3. Regarding the State, Traditional Marriage, and Same-Sex Unions
A number of questions regarding the legitimate role of government have been raised by both advocates of particular rights for homosexuals and defenders of traditional marriage. In this brief essay I am attempting to address several of the most urgent of these questions.
The matter of pension rights is one that, as we have said previously, could be addressed by simple contracts and legal declarations, provided no subsidizing by outside parties is involved. It cannot be legitimately argued, in the view of this writer, that those in either traditional marriages or homosexual unions, simply because of their relationship, should have the right to special subsidization by other participants in a pension scheme or by government or as a result of a government mandate. The only apparently legitimate argument that can be made for any government-mandated subsidizing is in the case of partners with children. Any legislation regarding this is a matter for detailed and special laws, not a matter for basic human rights.
What about the right to adopt? Who should have that right? Well, adoption surely is not a basic right, but a special right which is granted not primarily for the welfare of a couple but for the welfare of children. It can surely be legitimately argued that the optimum welfare of children is served by their being raised in a stable relationship in a family headed by an opposite-sex couple, and opposite-sex couples in such stable relationships should be granted special status when deciding questions of adoption.
What role should the school system play in the matter of portraying traditional marriage and homosexual unions? Pro-homosexuality activists demand that the latter should be given at least equal status in education to that of the former. Pro-homosexuality activists would demand that literature classes study the portrayal in novels of homosexual romance in the same way that heterosexual romances are now portrayed. In fact, these activists would call into service much of the school curriculum for the favourable portrayal of homosexual relationships.
Should education be subjected to such a revolutionary treatment on behalf of the homosexual minority? The medical evidence would shout a loud and clear warning which we ignore at our peril. The brevity of the average homosexual’s life-span, the prevalence of disease among the practitioners of homosexuality, the rarity of permanent commitment to relationships: all are clear warnings against the use of the schools as instruments to give youth a favourable view of homosexual behaviour. Public schooling must not be used as an instrument of pro-homosexuality propaganda.
The matter of parental rights must come into play in any consideration of the proposals to alter public education on behalf of a homosexual minority. The state should not subvert in the public schools the teachings of those parents who espouse traditional morality.
Those of us who are social conservatives are not, for the most part, expecting--and in my opinion should not expect, the state to enforce our private standards of behaviour. But to the extent that government should be involved in the marriage question at all, it should be involved on the side of recognizing the unique and beneficent nature of the justly time-honoured institution of marriage as a relationship involving the commitment of one man and one woman.
--Ted Hewlett
posted by Ted Hewlett | Post Page
8 comments
8 Comments:
Why do you call those who advocate a different position from you "pro-homosexual". Are you anti-homosexual? (Well actually you might be)
Pro-homosexuality implies that someone promotes or advocates homosexuality. Trying to convince people to become homosexual is quite different than saying homosexuality is normal (exists in the natural order of things) and that homosexuals should be treated as equals to other human beings.
Creating labels damages your position, in my view, because it is based irrationality not logical arguement and it simply sweeps common sense under an emotionally charged blanket.
Wayne Fowler
Most of the people, including you Ted, who talk of "traditional" marriage don't really seem to understand the history of marriage. It is much more varied and complex that you know.
However, even if that were not so religions gave up the right to legally define marriage to government ages ago. I don't know exactly when or why but it can be traced back several centuries. Since governments must, in a democracy, govern by constitution and the principle of seperation of church and state, the definition had to be changed. Allowing all couples to marry simply means that all couples are treated equally and neither the views of one religion or all religions controls the rights of individuals who think differently.
Wayne Fowler
This is a reply to both your posts, Wayne.
Please notice that I used the term "pro-homosexuality," not "pro-homosexual." I did this deliberately. In one sense we should be for our fellow-human beings, no matter how their standards of behaviour differ from ours. We should wish them the best.
Pro-homosexuality activists do portray homosexuality as normal. They downplay the medical consequences of homosexual behaviour, and claim that homosexual behaviour should be recognized by the state as a good thing. That is what the official recognition of same-sex "marriage" by the state does.
I do not see the logic behind your claim that creating lables is based on irrationality or that it is against common sense, etc. We all use labels. "I am Canadian.. . "I am a blogger" . . . (and so on). It is really difficult to discuss anything without nouns that refer to people.
Of course the history of marriage is varied and complex. In the Canadian context, however, using the words "traditional marriage" seems to be the easiest way to name the way marriage has been perceived almost universally in our nation: a commitment of a man and a woman to one another, with the intention of making it a life partnership.
An option that was given almost no consideration during the "marriage debate" in Canada was that of the government getting out of the business of deciding who was married, and letting churches and other groups decide it for themselves. Most social conservatives probably would not have been in favour, but at least then the government would not have been giving its "imprimatur" to a behaviour that those of traditional morality object to.
By the way, the government has not, I belive, allowed all couples to be officially declared married according to their wishes. There are, I believe, still laws against incestuous unions, and polygamy is not approved (poligamy being a series of unions of couples with one partner being involved in several unions).
My last comments bring up the little matter of consistency. The advocates of same-sex "marriage" did not address the logic that if same-sex marriages were recognized, why not marriages between all sorts of couples.
quote: "traditional marriage" seems to be the easiest way to name the way marriage has been perceived almost universally in our nation: a commitment of a man and a woman to one another, with the intention of making it a life partnership.
Perceptions are perceptions, Ted but often they are not reality. Partnership bears little resemblence to the "love, cherish, and obey" contract that dominates the last millenium or so of western history. Marrages have been arrainged, bought and paid for, or romanticised at different juctures in time. Yes most of the time it was man and woman but it is also not what you portray. And in the end, so what? That hate homosexuality, bind women thing was the product of patriarchal system that wanted breeding machines(read women)to build nations for war.
If it hurts know one then let people make their own choices. Why do you want such an invasive government?
Finally, pro-homosexual or pro-homosexuality is a meaningless word game. I'm not pro-homosexuality and I'm not pro hetrosexuality, I'm just pro-people being who they really are as long as they harm no one why should I care.
Disagreement with the radical political homosexual marriage agenda does not make someone an enemy of homosexuals. To the contrary those of us who are reasonably pointing out the dangers of homosexual activity and the BC liberal-minded governments and citizens promotion from kindergarten to university should be considered friends, not foes.
After all , we're the ones trying to spare homosexuals and their liberal-minded converts from further disease and death by telling the truth about the issue.
The activists, liberal-minded governments and liberal-minded citizens who are suppressing that truth are their real enemies.
But failing to note that in Africa AIDS is overwhelmingly a hetrosexual illness and saying, based upon one continents experience, AIDS is a risk of a homosexual life style is not truthful. It's also dangerous to young hetros. Promiscuous sex is a primary cause for either group. Tell them that is the danger. That is a lot different than saying homosexual is the problem.
Liberals don't surpress this. Sex education programs deal with these issues and tell students that abstinence is the only guarentee. However they are not foolish enough to just say thatand hope for the best. They also tell students that if you are going to run those risks at least use protection.
No one promotes sex or homosexuality. Saying something exists and is natural is not promoting anything other than factual information.
If I talk of the Christian church in my classroom (Christians believe.... There are many people who are Christian.) am I automatically promoting it? There would be a lot more bums in pews in this town if I was because I talk about these things in my classes all the time.
Your, so called, friendly position has nothing to do with truth but only your religious values.
According to Health Canada HIV and AIDS IN CANADA Surveillance Report for April 2006 on page 60 we see that 85 percent of AIDS in Canada is in males who have sex with males. If one looks at these reports from the 1980s one can find out how AIDS has spread in CANADA.
On section 5 of that same report on page 69 we see that the single country with the most AIDS is the United States with 944,306. Africa has 54 independent countries 48 mainland and 6 island. I used these and other reports to show how the university text books are lying to our students in class. Even the homosexual student was upset at being lyed to. After looking at the data he said it is better to remain celibate.He was not upset with me for telling the truth nor was anyone in the class except the Humanist professor.
Darwin's evolution theory came to Adolf Hitler via Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche's doctrine, " the weak and unsuccessful have to die, this is the first clause of our love of mankind ",and " power is the highest virtue and weakness the only flaw " along with Darwin's evolution theory that the strongest survives became the foundation of the Nazis "science" theory about supreme and inferior people. Marx, Hitler as well as Stalin used Darwin's evolution theory, and utilized it in their cruel political and social careers.Nietzhche also coined the phrase,"God is dead,"which caught on with Humanists in the rest of the Western World.
Darwin's theory did not only come as a gift to dictators it also is used by capitalists who fight to knock out their weaker competitors and keep the wages of their workers very low,because after all they are the strongest they say,and therefore should survive.
How can such contrasts as Communism, Nazism and Capitalism have so much in common, when it has to do with Darwinism ?
Darwin's theory can not be proven either by geology, paleontology, biology,biochemistry,or anthropology.
The evolution theory is a faith . Webster's dictionary defines religion as, a characteristic belief system or worship, that either is built around God, ethical principles, or life philosophy.
Darwin's theory must therefore be fully classified as a religion, that is a characteristic belief-system, a worship built around a life philosophy.To teach our children "only" Darwinism without the balance of(ID)Intelligent Design theory does a lot of harm to Western Civilization and our children in public schools and universities. Canada used to be a Christian Country with the Ten Commandments on school-room and court-room walls,but now it is a Godless Humanist Country Where Darwinism "only" is taught in schools and Humanist logic "only"is allowed in the court-room.Our parents came to Canada from countries like Canada now is.Look up the number of violent crimes in Canada on Stats. Can.Look around you this isn't the safe place for children or older people that it used to be.Don't you think it is about time we did something about this,because in a democracy the people get the government they deserve.
Post a Comment
<< Home