About "gay marriage"

[fpb]

The Canadian government is, without a doubt, the most corrupt and dishonest of all current governments in major industrial countries: and bear in mind that when you are competing against Bush, Berlusconi, Chirac, and Blair, that is one Hell of a title to have. But as an Italian citizen in my forties, I thought I had seen the height of corruption and dishonesty in the Craxi age - and Paul Martin's bunch of bandits have the late Mr.Craxi totally whomped. For one thing, there is the purchase of representatives. I had heard of such things going on in the Pakistani Parliament - till they passed a law forbidding members of Parliament from changing parties - but it had never even occurred to me that it might happen in a non-banana-republic state, and certainly no Italian politician had ever offered another money or inducements to switch parties. But Paul Martin's bandits have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar, doing precisely that, at least once, and the evidence is overwhelming that they did it at least another time. Compared to this, which makes a mockery of elected government, even their notorious financial scandals become a comparatively minor matter.

Paul Martin and his party of gangsters should have been in jail long ago. Instead, they govern a major Western country - something they have in common with Chirac and Berlusconi, who both rose to the highest office of State as an alternative to going to jail. They are supported by a corrupt Press and by an utterly degraded CBC - a corporation that makes the BBC look like a model of objectivity and openness. And it is from this lofty moral perch that they have imposed "gay marriage" upon the country.

Comments

Insightful as always.

[patchworkmind.livejournal.com]

While I believe your post ought've been titled "About Canada", I can't help but agree with you wholeheartedly. The Canadians have about as legitimate and open government as New Orleans, Atlanta, Chicago, New York City or Raleigh -- cities in the United States noted for their "alternative styles of governance and administration". I can't really compare the Canadians against other national governments, except as you said certain banana republics and some hard-line ideological Middle Eastern states. They are, however, only taking cue and leading the way in the style of power-grabbing which seems to have taken Western countries by storm.

The age-old struggle reveals itself, as bits and pieces of the facade of democracy, republicanism and freedom-nurturing fall away over recent time -- and will continue foresseably. It's a game, and it's called "Who Gets The Power, Whatever The Cost?"

Nice post.

Re: Insightful as always.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Actually, it was stimulated by a post on someone else's blog, congratulating the Canadians on their new contribution to civilization and wishing that the USA would do the same. I have been following events in Canada at increasingly close quarters and with increasing disbelief - the manipulation of Parliamentary procedure alone could probably have brought down a government in Britain - and am deeply unhappy that many LJers will probably want to congratulate the Liberal gangsters on their advanced ideas, without knowing or caring from what manure they have grown. Of course, most of them would not give a damn if homosexual marriage were introduced by Communist China or by Robert Mugabe (who is, however, a villain on the other side - a confirmed queerbasher, among his other odious traits), so long as they got what they wanted. Which is probably exactly Mr.Martin's calculation.

[gunderpants.livejournal.com]

I think that they're not forcing religious bodies to perform the marriages is a fair enough cop, and is fair enough, but I've long been pretty sus about the Canadian government and their policies which are kinda wack. Like not allowing any private medical practitioners (which doesn't make sense at all, especially from my perspective with a long, arduous family history in the public medical centre - if my state's medical system isn't the most frightening in the world, I don't know what is). But yeah, I agree: I think that they've pretty much used the issue of gay marriage to distract people from other more pressing matters (like said corruption within the political parties) in the same way that the US did at the last election, only to different ends.

[agatha-s.livejournal.com]

I completely agree with your opinion about buying politicians to make them switch parties after elections. It makes democracy a charade, because people's votes don't really count for anything. It happened a lot in my country during the nineties, and it contributed a lot to the disillusionment with politics people are feeling now.

However, I don't think that the fact that this has happened in the Canadian government proves in any way that the law about gay marriage is a bad one. A corrupt government can still pass a good law.

Why did you use the words imposed "gay marriage" upon the country? The word "imposed" would suggest to me that someone's freedom is in danger, and it isn't -- the law won't affect the lives of those who don't want to marry a person of the same sex in any way.

[gunderpants.livejournal.com]

I agree with you on that, Agatha. From what I understand, the law was also passed by a majority in the lower house. I think it would be fair to say it were 'imposed' if a majority voted against the law, but Canada is a pretty liberal country.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Religious freedom IS in danger in Canada, and some of the apologists for "gay marriage" have actually challenged the very concept. I do not want to go on for long, but if you wish I will post an account of a few trials and other developments showing that it is becoming impossible in Canada to be Christian in public. As for imposing this unnecessary and immoral law on the country, the foul Liberals are, among other things, a minority government. The purchase of one MP and attempted purchase of another were carried out for the purpose of not being defeated in Parliament and forced to go to the country, and the "gay marriage" law was forced through Parliament by extending Parliamentary term, forcing a vote of confidence, and breaking public promises both on procedure and on content. It seems right that a law that is bad in content and meaning should be introduced by radically bad means, by a bad party. And if you are surprised to hear that I oppose "gay marriage", you have not read my posts with enough care.

[agatha-s.livejournal.com]

And if you are surprised to hear that I oppose "gay marriage", you have not read my posts with enough care.

I'm not surprised to hear that you oppose gay marriage. It is against your Christian faith, and you've explained that very clearly. Your reasons are only valid for Christians, though, and there's no reason why someone who isn't a Christian should have the same views.

What I don't see is how gay marriage affects the personal freedom of Christians.

I read the article you posted and I agree with you that in many of those examples freedom of belief is in danger. A church should be free to preach its own views on morality, and to set the rules of behaviour for its own schools and universities. No church should, however, attempt to control the lives of people who are not its members. In the case of the bishop of Calgary, I see the bishop as the one who wanted to deny other people their freedom, and I'm disturbed by the fact that the writer of the article sees the homosexuals who "denounced" him as the villains of the story.

While I do agree that some homosexual activists are trying to restrict the Christians' freedom of belief and speech, I don't think it logically follows from that that the legalisation of gay marriage is going to affect anyone's freedom. A marriage is a private act between two people.

In an ideal society as I see it, homosexuals should be allowed to get married, and churches should be allowed to forbid homosexuality to their members and to speak against it. No one has to be a homosexual if he doesn't want to and, likewise, no one has to be a member of a chucrh if he doesn't agree with its ideas.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I'm afraid this begs so many questions I do not have the time to answer them all, at least not today. It is, in my view, riddled with false assumptions. I may challenge them in the future.

[agatha-s.livejournal.com]

Could you at least list the false assumptions that I have, in your opinion, made? That shouldn't take a lot of time.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

"That should not take a lot of time."
Hunh.

All right. You assume:
- That there is some kind of universal validity to so-called gay marriage;
- That the Catholic view of the sexes is singular to the Catholic Church and irrelevant to anyone else;
- that the Catholic view of the sexes ha snothing to say (e.g. in its assumption of the complementarity of the sexes and of the need of both to total humanity) to anyone who is not Catholic;
- and that therefore you can refuse to listen to any challenge from us or find an answer; you just have to say that that is the Catholic viewpoint and you have immediately invalided it;
- that such an attitude does not deprive Catholics of any right to be heard by anyone who is not a Catholic;
- that such an attitude has no consequences for the freedom of Catholics and Christians;
- that there is no essential connection between "gay marriage" and the restriction of Church rights; that it does not affect the freedom of Christians; that it is only a few misguided "activists" who are assaulting the freedom of thought and belief, and not the whole tendency of the legislation;
- that it is not intended to restrict and challenge the Church, to deny its values and implicitly challenge its action in the world; and this in spite of the fact that the only common feature of, in particular, mr.Zapatero's confused and incompetent governmental action is anti-Catholicism;
- That it is not built on a pack of lies (as in Mr.Zapatero's government taking the Kinsey Report seriously);
- That the bishop of Calgary was teaching Church doctrine rather than, as he was obviously doing, retailing a viewpoing on law and the application of law that was until recently common to all legislatures, and if anything more severe in non-Catholic ones (such as Nazi Germany and Communist Russia);
- That he had no right to evoke such a legal view;
- That the unfettered freedom of homosesuals to act as they please has no consequences for the rest of society;
- that there is such a thing as "gay marriage";
- that it is not an imitation of the real thing;
- that marriage in general is about sexual relationships;
- that the nature of marriage can be changed to suit the political convenience of a bunch of crooks in Ottawa or of some ignorant, provincial morons in Madrid.

These are a few. More where they came from.

[agatha-s.livejournal.com]

I'm a little amused by the fact that your list of false assumptions in my comment is longer than the comment itself, and you say that there is more! But I do not assume some of these things, and I'm pretty sure that my words shouldn't have led you to believe that I do.

- That there is some kind of universal validity to so-called gay marriage;
I'll pass on this one, because I'm not sure what you mean by universal validity.

- That the Catholic view of the sexes is singular to the Catholic Church and irrelevant to anyone else;
- that the Catholic view of the sexes has nothing to say (e.g. in its assumption of the complementarity of the sexes and of the need of both to total humanity) to anyone who is not Catholic;
I do not assume this. It might be in the interest of other people to learn about this view and to accept it. But I do believe, very strongly, that they shouldn't be obligated to do so.

- and that therefore you can refuse to listen to any challenge from us or find an answer; you just have to say that that is the Catholic viewpoint and you have immediately invalided it;
No. Not invalidated it, just pointed out that non-Catholics are free to think otherwise.
If I really had this kind of contempt for the Catholic viewpoint I wouldn't have started this conversation with you. I really am interested in what you have to say.

- that such an attitude does not deprive Catholics of any right to be heard by anyone who is not a Catholic;
What is the "right to be heard"? If it's the same thing as freedom of speech, I don't think Catholics are deprived of it by an attitude such as mine.

[agatha-s.livejournal.com]

(Part 2)

- that such an attitude has no consequences for the freedom of Catholics and Christians;
- that there is no essential connection between "gay marriage" and the restriction of Church rights; that it does not affect the freedom of Christians; that it is only a few misguided "activists" who are assaulting the freedom of thought and belief, and not the whole tendency of the legislation;
This was the main point of my comment, rather than an assumption hidden between the lines. I honestly do not see this connection. I'm prepared to admit I was wrong about this if you prove to me that it exists.

- that it is not intended to restrict and challenge the Church, to deny its values and implicitly challenge its action in the world; and this in spite of the fact that the only common feature of, in particular, mr.Zapatero's confused and incompetent governmental action is anti-Catholicism;
If by "in the world" you mean in the outside world, as opposed to inside Church matters, then no, I do not assume this. I see that it does challenge the actions of the Church in the world.

- That it is not built on a pack of lies (as in Mr.Zapatero's government taking the Kinsey Report seriously);
I made no assumption about this.

- That the bishop of Calgary was teaching Church doctrine rather than, as he was obviously doing, retailing a viewpoing on law and the application of law that was until recently common to all legislatures, and if anything more severe in non-Catholic ones (such as Nazi Germany and Communist Russia);
- That he had no right to evoke such a legal view;
No, I did not assume this. I understood that he was evoking a legal view. What I said is that he was the one trying to restrict the freedom of others and not the one whose freedom was in danger.

- That the unfettered freedom of homosesuals to act as they please has no consequences for the rest of society;
No. I don't believe that anyone has the right to "act as they please", and I don't see how you could have seen that in my comment or even between the lines. I believe that everyone should have the freedom to act as they please as long as it doesn't affect the freedom of others.

- that there is such a thing as "gay marriage";
True, I do assume that.

- that it is not an imitation of the real thing;
No. I think it is an imitation of heterosexual marriage, but I don't see anything wrong with that.

- that marriage in general is about sexual relationships;
I don't understand how you could have read that in my comment.

- that the nature of marriage can be changed to suit the political convenience of a bunch of crooks in Ottawa or of some ignorant, provincial morons in Madrid.
Yes, I do assume that the nature of marriage can be changed. Not because of the crooks and morons, but because of changes in society.

[jennilee.livejournal.com]

The Canadian government is, without a doubt, the most corrupt and dishonest of all current governments in major industrial countries:

I wouldn't say the most. Because I don't know how the current governments are.

But yes, it is pretty bad.

But that is what happens when you have a split Canada, but the people in the West (read: Alberta... yeah, that's it, basically, what, 2 million out of 30?) are no match for the population numbers in the East.

Yes, if we had an election, the Liberals would certainly form at least another minority government, despite all they have done (and not done). That is because Stephen Harper is proving himself to be an idiot (although promising at first, especially after Stockwell Day) and the East will never accept him as a viable leader. They like to stick with what they know. And they know the devil. And they (grudgingly or not) accept it.

The Liberals have moved to the center, it's true. And that has made the remaining parties have to move far left, or far right, to show that they are different in their thinking. But then they try to make their platform (and, at times, what platform?) appealing and it collapses under them.

I will be glad when this chapter of our nation's government is closed. It's embarrassing.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I would say that what really stunned me were, one, the purchase or attempted purchase of representatives, and, two, the juggling with parliamentary time and repeated breach of promises (for that matter, I am told "gay marriage" was not even on the Liberal electoral platform in the last elections). God knows I have no time for Blair or Berlusconi, but I doubt whether either of them would sink so low. That is why I said that the Grits are worse than any leader of an advanced country I can think of. Purchasing the allegiance of opposition members, in particular, is banana-republic stuff.

[(Anonymous)]

And there really is nothing quite as funny as the Conservatives fuming about the Bloc. Somehow I find it very hard to feel sorry for them.