Striving Against Opposition

I'm tired of Liberals accusing anyone who disagrees with gay marriage of being some sort of bigoted homophobe.

I was on Blogscanda a few moments ago and read through a thread about gay marriage, which was a seeming echo chamber for "Conservatives are bad, backwards, discriminatory etc.."Of course, myself and 61% of the Canadian population seem to disagree with our "moral betters". I had the following to say in response:

Its profoundly dishonest to categorize everyone who disagrees with gay marriage as a "bigot" and a homophobe. Firstly, that would make 61% of Canadians bigots and homophobes, apparantly making our suposed "tolerance" as a country mythical.

Secondly, as the prior poster mentioned you can't redifine a term and practice which has occurred for several thousand years and not expect resistance to doing so. A great many people are of the belief, and quite rightly so, that if marriage has been between a man and a woman there is probably a good reason for that.

Thirdly, the process that was undertaken to rewrite the definition of marriage has been absolutely repellant. Attempting to litigate a change in a social institution based on some misguided notion of "right" is a deplorable practice in and of itself. If this was a widely suported initiative it would simply have been raised directly in Parliament.

Fourthly, its provided another case of judicial activism and undermined democracy. There is no provision for "sexual orientation" in the Charter of Rights and freedom to begin with. Hence we have an extrapolation of an extrapolation. Not only that but there is some rather dodgy logic being employed in comming to that decision. The notion that "marriage" is somehow a right rather than a social institution doesn't seem to be a logical characterization. Nor is there anything to suggest that the institution of marriage was any more descriminatory than Unemployment Insurance is to those whom are employed.

Fifthly, the lack of any sound argument for gay marriage has been absolutely appalling. All the proponents of gay marriage have had to offer is that "who are we to judge on the relationship of two people who love each other", "its in the charter" when if you can read it quite frankly it isn't. Neither of these arguments are all that convincing given that if we aren't allowed to stand in judgement of other people's relationships then incest, and polygamy shouldn't be judged either.

Sixthly, the burden of proof for rewriting thousands of years of tradition and practice is really on those suggesting a change and it hasn't been met. All there has been is an emotion response and nihilistic comments about the inability of rational people to judge.

Seventhly, hysterically accusing anyone who dissagrees with you of being some sort of nuckle dragging, bible thumbing bigot isn't exactly winning alot of people over to the idea. Eigthly, the dishonest manner people have been hiding behind the Courts and the Charter is appalling in and of itself. The Liberal attempt to stickhandle the manner and leave the matter solely in the court's lap so they could gain plausible deniability is disgusting. If you believe something at least say so and act on it.

Additionally, its getting tiresome to hear the false analogies of interacial marriages and slavery used. Interacial marriages offered no difference between the two people involved aside from skin colour. Furthermore, interacial marriages were hardly a new concept and had been occuring since man stepped out of his cave and began carrying off women. They could still have a family etc and really weren't any different than any other family. Slavery is an even worse analogy as it compares the suggestion that failing to allow homosexuals to access the word "marriage" is somehow depriving them of all there rights. This is such a gross exaggeration its really quite laughable.

Marriage as defined as being between one man and one woman isn't descriminatory to begin with. Every man and every woman regardless of any of there personal characteristics is entitled to be considered married to one member of the opposite sex if they so choose. Homosexuals choose not to access the institution. Its effectively the same as being employed your entire life and not acessing unemployment insurance.

Finally, very few people dispute that there are genuine grievances regarding penison benefits and things of that nature. Most people, including Conservatives such as myself have no problems with alternate arrangements be made to acknowledge the existance of homosexual relationships for that purpose. However, the term marriage has a good deal of history associated with it. Its the foundation of the family which is the core building block of our society and as such deserves to be distinguished.

I'm not a social conservative, but the left has pushed the envelope way too far on this particular issue. And before anyone goes off into the "how does it affect you" and "who are you to judge" reflexive rhetoric, I have my own rhetorical question to pose - "how arrogant do you have to be to assume you can alter the elemental foundations of society at a whim?"

posted by Chris @ 12/22/2004 04:56:00 a.m.