There were women against women’s suffrage also. What’s your point?
That not all who oppose gay marriage are homophobic. Try to pay attention.
Speaking of paying attention, Lib, your third link is to an editorial by a gay man arguing in favor of gay marriage (as opposed to creating “civil unions” alongside marriage, with civil unions available to gay or straight couples but marriage reserved for heterosexuals only).
Two of the three oppose gay marriage, Buck. The other opposes civil unions. They all illustrate that there can be lines of reasoning about such issues that are not homophobic. It is telling that, rather than post against the obviously stupid point of view that all arguments against gay marriage are rooted in homophobia, you chose instead to pick a nit with me. It is typical of the head-up-the-ass syndrome of modern leftists.
Of course. You posted a link to a gay person arguing in favor of gay marriage, as evidence of the proposition that not all arguments against gay marriage are homophobic. It was just nit-picking of me to point that out.
Yes, and you continue to do so. Do you or do you not believe that all arguments against gay marriage are rooted in homophobia? While I’m enjoying your lap dance, I would like to see whether you have something to contribute besides flirting with me.
What I’m contributing to this thread is pointing out that one of your cites doesn’t support your argument.
To recap:
Sam Stone says there are arguments against gay marriage which are not rooted in homophobia.
Several other posters disagree with this.
You then post (among other things) a link to a gay man arguing in favor of gay marriage.
When I point out that this doesn’t support the position you’re arguing for, rather than just conceding that that particular cite doesn’t really support your position, you throw a temper tantrum about “leftists”.
Which is fine, really. This is the Pit, not Great Debates.
:wally
It’s Section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Well, let’s see. That means that homophobia includes those opposed to gay marriage. Therefore, the Americans who oppose gay marriage (a clear majority) are all homophobic. This dilutes the pejorative connotation of the word to the extent that it is just a descriptor like “conservative” or “liberal”.
Arguing through definitions/connotations won’t get you anywhere, spectrum
Gorsnak posted it above, but to put it in context:
The Charter of Rights was added to our Constitution in 1982, a long overdue equivalent to similar charters in other countries (I believe the American equivalent would be the Bill of Rights). The provinces got nervous when Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau was trying to sell this, so as a compromise, an opt-out clause was added.
You can’t opt out of everything – you can’t abridge voting rights and so on. And any law passed using the “notwithstanding clause” becomes invalid after five years, unless it’s passed again. It’s meant to cover the very remarkable stuations no one could have expected, and it’s politically dangerous to use. That’s why it’s only been used successfully once.
:smack:
Once again, that last post by matt_mcl was me, not my roommate.
I’ve been looking up Stephen Harper’s record. He’s been mum on most gay rights issues, and has tried to present himself as a libertarian, not a social conservative, but there are cracks in the image.
Firstly, the gay lobby group EGALE gives him an F for his voting record.
Secondly, his party has always been the main force against gay marriage. Originally, he was arguing that he was against the court making this decision, but now that he’s suggesting using the notwithstanding clause, I guess he’s dropped the façade. I don’t know if he’s very said how he’d vote himself in a free vote, but I’d lay good money that it would be “No.”
Thirdly, he’s made some odd comments. Like when Svend Robinson was demanding an apology from him for refering to other members of the house as criminals (on Oct. 23, 2002), he said, “Mr. Speaker, I am sure the picture of the hon. member of the NDP is posted in much more wonderful places than just police stations.”
In September of 2003, he accused Chrétien of stacking the courts with pro-gay judges, to pass gay marriage.
Fourthly, he surrounds himself with some very homophobic people. His main media spokesman during the last Alliance leadership campaign was James Collison, who was fired from a Winnipeg radio station in 1999 for homophobic remarks made on air. And Larry Spencer – who suggested making homosexuality illegal – wasn’t some backbench MP, but chosen by Harper as “Family Values Critic” in the Alliance’s shadow cabinet.
What does this show? It’s hard to say. My instinct, though, is that Harper is a Trojan Horse, politcally savvy enough not to turn into a Stockwell Day and admit his real views to the media. If his party ever forms the government, I think we’ll see a side of him far worse than the one he presents to the public.
Fair enough. But what about this? Can I now paint all gay rights supporters with the same brush? Pweeese?
Absolutely. There’s just plain bigotry and hatred, too.
Your first cite is a gay man who opposes a HATE CRIMES bill, not a gay marriage law. Your second cite doesn’t clearly oppose gay marriage at all, although it quotes one gay man as opposing it but does not explain why he does - that could be rooted in homophobia for all we know - and so we can’t discuss much there. The third cite quite obviously opposed a CIVIL UNION bill not because the person opposed ay marriage, but because he feels civil union legislation creates a second rate status.
So, so far you have provided zero evidence of someone opposing gay marriage for any reason other than homophobia.
Hamish, the Notwithstanding Clause has certainly been used more than once. Every single piece of Quebec legislation from 1982 to 1985 invoked the clause, and then in 1989 it was invoked again to preserve discriminatory language laws. It was also used once in Saskatchewan to enforce back-to-work legislation, although I believe the courts lated ruled that the bill would have been constitutional anyway.
Of course, your general point, that it is politically hazardous to use, is correct.
I was thinking of the case in 1989. I’d never heard of the other two. What legislation was being enacted in 82 to 85 that required its use?
So some Gay rights supporters went into a meeting and banged sticks together and yelled for 10 minutes… Are you equating that to hitting someone over and over with a sign and punching them in the face?
:eek:
Yes.
Well, this board is dedicated to fighting ignorance, so let’s explore the few instances where this is true:[ol][li]Some people don’t believe in gay marriage because they don’t believe in heterosexual marriage. They want the institution abolished, either because they find it patriarchal, or because it has religious overtones they don’t like.[/li][li]Harry Hay, hippie, communist, and pagan, pretty much founded the American gay rights movement and saw gay marriage as a step backward. Hay had the idea that gay people were a breed apart – either equal and different, or superior, depending on whom you ask – and so we shouldn’t be copying the straight world. But most people I know who feel like this now still support gay marriage, even if they don’t like it.[/li][/ol]
However, outside of these extraordinary exceptions, the point stands that almost all arguments against are rooted in homophobia.
There IS a difference between how he might vote as an M.P., representing his constituents (and possibly his own), and the official party position (which may or may not conflict with his). If the party position is a free vote, and he votes against, that doesn’t mean that the party is anti-gay rights.
Ok … so Chrétien was stacking the courts. Isn’t that a bad thing anyways? Shouldn’t the courts be neutral instead of being biased?
Yes … and Spencer was fired from the position after he made those comments.