingratiate oneself with Ms. Pratt.
Steve, I seriously fail to understand how you believe I reframed the discussion with the equality issue. Read: "I don't see too many "Straight Parades" on 17th Avenue." Read: "If the gay citizens of Calgary are so concerned with being treated as an equal, maybe they should start acting like it. Or, maybe the straight folk need to start some parades and ask the Mayor for their own month..."
Megan prompted the discussion about equality in the original post. It was not merely a comment on BDSM attire, as you contend. So did I really detour?
Finally, I'm sure African-Americans are really regretting that they demanded equality since they "compromised their belief that they already were equal". They are likely beside themselves in the realization that they had declared everyone else morally below them. I'm sure they wish they were still waiting around tolerating "people's wrong assumptions about them until those wrong assumptions died under the weight of their own flaws".
Yeah, sitting around waiting for Nazi assumptions to die about them really worked well for 6,000,000 Jews, didn't it?
Hey, if you are going to bring historical references to issues of equality into it, I don't mind either.
Once again, it's a shame Megan removed her post asking people to actually read what she has written, because it's becoming apparent that you were selective about what you took in from her original writing.
Homosexuals deserve the rights of Heterosexuals, that's a fact that can't be dinied. Having said that, perhaps they're not being afforded that right because they can't seem to fight for their rights in a dignified way. I don't want my kids to see men in bondage on 17th avenue, or anywhere, for that matter. As far as not looking, it's like a bad car accident, you don't want to look, but you can't help yourself. And once you've looked, your really sorry you did! Heterosexuls don't shove their sexuality in anyone's face, so why do homosexuals have to shove it in everybody elses face.
I'll maintain that Megan framed the discussion herself towards equality with the already quoted: "If the gay citizens of Calgary are so concerned with being treated as an equal..." I really enjoy your suggestion that I "read the words. They're still up there". I did. Did you?
I did not assert that the post was not about the conduct of the parade - I suggested that the post wasn't EXCLUSIVELY about the conduct, as you and others have so vehemently claimed.
My applause lines were inspired by your reference to your father's family. I am well aware that the civil rights issues in the U.S. and the Holocaust were not same sex issues - actually, check that - the Nazi's didn't forget to exclude gays from their scope. However, your reference to your family was not a same-sex issue either. So in true playground fashion, I must say "you started it".
I have no need to say that I've won, Steve. If you do, that's fine. If you also need to infer that I have called you a Nazi, well that's fine too.
There was quite a bit of talk and back-and-forth action relating to Ms. Pratt?s original post on this subject. Unfortunately (as in a few other cases I recall) some of this original post is no longer. Some of the comments that you, the good-hearted reader, read may not reflect the original post, which may cause some confusion when you read the comments that followed it, but rest assured; it was there.
I didn?t respond to this yesterday because I figured that if I should write anything worth reading I should really put some thought into what I am going to say before I say it. I think Ms. Pratt should take my lead on this. I also feel the need to point out a deficiency between two of Megan?s comments. In the main post you say ?Today while at the Pride Parade, which I stumbled across while shopping 17th Ave?, then later on you mention that ?I would LOVE to ignore it but it blocked the way for me to get downtown?. Well which was it? Did you have trouble getting downtown because of the parade, or was it that you were already shopping on 17th when the parade made its way down the avenue?
I write this without need for a rebuttal from anyone, and presumably as the only openly gay person to respond thus far. I could be mistaken, but for some reason I doubt it. I also write this under Ms. Pratt?s current rendering of her original post, and without comment on yesterdays responses.
First off, your title: ?I don?t care that you are gay. Do you care that I am straight?. Well no, now that you?ve mentioned it, I?ve never cared that you are straight. Just like many people I know, they don?t care that I?m gay. But that wasn?t always the way it was for me, or for many gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, trans-gendered and two-spirited folk. But we?ll come to that later on.
?Would they quit parading around proclaiming their sexual preference?? (I feel obligated to point out that that preference should be pluralized). Honestly Megan, do you really think that is what we are doing? I?ve been an out gay guy for quite a while now and this year was the first year that I?ve ever been to the annual parade and subsequent street-fair. If you had had the slightest clue, you?d realize that we are actually celebrating diversity. We are celebrating social equality. We are celebrating because it is important to celebrate. What do we as people celebrate in life? We celebrate birthdays, anniversaries, weddings, death, graduation and new life. Not to mention our famous Calgary Stampede parade and various other celebrations and parades around the city. The gay community celebrates gay pride because many of us never thought we?d live to see the day when we?d be able to say the words ?I am gay? out loud without being scoffed, shunned, outcast, assaulted and sometimes even killed. Many of us grew up learning that we would be sent straight to hell because of who we were. Many of us have tried, and too many have succeeded in bringing and end to our own lives just to find peace. Feel free to check out the statistics on teenage suicide, better yet ? go have a chat with a few high school councilors in this city, they deal with a lot of issues facing gay youth in our city.
On your remarks about ?I don?t see too many ?straight parades? on 17th Ave?. Everyday is a straight parade on 17th Ave. I challenge you to take a day or two and stroll up and down 17th Ave, the Mission area and even Kensington and take a tally of how many men are holding hands with women, how many women are holding hands with women and how many men are holding hands with men. This isn?t a very scientific way to gather info, but I think you will see many more men and women embracing each other than any other group. That?s another reason why pride is celebrated. It?s a day where GLBT people can gather together and hold hands, kiss, cuddle and hug on the streets of our fair city without fear. I enjoy seeing people hold their partners in public without confrontation, gay or straight and everything in between the colorful lines of sexuality.
Now onto your bondage comment(s); I?m not clear as to the actual moment you stumbled upon the parade, but I?m fairly certain you missed the message being presented by those ?men being strung along by rope?. I think you may have missed their banners explaining the safety and consent of it all. This lifestyle practice occurs in homes across the city in straight homes and gay. There was nothing in the display of these two men in bondage explicitly showcasing their sexual activity; they simply walked the parade route in binds. There are more explicit activates showcased daily on the good old television that sits in our living rooms. I personally am not one for bondage, but a lot of Calgarians are. Welcome to diversity.
As for all this happening of a Sunday afternoon, get a grip. Does it really matter what day of the week this event is held on!?! I mean really. And you didn?t find it to be all that appropriate ? and you?re sure parents with kids didn?t either. Really? I?m assuming you?re referring to the straight parents who are somewhat, how do you say, close-minded. Surely you haven?t taken into account all the gay parents and all the open-minded straight parents who understand diversity and are willing to talk to their children about all the going on?s in this great big world.
?If the gay citizens of Calgary are so concerned with being treated as equals, maybe they should start acting like it.? Okay, this is the point were I simply say: Fuck you and fuck that. How the hell should we act? How should anyone anywhere be expected to suppress themselves so that they will feel equal? Who are we trying to kid, we are all different. I don?t think you understand what equality in diversity means. Think on that for a while. No really, I mean it, think about it. Equality in Diversity.
I should also point out that you?ve failed to mention any of the positive events at the event. Did you happen to notice the Inside Out Youth Group which provides support and a safe place for their peers to gather? Did you notice the Calgary Gay Fathers who also provide support for their peers? Did you see the Calgary Unitarian Youth Group?s Rainbow Pride Flag Project? They are trying to gain the record for the worlds longest pride banner in support of the pending same-sex marriage legislation here in Canada. Of course, this stuff wouldn?t have given as good of a sting in your post like your bondage comments have.
As I?ve said when I began writing this response, I?m not looking for a rebuttal or response from this; in fact it is unlikely that I will respond to any such postings. Of course Ms. Pratt?s comments on this would be most interesting to read.
As found in the mayor?s Proclamation: ?In respect of global human rights ideals and in the spirit of encouraging greater acceptance and understanding in our city?. Enough said.
It would seem, at first glance and to new readers, that Jerry is experiencing an identity crisis. Who is this Steve person? Why is Jerry responding to non-existent comments? For those who have been following this interesting discussion, it would seem that Steve has deleted about 5 postings from the site. Now, regardless of where you stand on the issue, at least have the fortitude to stand behind your words. And, heaven forbid, if your mind is somehow altered by someone else?s words or experiences, at least have the strength to say, (I see your side), or (You?ve brought up a good point), ? or conversely, if you continue to hold a different opinion, at a minimum leave your comments intact so the conversation makes sense to those reading it and gives everyone something to think about. We are all entitled to our own opinions and we all come from different places in relation to experiences, however, if you choose to express those opinions in such a forum, you should, a) not alter original postings to suit your discomfort level with the discussion; or b) delete the postings altogether and make the conversation disjointed and inaccurate.
I deleted my comments because I realized I was driving a ton of artificial trafic to Megan's website. A quick scan of the server logs shows that the bulk of the traffic to her page this week was to this single post-only page, not to her site. Moreover Megan wasn't even a part of the discussion.
In other words we'd taken over her sight for a catfight.
And yes, it was a catfight.
Megan posted a commentary on how she was perturbed by the behavior of some men at a parade. People automatically extrapolated her motives to be homophobic, and a war of words around issues that weren't even raised in the first place.
The merits of A and B were being debated beneath a post about X.
Realizing the tone was escalating (See Chris' post above) over issues that weren't even related to the original post and already seeing that MSN and Google's search engines regularly crawl the site (3.49% of our traffic) and that it was going to enter the pool of words in a debate Megan never intended to enter, I chose to delete my posts and in effect disrupt the context of the off-topic discussion before my website, the parent site containing Megan's blog, got dragged into the same-sex marriage debate when I've already done a ton of work establishing my position on the topic in earlier posts.
Are sexual politics valid issues worth discussion? Yes. Are they issues Megan raised? No. Am I interested in being dragged into the issue and characterized as being anti-gay because I'm supporting Megan's original complaint that a few men behaved badly in front of kids? No.
Tuesday 8:38 AM John, spewing out the plattitude about "looking away if you don't like it" doesn't answer any of our points John. Neither does "Oh, because it's more shocking elsewhere, it lessens any offense here." Try again. Oddly, you seem to imply there's something "worse" in Sydney or San Fran, so who's side are you on?
In any event, you've enjoyed enough spotlight here, it's time to become a proactive writer and not a reactive commenter. Go post your own, well-defended op-ed piece on the issue, versus a string of pllattitude comments to another blog.
11:57 AM Jerry, first of all. WHAT. THE. HELL? Where where where where in Megan's original post does she say she's against equality or gay pride? No. Where? Nowhere. SO F--KING DROP IT.
Secondly, since we seem want to talk equality even if it was never the issue raised, I was unaware that in Canada you were forced to disclose sexual orientation while applying for a job, or for a credit card or health insurance. I was also unaware that gays were denied the vote or coverage under habeas corpus, and were universally excluded from participation in the military, political service, and attendance at public schools. Likewise I was shocked to discover that gays may be arrested on sight, and are not allowed in Safeway unless accompanied by a heterosexual adult. It came as a real surprise to discover that non-heterosexuals must drink from separate drinking fountains and sit at the back of the bus.
Dude. As early as half a century ago my Dad's family was carted off by the trainload to camps in central BC because they posed a threat to 'Canadians'. What did they do when they were allowed to go back? They didn't demand equality, they earned respect, and guess what came as a result? Respect can't be legislated but it can be earned.
3:23 PM Jerry, here's how you reframed the discussion: You've turned Megan's discussion about the CONDUCT (attire, antics)of the parade and tried to reframe it as a discussion about the CONTENT (sexual politics) of the parade.
Saying it wasn't a post about conduct of the parade doesn't change the truth that it was. Read the words. They're still up there.
As for the applause lines: Well, you've injected the one about the civil rights movement (which coincidentally used Gandhi's non-cooperation model rather than Elijah Mohammed's interventionist model), AND the six million jews line. You've reframed those two examples as well: Civil rights was about voting and school integration -- not issues in the same-sex arena -- and the Holocaust was a genocide -- which isn't an issue in the same-sex arena either.
And with that, my point's come full circle with examples so I'll call it a day. Good game. Feel free to say you won and call me a nazi and all that stuff.
Yet another disconnect from what actually happened: nobody DRAGGED you into it, Steve. You JUMPED in with "John, spewing out the plattitude about "looking away if you don't like it" doesn't answer any of our points John." - and you continued right along with every time you CHOSE to respond to a subsequent comment.
I think the "our points" remark specifically illustrates your vested interest in frequently coming to Megan's defense. You have criticized the idea that too many people have jumped into the fray, with your sentiment of "poor little Megan got left behind on something (hardly anyone believes) that she didn't start - on her own blog!" Yet "our opinions?" And "dragged" into it?
Megan has clearly stated in the past that she gets off on getting a rise out of people. Well, that mission was more than accomplished in this situation, so you think you two would celebrate the discourse that occurred here. Go ahead and maintain that it was only a post about BDSM attire, but it is clear that I am not the only one who disagrees with that assessment.
If your server can't handle it, perhaps choose to host a subdirectory by someone who doesn't use the quote "what's the point of writing if you can't annoy someone?" as a basis for her pieces.
Honestley Steve, "Realizing the tone was escalating (See Chris' post above) over issues that weren't even related to the original post"? Where did you get that from? If you read my piece you would have noticed that I was reponding strictly to Megan's comments on her original post and nothing else. Thanks for trying though.
Megan quoted a certain Steve Tsuida - describing him as an "avid outdoors guy" - in her piece about the woman who got mauled to death near Canmore.
In that piece, Mr. Tsuida enlightened us by saying that "retarded restaurant staff leaving the garbage cans open" and other groups of people are responsible for killing the bear.
Apparently Steve is an expert on many things. As I recall, Megan also quoted him in her piece on Catholic communion (unless that was a different Steve). In that piece he suggested that what is sacred to millions of people around the world should be used as toilet paper.
Here is a small suggestion to Megan: find legitimate sources. With all due respect to Steve (who obviously takes himself very seriously), it's better to hear from people who actually have knowledge and insight on whatever it is you're writing about.
I wonder if this comment will mysteriously get deleted...
I felt dumb as soon as I posted that last comment. I realized that I was trying to pick a fight over the internet with people that I've never even met.
Something interesting for you to read, in regards to your comment in the newspaper.
There are two thoughts that are important to keep in mind whenever discussing the issue of homosexuality in the public square. Be alert to this whenever you're entertaining discussion or debate, or reading about such debate on the issue of homosexuality in America-- or whenever the Ellen issue comes up.
First of all, there's a difference between skin color-- ethnicity-- and behavior. It seems to me this is so self-evident, so obvious, that it should go without saying, but there is much confusion on this point.
When the issue of homosexuality comes up in the public square, it isn't uncommon to equate the concerns for homosexual liberty with the concern for racial equality. This is a faulty parallel because with homosexuality we're not talking about something morally benign like skin color or ethnicity. I don't know of anybody who has made a genuine case for the moral relevance of the pigmentation of someone's skin or for the moral relevance of his ancestry, per se. Ethnicity has nothing to do with morality.
With homosexuality we're talking about something different. Although some will argue that homosexuality is constitutional, the evidence is not good that homosexuality is in the genes, that they were born that way. But even if it were, we're talking about a particular behavior that most Canadian's consider strange and unnatural, and many Canadian's consider deeply immoral.
Let me make a point here, friends. These attitudes are not the result of blind prejudice, as is often represented. Most Canadians don't think this is unnatural because they haven't been educated properly. Most people who consider homosexuality deeply immoral don't do so because they hate homosexuals. They have principled moral objections. Good arguments can be garnered for the unnatural nature of homosexuality.
If you saw the movie "In and Out"-- though it was kind of a spoof on homosexuality, and especially a shot at those who think that homosexuality is odd-- there was a pretty funny line about there being "in" holes and "out" holes in human bodies. Some openings are to receive things and other openings are to get rid of things, and you ought not get the two confused.
It was meant to be funny (it was), but it also makes a valid point. There is a natural law argument against homosexuality. And guess what? As silly as it was made to sound in the movie, there is a fundamental sensibility to it.
Now, it might be that those who hold such a view are mistaken. My point is, however, this isn't just raw prejudice. It's a principled point of view. A principled and intelligent argument based on natural law can be made against homosexuality that has nothing to do with ignorance, prejudice, or hatred.
There are good reasons to think that homosexuality is immoral, too. Even if I'm mistaken on that fact-- I don't think I am, but even if I were-- at least I could say I'm not simply making my position against homosexuality based on some bizarre, irrational, unreasoning prejudice like those who are prejudiced against a skin color. Instead, it's a principled position and I'm capable of giving good reasons for it.
I can anticipate an objection here. Someone says, "You may think that homosexuality is unnatural and immoral, but you have no right to force your view on us." Well, whether I have the right to force it on you or not is a debatable question, actually. All laws force someone's moral view on another. Regardless, that's not what is happening here. And this is my second point.
This is not about equal rights. This isn't about us forcing our view on someone else. This is about the legitimacy for us to even hold our point of view. We're being faulted for even making a moral distinction here.
More and more laws are being passed in this country to protect people from even the hint of censure about their actions.
You see, this isn't about us forcing our view on them . This is about conservatives and morally-minded people being allowed to express their moral point of view and act on it. This isn't about homosexual liberties; it's about our liberties.
Friends, homosexuals have every right any other Canadians has. I don't have the right to live anywhere I want. I don't have the right to be employed by anyone I want. I don't have the right to marry anyone I want. There are laws and rules and moral restrictions that govern all of those things.
This is not about rights, ladies and gentlemen. This is about approval. This is about a small group of people working to force the majority to approve of behavior that the rank and file believes is morally objectionable.
By the way, they already do. The law affords them all the same protections I have.
"But I can't marry whomever I want," they say. Well, neither can I.
"But, I can't marry the person I love." Well, you can if it's a woman; you can't if it's a man. Neither can I. I can't marry any person I love. If I fell in love with my sister (Perish the thought!), or if I fell in love with my daughter, I couldn't marry them. If I fell in love with my first cousin I can't marry her. You see, I'm restricted in the same fashion. I have the right to marry any woman of my choice who is not already married and who is distant from me in terms of kinship. Homosexuals have that very same right.
But they say, "I don't want to marry a woman, I want to marry a man." Well, what you want is a different issue. The fact is you have the same freedoms I have, you just don't want to exercise them. You want more than the same legal freedoms I have. You want an Additional freedom, a special right. Society has no obligation to grant that.
As Canadians , homosexuals should have the very same rights that every other Canadian has, but as homosexuals , they shouldn't have any special standing by law.
"I don't know of anybody who has made a genuine case for the moral relevance of the pigmentation of someone's skin or for the moral relevance of his ancestry, per se. Ethnicity has nothing to do with morality."
I honestly do not either. And the event I describe below definitely is not an example of that. However, if I were to entertain the PERCEPTION from "practice" rather than "theory" in this discussion, I could tell you that the only time I have held a man's head in my hands after a 9 mm. bullet had ripped through his skull - his brains on the carpets and walls and a clean-up that resulted for 2 days following - was after several consecutive weeks of engagements that involved one particular collection of "pigmentation" of skin.
I am not so naive or ignorant to believe that the event that I just mentioned was solely a product of skin colour. But I can understand how it would be pretty easy to associate immorality and HOMICIDAL behavior with that ethnicity after viewing such an occurence - as many around me did following that night.
Therefore, I can certainly understand why an individual could associate the singular event as described in the original post, and related perceptions of homosexuality to immorality.
Come on.
"We're talking about a particular behavior that most Canadian's consider strange and unnatural". Is that a fact?
Where are you getting your stats from? I have never once claimed that the majority of Canadians would side with my obvious standpoint, and sadly I am not counting on ever being able to. Beware any ascertainment that you have the majority aligned with you. It is a dangerous assumption to make. I am hetero-sexually married with a five month old son - a life that I wouldn't change for any alternative. Yet without any direct experience, I do not consider homosexuality "strange and unnatural" or "deeply immoral", or having any relation to "natural law".
You mention the movie "In and Out", along with "in" holes and "out" holes - "some openings are to receive things and other openings are to get rid of things, and you ought not get the two confused."
Since when has a vagina been exclusively an "in" hole?
Societies once believed that a principled argument could be made against "natural law" (equaling validity) as it pertained to skin colour. Some individuals still do. Whether or not those individuals have chosen to agree with it, their assumptions been dismantled.
Whether or not one chooses to admit it, many believe the same will occur, and SHOULD occur as it pertains to same-sex issues.
I can not agree with one who would suggest that the gay community has the same rights that "we" have. Yes, I can not marry whomever I want, My sister and mother are certainly out of the question, while if I was gay, so would my father or son not be among my options.
The difference, and subsequent imbalance of equality is that were I to fall in love with a person whom I wanted to pledge the rest of my life to - one of no blood relation to myself - I would be denied an equal footing if that person happened to be of the same sex. Why? Because it offends the sensibility of some people. Why? Because it counters certain deep-rooted ideals. Yet is a vision of one "sensibility" universal? Does "deep-rooted" equate itself with truth? Passing that, would we even be having this discussion if actuallymedia.com's "rank and file" represented everyone?
It was said that "By the way, (homosexuals) already do. The law affords them all the same protections I have." This is incorrect - it is more accurate to say that homosexuals have the same RESTRICTIONS that you do. Were you to fall in love with someone of the same sex tomorrow, you wouldn't be allowed to marry either. As you are clearly heterosexual though, the law as it stands is certainly more CONVENIENT for you. Yeah, it's equality, but it's a twisted one.
I realize that those who fall on the opposing side of same-sex rights are tired of hearing this one: "how does it affect you?" "What do you have to lose?" Well, what do you? I have yet to hear a coherent argument addressing this, much to the same tone of I don't know of anybody who has made a genuine case for either of these points, along with the "moral relevance of the pigmentation of someone's skin".
Why does it hurt you so much? What is the absolute objection? If it can be presented to me clearly just once - I swear I'll get behind it and let this go. But honestly, if it's a matter of protecting the sanctity of relationship and marriage, then let us set our sights on something a little more practical: let's outlaw divorce. That ruins the definition of marriage more than anything I can think of - significantly more than two people of the ANY sex wanting to unite in a testament to their love.
Homosexuals should not have any special standing by law, nor should they have any special restriction. Ethnicity has nothing to do with morality. Well, neither does sexuality.
You wrote: "I am in favor of same sex marriage. I don't know why it was an issue in the first place." Legalizing doesn't mean it going to make everyone tolerant or accepting of this lifestyle. Gays are ALWAYS going to face opposition no matter what. If they want respect, maybe they need to be tolerant of other people's views. "Treat others as you want to be treated." Intolerance is being practiced by those who push the gay agenda but can't respect other people's views, so they automaticaly point that they are wrong.
Denying marriage doesn't restrict anyone. It merely withholds social approval from a lifestyle and set of behaviors that homosexuals have complete freedom to pursue without it. A marriage license doesn?t give liberty; it gives RESPECT.
Same-sex marriage is not about Civil Right. It?s about validation and social respect. It is a radical attempt at civil engineering using government muscle to strong-arm the people into accommodating a lifestyle many find deeply offensive, contrary to nature, socially destructive, and morally repugnant.
"Marriage is a social construction we can redefine as we please."
I don't think marriage has been defined by cultures. Rather, I think it has been described by them. The difference in terms is significant. If marriage is defined by culture, then it is merely a construction that culture is free to change when it desires. The definition may have been stable for millennia, yet it is still a convention and therefore subject to alteration. This is, in fact, the argument of the those in favor of gay marriage.
The truth is, it is not culture that constructs marriages or the families that marriages begin. Rather, it is the other way around: Marriage and family construct culture. As the building blocks of civilization, families are logically prior to society as the parts are prior to the whole. Bricks aren?t the result of the building because the building is made up of bricks. You must have the first before you can get the second.
Its an issue because a minority is trying to push their lifestyle on the rest of society which a majority disagree with, whether religious or NOT. Like I said if gays want to be treated equally then maybe they need to stop their intolerance of those who might not agree with them but don't hate them. Would you hate your best friend because of one simple thing, they got into drugs? You don't like drugs, you disagree with it but you still have your friendship. All I can say is - sometimes the TRUTH just hurts!
``Watch your mouth young man, or youre going to wish you were in jail. ``No, Im sorry. xxx sex stories animal sex post stories xnyx husbands forced gay stories erotic sexual stories free amateur adult swinging party stories ``Watch your mouth young man, or youre going to wish you were in jail. ``No, Im sorry.
