After much prodding by other bloggers, I set this up for my own writings. The name is in honour of the two women that mentored me throughout my life on politics and intelligence issues, as well as being wonderful family members, now alas deceased. I hope to live up to their standards at this site.

Wednesday, February 01, 2006

Now this was a disturbing read through

Every so often I go and read through some of the threads at the self described voice of principled Canadian Conservatism, Free Dominion. Not because I am inclined to agree with the views held by many there, although I will admit there are a few genuinely conservative voices there that I find reasonable, rational, and principled even on topics I disagree with them on, but to understand the thinking in that segment of our society. However, I also end up reading a bunch of regulars who fail to see the naked hate in their posts regarding homosexuals and homosexual rights in our society, and their confirmed belief that there is a long standing conspiracy of some sort in the "Left" in this country to legitimize homosexuals. From many of those that hold this view I keep seeing comments about how they hate the lifestyle, how they cannot abide sodomites, etc. One thing that never ceases to puzzle me though is the regular use of the word sodomite and the fixation on anal sex when discussing things like gay marriage. It bothers me because I would think that if one is truly opposed to gay rights, especially SSM, then you would be equally upset with the idea of two women being married, yet inevitably whenever sex acts are brought up it is always dealing with man-man sex only.

Why is that I wonder? Why is there such a monofocus on gay male sex and gay male relationships in so many comments by people that are opposing gay rights and SSM? Does this make any sense to anyone else? It has left me wondering more than once if the problem is not that these people are against gay equality in our society because they find it disgusting, but because at some point in their lives they found themselves aroused by the idea and this is a backlash response. Not to mention the theory some hold to that the more virulently anti-homosexual one is the more likely it is that this person has had some sort of homosexual experience or fantasy that left them feeling very confused, ashamed, and therefore feeling they need to be protected from any suggestions of homosexuality so as to not be tempted again. For myself, I suspect that is true for some and not for others, and since it is a very difficult thing to measure accurately it is not a theory I tend to subscribe to because to do so is to have to basically take it on faith as opposed to verifiable fact. Which incidentally is one of the problems I have with some of the more extreme suggestions regarding homosexuals, like they are mainly pedophiles, it is a claim of faith not fact, and worse since the facts actually have been measurable and measured and it is found that such is clearly not the case, that most pedophiles are heterosexual.

Then there is the claim that homosexuals receiving equal secular rights in our society is somehow inherently anti-Christian. What I find anti-Christian is the idea that it is appropriate to use the laws of the country to forcibly require citizens to have to follow the Christian doctrines on such issues, basically conversion by force instead of conversion by persuasion and example which is how I was raised to spread the word of Christ when I was still a practicing RC. Churches still are not required to recognize anything about homosexuality that conflicts with their doctrines within their congregations/churches. This idea that Churches will be forced to SSM against their will because of the Charter rights being recognized for homosexuals on SSM is nonsense. The legal history of the Charter on such is clear, just ask those that sued the RC Church to allow divorcees to remarry in the Church and the woman who sued under equality provisions to become a priests which were tossed out on Charter protection grounds in place for religions/Churches. This is a false argument, pure and simple.

As well at that thread it is interesting to see already some complaints from the socon crowd about Harper's campaign being without any focus on their issues, and this feeling of possibly being sold down the river by Harper and the CPC. This is not helped I suspect by some of the other FDers that support Harper abandoning any socon agenda and govern as a moderate party thereby making sure they can continue winning in elections. I knew there was going to be some grumbling about this after the election, although I did expect it to take a little longer. It will be very interesting to see when and how Harper fulfills the pledge to hold another free vote on SSM in this session of Parliament, and how this goes over within the socon constituency of the CPC base. We may already be seeing the beginnings of yet another fracture between the socons and the fiscons within the CPC, which also suggests to me that this merged party is far less cohesively knit together than has been claimed by CPC supporters over the past year or two.

Finally though, I would say this. Anyone that believes that homosexuality is deviancy and therefore needs to be eradicated from public view is in my mind a bigot. I don't care whether the belief is based on religious beliefs or not, such a belief is inherently bigoted. Last time I checked homosexuals were human beings just as we all are, no more and no less. They are also equal citizens of this country and have every right and reason to be expected to be treated as such by the laws of our society. They have the right to have equal access to ALL government institutions and structures, just like all other citizens are supposed to. To deny this is to deny equality, and worse IMHO, denies their essential humanity itself, which is something I cannot describe as anything other than xenophobic behaviour and intolerant bigotry. No doubt this is not going to sit well with some, but that is how I see it.


Blogger Paladiea said...

Here here!

Thu Feb 02, 01:12:00 AM 2006  
Blogger Scotian said...

Thanks Paladiea, but it is not like it isn't anything I haven't said elsewhere...

Fri Feb 03, 02:43:00 AM 2006  
Blogger Robert said...

What you fail to see however is that protection for religion in the charter sdoesn't extend to affiliated service groups such as the Knights of Columbus wo were brought before a human rights tribunal for refusing to rent their hall to a lesbian couple. The Knights lost. Down east the owners of a bed and breakfast were hauled before a human rights tribunal for refusing to rent a room to a gay couple. The owners were religeous and did not approve of the gay lifestyle. Their religeous rights were not upheld by the charter.

Wed Mar 01, 05:01:00 PM 2006  
Blogger Scotian said...


What you do not appear to understand is the grounds these people lost their cases. They were expecting that their religious beliefs allowed them to discriminate against which members of the public could avail themselves of the services these people/groups advertise to the public. I guess then if your religious beliefs said blacks and Jews were inferiors in the eyes of God you would have no trouble with these minorities being blocked by these groups as well, hmm?

that is the point about racism and intolerance, if you are selling something to the general public you cannot decide that one or two minorities within that general public are unacceptable. If these were private organizations open only to private members then I would have no problems with it, but that is not the case here is it. This is a point many that raise these cases seem to forget to provide/consider.

In the case of the KoC, that was about a reception hall they provide for rental to the general public and not just Catholics for various functions. If they had a rental policy restricted to members of the RC faith only then the court would not have decided the way that they did, which if one reads the ruling is quite clear. In the case of the bed and breakfast I have not read the ruling but it appears to have much the same problem. Either one's religious beliefs prevent one from interacting/servicing non believers across the board or they do not. One cannot pick and chose like they wanted to in this case.

So your argument regarding defence of religion being denied and therefore proving there is a problem is based on false assumptions/premises from the outset. Religious protections do not extend to the point where one can protect intolerant behaviour outside of a religious setting/context like this. If these religious people do not want to worry about this sort of problem it has a simple solution, do not rent or provide services outside your faith. That is what these cases make the point of.

Mon Mar 20, 08:44:00 PM 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home