Saturday, June 04, 2005

Somebody else's thoughts on homosexuality and SSM

I dropped a post similar to the below on somebody else's blog. If anybody heading in here is interested in some of the more detailed arguments (as opposed to my ramblings), you would do well to check out these links. Just some thoughts from the anti same-sex marriage side to think about. Don't let the address keep you from reading it, please - this site seems to function like a clearing house of articles from many different sources.

This first article details 20 reasons why two authors (one of them unapologetically homosexual) see homosexual marriage as wrong.
This article discusses why SSM is not in children's interests (that is an inherent part of the debate, after all).
An interesting article on the larger implications of acceptance of homosexuality.
For any interested, an official document detailing the Catholic Church's reasons for refusing recognition of SSM.
Information about a Catholic group called "Courage", where homosexuals in the Church provide mutual support in living the Church's teachings.
A rather smart article by William Bennett on SSM.
First of 6 part series discussing the "Untold Story" of homosexuality. The other 5 parts can be reached from part 1.
Some reflections on the Canadian court decisions that are forcing SSM marriage on us (I'm not trying to be inflammatory, just descriptive).
Looks at why heterosexual marriage is set apart in the first place.
Margaret Somerville's brief.
Some points made by a US legislator against SSM.
Not sure if this one is relevant, but medical details of extra health risks attributed to gay sex.

Just one short personal point, I think. For an institution that has served society for as long as we know it - why the rush to get this particular law passed now, before summer, by rushing through debate? Arguably, the fashion it is being pushed is not how it was campaigned on last election, effectively denying many people the representation they thought they had (wasn't PM all about 'free votes' - only later telling us that his version includes a whipped Cabinet?). I'm concerned that we aren't taking a long and sober second thought before taking this step - many on the left are pushing in order to get this change through now, as though there are no risks in doing so, without much evident consideration as to why marriage has always been fundamentally heterosexual throughout history. Our state of marriage, generally, is pathetic right now, and I, for one, am reluctant to tinker with it in new ways until we learn to address some of the problems and excesses of the old ways.

6 Comments:

Blogger Linda said...

“The same courts that demand multi-million dollar environmental studies before allowing someone to so much as dig a hole in the ground ‘are going to massively reshape the social landscape’ without a single study being conducted. And it will do so in spite of mountains of empirical evidence showing the negative effects on society that occur when the family structure breaks down.”

I think that this quote by Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., a psychiatrist and member of the Department of Politics at Princeton University, sums up what's at stake. It also brings to mind one very astute observation (I can't recall the source): history has shown that the family cannot truly be destroyed, however attempts to do so will surely destroy any civilization that tries.

Saturday, June 04, 2005 7:11:00 AM  
Blogger Mark Francis said...

I would argue that the state of marriage was a mess long before divorce was even legal.

Our prpblem these days is that we're just so good at categorizing.

But enough on thta for now - I have to get to bed...

Just thought I'd point something out. You said:

"Not sure if this one is relevant, but medical details of extra health risks attributed to gay sex."

I haven't the time right now to read that link, but the criticism of such studies/statements is that

1. They tend to forget lesbians, or at least over-emphasize male gays
2. Sexual orientation is a separate matter from the sex acts SSM couples may engage in.
3. Claims that gays are more promiscuous may very well be true; however, they are under a very different set of social pressures. Acceptance or at least tolerance of them would help change that.

Those are the first three I can toss off my head this late.

---
The courts in Canada are constrained in that they must support wehat the Charter says, and the Charter says that to justify denying a right or freedom otherwise demanded by the Charter, there must be an objective, measurable reason justidied within a FREE and democratic society.

There is no facility where the judges can say, 'Well, we aren't sure, so let's wait.'

For example, where's the proof that the family structure will break down due to SSM? Can you point me to a reputable study showing some sort of clear _causal_ (not correlational) relationship?

I must have said this 100 times in various comments all over the Internet: Section 1 of the Charter can be used to block SSM if an argument can be found which satisfies the Oakes test. So if there are mountains of evidence, why haven't intervenders brought this stuff out in the various provincial court changes dealing with SSM?

In Egan v. Canada, 1995, for example, the Oakes test was used to allow discrimination on the basis of sexual orintation with regards to the awarding of the old age pension supplement.

Sunday, June 05, 2005 12:05:00 AM  
Blogger Mark Francis said...

Sigh - Just another comment. There'a an article in there I've already read which gets into gay adoption of children.

That's been legal in many provinces for years.

Sunday, June 05, 2005 12:11:00 AM  
Blogger Cyrano said...

Thanks for the thoughts, Mark - I promised a guy on another blog that I'd review some of my sources before I comment more on this topic.

Sunday, June 05, 2005 2:18:00 PM  
Blogger Linda said...

Right Girl has an interesting post on the subject.

Monday, June 06, 2005 1:57:00 PM  
Blogger Mark Francis said...

Still reading in bits and spurts...

"Sexual attraction to male adolescents is technically called "ephebophilia."

And is very different, as you say. from the peds.

I've noticed that this is rarely understodd, but not just by the media, and people in general. I know Christian activists who make no distinctions either.

There is a grave difference: at least ephebophilics are reacting to mature or maturing sexual characteristics in their targets.

Honest mature males will tell you that an attractive young woman can still catch an eye. It's instinctive.

A young girl? Ugghhh... It's instinctive to not look at them that way.

It wasn't that long ago when middle-aged men were marrying 14-year-old girls with the full approval of society.

As for the whole SSM: issue, too much to say for this space...

But I do think there's been tons of debate, and much opportunity for objective arguments to have been presented, even in court.

The key debate here (outside of Charter arguments) I'm thinking resides in the argument as to how much the State affects or reflects our behaviour.

The problem is when Charter arguments get involved, marriage largely gets analyzed within a legal framework, viewed as a conglomeration of rights and obligations.

More on some other day...

Thursday, June 09, 2005 9:26:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home