SSM: Is Incest Next?
April 11, 2007 · By Tom Cerber
Time reports how people in the US are challenging, among other laws, laws prohibiting incestuous relations on the same grounds that the Lawrence case of a few years ago prohibited the state from making homosexual relations illegal. So far, the courts seem to be balking, though the reasons seem more to do with the ikkyness factor than with logic. The logic? What place does the state have to prohibit brothers and sisters, brothers and brothers, from doing it, as long as they consent?
SSM makes incest laws obsolete. Two brothers can’t actually have sex, so there is no “risk” to any potential off spring because there is no potential for off spring.
SSM makes incest laws obsolete.
Incorrect - incest can, and often does, involve people of opposite genders - which is a significant distinguishing characteristic from homosexuality.
To assume that one can frame incest in the same language as SSM is a failure to recognize the distinguishing characteristics of each.
If the courts are, as Tom suggests, balking on “ick factor”, that suggests laws involved are in fact based themselves on that, rather than the genetic consequences of inbreeding.
(Which would suggest that the laws in question are due for reformulation in light of current social, legal and medical/scientific contexts)
Who cares about gender? Sex is the more important distinguishing characteristic when it comes to laws governing marriage. If Canadian courts had adhered to the qualifier of sex, Canada wouldn’t have same-sex marriage justified as an equality right, and incest would clearly remain contrary to the public good.
Sex is literally protected as an equality right under s. 15 of the Charter, unlike sexual orientation, which was only read in by the courts. Gender is no where protected under the Charter, as it should remain.
The reason sex is protected is because it objectively matters in human affairs. It means something different to be a man than to be a woman, because being a man is a different physiological encounter with reality than being a woman. Feminists have long argued this!
Social constructionists need to take a hike.
Oh Jesus, not this argument again.
Oh oh, it would appear that this post may be in jeopardy. Let’s see if it meets the criteria as discussed earlier today:
- is it “talk style statement of attack”?
- does it have a “good jumping off point”?
- and does it provide for a “civil discussion on the theme of multiculturalism or Contemporary Sexual mores(whew)”?
what say you balbulican, where is the bar set with this thread? may we proceed? or should the dang thing be scuttled?
“Oh Jesus, not this argument again.”
Goodness gracious!, someone break out the Laws of Civil Discourse on Blogs. I think we may have a code 9 violation in progress.
“what say you balbulican, where is the bar set with this thread? may we proceed? or should the dang thing be scuttled?”
Huh?
I said an initial post sets the tone for the discussion. It does.
George, you need to read the Charter again. S.15 of the Charter guarantees equality under the law to every individual. It lists a non-exclusive list (in particular) that includes ‘…,colour, religion, sex, age, …’ - these are all nouns. Only the ‘gender’ meaning of sex makes grammatical sense.
Also, since the list is not exhaustive, the SCC determined years ago that sexual orientation also qualified for protection.
SSM cuts the link between marriage and procreation. It is based on the consent of two autonomous agents - male/female, same-sex, brother-sister (who can always avail themselves to Canada’s nonexistent abortion laws if they’re worried about genetic problems), brother-brother, father-daughter, mother-son, etc.
As long as consent is involved, then the laws say get it on.
Well said, Cerber.
Abbatoir, gender is gender, not just another meaning for sex. Sex was included in s. 15 because those who drafted it thought that men and women, though they be different because of sex, should be treated as equally under the law as reasonable; that is, except for the reasonable infringements (s. 1) on equality because men are men and women are women.
The courts were wrong on reading sexual orientation into s. 15; that needs to be changed.
Sexual orientation should not qualify for protection—those who drafted s. 15 consciously decided to leave it out—because it is pathological language and does not make for good jurisprudence. The law—especially equality rights!—should apply to everyone.
The following may come as a real shock! But there are people who actually try to be intelligent and responsible with the choices they make—in other words, moral—and, therefore, while they may have sexual preferences in contingent circumstances, they would never be so sanctimonious as to harp on and on about some sexual orientation, given by birth and demanding of their obedience.
It takes a certain morally indigent loser to seriously pay homage at altar of sexual orientation; justifying their choosing to become what they choose to become for the sake of its idolatrous veneration.
That being said, there are people with sexual orientations: by definition, they seemingly can’t help themselves, not only in what they desire but what they do. And such people would do well to learn how to get a moral grip on their sexual impulses, that is, beyond waxing poetic about their sexual orientation.
To make a long story short: you only have a sexual orientation—whatever it might be—if you say you have one, in which case you are immoral and should try harder to be moral, which you may or may not be successful at, for various reasons. The psychologists who coined the term used to think counselling could help, and, undoubtedly, the right kind of counselling would; counselling what it means to have well-ordered love—ordo amoris.
Sexual orientation should not qualify for protection—those who drafted s. 15 consciously decided to leave it out—because it is pathological language and does not make for good jurisprudence. The law—especially equality rights!—should apply to everyone.
How in hell would protections based on sexual orientation _not_ apply to everybody?
To make a long story short: you only have a sexual orientation—whatever it might be—if you say you have one, in which case you are immoral …
Oh, so sexuality is immoral? Unnatural? If that’s the case, then how the heck did the rest of us come to be on this world?
Sexuality is perfectly natural human behaviour. To claim that it has some arbitrary “order” about it, and that all that falls outside of that narrow, arbitrary order is “disordered” is like trying to claim that only integers “real” numbers and there are no such things as fractions.
Oh yes - there are therapists that promote your idealized counselling model - they call it reparative therapy - and it has been amazingly unsuccessful outside of Paul Cameron’s deluded research.
Slippery slope, folks… slippery slope.
Just a few years ago the Liberals rejected, in a Parliamentary vote, SSM. They at the time never said anything about it being in the Charter (because it plainly isn’t- read it and you won’t find it) then. Then all of a sudden they say it’s in the Charter (still wasn’t; still isn’t) and that it’s a “human right” (Where is that written, by whom, where, when… who the hell got to decide? Who decides what are “human rights”? Svend Robinson alone? Some judge overstepping his bounds? It’s all bullshit!)… and cheated their hineys off, bribing Belinda to defect and all that crap. Amazing flipflop! Presto! Skinny guys getting married… to each other. Masculine women marrying each other. And the MSM shoves it all in our faces…
Therefore, don’t be surprised if “the courts”, with their radically extreme leftwing “judges” deciding whatever they please, declare that the laws against incest are “unconstitutional”- they can make up any damn “reason” and there’s nothing anyone can do! I think that already incest isn’t treated as illegal at all- public nudity is illegal, but the police never arrest anyone who’s naked in the “gay” parades…
Then the laws against polygamy will fall.
And the age of consent laws.
Oh, yes.
It’s the “Big Lie” principle.
The utterly ridiculous, unthinkable becomes a reality, politically correct and all that crap…
Happens all the time. Because the left controls the state apparatus regardless of who wins the elections. And the left will do pretty much however it pleases.
Hmm… I wonder if bestiality gets the “look the other way” treatment from police, too?
My-o-my… isn’t liberalism wonderful?
Keep it coming guys. Once the election is called, you KNOW I will be emailing links to this shit to everyone I know. You make it very easy to paint social conservatives with the crazy paint brush.
STE: Please forward these links as well:
http://www.thepolitic.com/arch.....nd-incest/
http://www.thepolitic.com/arch.....revisited/
“Smarter than Ezra”: you can tell yourself anything you want.
BTW, most folks, regular, ordinary, intelligent, careful, moderate folks are what you arrogantly, non-explanatorily call “social conservatives”. You just buy into the Big Lie that “most folks agree with whatever political correctness demands at any moment”. You poor leftwing extremists, still believing you’re the “mainstream” and that you aren’t scary. But you are!
“Social conservative” is a meaningless slur you folks use against anyone who refuses to agree with your extremist nonsense. It’s old already.
Not afraid of you. Leftists have already demonstrated their scary, hateful, intolerant, supremacist, racist, JudeoChristianophobic, Ameriphobic, Israelophobic, libertophobic, democracophobic, sexist, anti-life, dangerous selves, philosophies and agendae. And I’ve been blogging about you moonbats since ‘05. Go right ahead and email whatever to whomever. You have me and many, many more like me to contend with, pal. You’re shit out of luck. It’s over for you lefties.
the SCC determined years ago that sexual orientation also qualified for protection
-Might I remind you that the Chief Justice of the SCC implied that she and her colleagues are like gods… think about that.
They decided that the Charter said something it doesn’t. How stupid can you really be to let them tell you they somehow, like gods, omnisciently know such a thing? It’s just bizarre and surrealistic, not to mention supernatural-like. You believe they have special powers not available to you and me! Incredible!
Mental disorder proof!
You want to believe they have the power to, all by their exalted, deified selves, determine the meaning of the Charter.
(All we have to do is read it… and only an insane person can be persuaded that “sexual orientation” is implied in any way, shape or form in the Charter (haven’t you read it?). Freedom of religion is explicitly guaranteed, but Jews and Christians are discriminated against. Discrimination on the basis of gender is forbidden, but men are discriminated against… the list goes on… something is very wrong, but you cannot see it.)
You trust them unconditionally.
They’re your gods.
That’s immoral- a handful of Santa impersonators appointed by single politicians for political/ideological reasons, based on social philosophy… deeming all that is and that is not.
Doesn’t that disturb you? Oh, no… because you got what you wanted from them!
Wow..I don’t even know where to begin. I’m not even going to touch the whole morality point, because there’s no point. I know what I know is moral.
Let me quote s15.1 for you:
“Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.”
Every individual…without discrimination. If the Charter meant only the categories listed, it would have explicitly said so. As it was written, it means any identifiable group. The SCC determined years ago that included sexual orientation.
The Charter does include a clause that allows for violation of our rights, if the reasons are justified and reasonable. ‘Reverse’ discrimination, etc. are legal because of this. Also, the Charter gives the SCC the last word on interpretation of the Charter.
You may not like the Charter. That’s your right. But it is what it is. If you disagree with it, then try to get it changed more to your liking.
‘Social conservative’ means someone who holds conservative views on social issues. There’s nothing more derogatory about it than ‘fiscal conservative’.
Just because social conservatives have been given a bad name by a few wack-jobs doesn’t make it any less descriptive.
Grog: I never said sexuality was immoral. Read what I wrote and respond to that.
Abattoir: If you know what you know to be moral, then you should be able to justify it, as I have done.
I have expressed no opinion on the Charter, in the general sense. I have argued that sexual orientation makes for bad jurisprudence, for the reasons I stated. Please take on those reasons.
Furthermore, the SCC is the “general court of appeal for Canada” that the Parliament of Canada has the power to create and uncreate. And furthermore, it is not foreign to parliamentary theory to regard parliament as a judicial body. The Charter gives the “courts” the last word, not necessarily the SCC; technically Parliament is a “court.”
I do disagree with sexual orientation having been read into the Charter, or any Canadian law for that matter. I already said that needs to be changed.
George,
On the question of morality - there’s no point. I’m not going to change anyone’s mind, and no-one’s going to change mine. I think the fundamental difference we have is that I don’t believe there is anything morally wrong with homosexuality, and presumably, you do.
The Charter was designed to protect minorities from the State. This means that rights guaranteed under the Charter cannot be taken away by an Act of Parliament without use of the notwithstanding clause. As the ‘general court of appeal for Canada’, the buck stops there, so to speak. Parliament could theoretically change the way this Court functions, but not easily.
The Charter says ‘All individuals … without discrimination’ - homosexuality is most definitely a characteristic with which one can discriminate. If there was a law discriminating against left-handed people, I’m sure handedness would be read in as well. Sexual orientation was correctly read into s.15 of the Charter.
Would you prefer that people be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals? Deny them housing, jobs, education, health services, social assistance programs, etc?
“I think the fundamental difference we have is that I don’t believe there is anything morally wrong with homosexuality, and presumably, you do.”
Presumably you can’t read. Read what I wrote.
And I would caution that no one in their right mind thinks homosexuality, or heterosexuality, or bisexuality, or asexuality, yada yada yada (it can be quite a long list), are just good, period. The question we all face when judging good or bad sexual conduct is whether such conduct dignifies or degrades the human person. There is such a thing as a pervert, and one should try not to be one.
If you wish to protect homosexuals from discrimination, fine. But don’t be sneaky about it: the law should read just that. We are protecting homosexuals, with, of course, stipulations and exceptions, from undo discrimination.
The courts not only degrade human sexuality by assuming everyone necessarily has a pathology governing their sexual desires and conduct, when that’s not true, they also read radically new jurisprudence into Canadian law that never saw the light of Parliamentary scrutiny until after the fact—and only limitedly. In fact, the courts undermined Parliament’s legitimate capacity to scrutinize the language of sexual orientation by jumping the gun on it.
Sexual orientation assumes that sexual desire is necessarily “problematic,” BUT it’s not. There’s often nothing problematic to it at all. And sexual conduct is either moral or immoral, and possible to justify as such like anything else.
There are reasons for protected homosexuals from discrimination, and such reasons can be given without appealing to “sexual orientation.”
I’m taking issue with the dehumanizing language of sexual orientation, for the reasons I stated earlier. In the proper context of psychiatry, it’s fine; a way of addressing the sexual hang ups people have. Writ large, the language assumes that everyone is immoral when it comes to their experience of sexual desire and how they act on that desire, which is not true.
Interesting philosophical sophistry, folks.
But as for the Charter, if we assume that “everyone” means “everyone”, then that also means murderers, rapists, thieves, terrorists, assassins, hate propagandists, torturers, child rapists/pornographers, etc, etc… everyone means everyone… then this argument is plainly absurd, so don’t use it to claim that we can ignore the “in particular”.
The Charter says, “in particular” to be specific, to close the door to any danger of radically extreme extrapolation, misinterpretation as whatever any omnipotent, unaccountable, nonelected “judge” deems.
It is wrong, quite glaringly, to simply cherry-pick the “everyone” and ignore the “in particular”.
Any philosophical sophist on the bench, the ivory tower, in Parliament, in the MSM… can argue that “everyone” is unrestricted, that the Charter says “anything goes” and that “everyone, no matter what at all”, is to be treated equally. Now, if one can make that unfortunately logical argument, then one can necessarily also make the argument that we can’t have a justice system, that we cannot punish anyone for anything, because whatever anyone is or does is guaranteed to them by the Charter, therefore we must leave everyone alone, no matter what.
But the left doesn’t fear opening any worm cans or Pandora’s Boxes. They want what they want now, damn the consequences!
Therefore, the Charter, in no section whatsoever, does not mention “sexual orientation”. If it did, then ALL sexual orientations would therefore be protected, including pedophilia, snuff-killing, necrophilia, serial rape, etc, etc… because these arguments are too easy to make and are too easily sold to the people via the leftist-controlled state apparatus which includes the MSM, the educational system, the judicial system, etc…
Anyone who cannot understand what I’ve just said above… don’t bother responding to me. I could care less. Intelligent folks will agree, based on their own appalled observations of what has actually happened in society.
I will stick like Crazy Glue to the position that “sexual orientation” is NOT mentioned in the Charter. What happened is that the left, in grand conspiracy, successfully forced the Big Lie on Canada and millions have fallen for the brainwashing.
Big Lies, backed by state apparatus propaganda (like now with the climate change alarmist campaign), have an extraordinary power to force acquiescence and compliance… hell, let’s say, brainless obedience… to anything, anything at all, no exceptions. International history across societies is irrefutable proof of this.
That’s my position as one who has a mind of his own and will use it properly even if many will hate me for doing so.
Standing up to leftwing fascism is a virtue!
Correction for a double negative error:
I wrote:
Therefore, the Charter, in no section whatsoever, does not mention “sexual orientationâ€.
I meant to write:
Therefore, the Charter, in no section whatsoever, mentions “sexual orientationâ€.
Brainfart. Balby will use this to repeat his “stupid” accusation, as if he never had any brainfarts (he has, and many).
Further, may I reiterate for the leftists that “everyone” is an absolute word, all-encompassing. By definition, “everyone” cannot exclude anyone, otherwise, one could no longer use the word “everyone”, having been so watered down as to be useless legally and in a constitution. Of course, the left will now try to redefine “everyone”, broadening its meaning, just as they do with all kinds of words that they find… inconvenient!
Also, if the left wants “sexual orientation” to be in the Charter, then:
First, define it very narrowly so as to prevent any dangerous extrapolation/interpretation beyond what it is commonly, acceptably claimed to mean today, which is simply and exclusively whether one prefers the opposite or the same or both genders.
Then, you will have to do it the constitutional way. The hard way. (I bet this part makes you leftists hate me all the more, no? I know what you’re like, oh, yes!) No shortcuts, no cheating. There will have to be all sorts of democratic consultation… yes, that means referenda!
If, and only if, you succeed in doing it the constitutional, 100% democratic way, this including this very narrowly-defined concept of “sexual orientation”, then I solemnly promise I’ll stop saying that the concept does not exist within the Charter.
Deal or no deal?
I guess you will continue to propagate the Big Lie instead of being reasonable people rather than fascists, all ye leftists!
By definition, “everyone†cannot exclude anyone, otherwise, one could no longer use the word “everyoneâ€, having been so watered down as to be useless legally and in a constitution.
Brilliant - I see you have at least mastered the basics of set theory.
Now, please explain to me why the Charter should NOT be interpreted to include homosexuals? Or are they suddenly not in your group of “everyone” - somehow part of the mysterious other that you seem to loathe so much?
Oh yes - and the canard about the Charter doesn’t explicitly include them is flawed, as the interpretation of the Charter on numerous topics is inclusive, not exclusive. (The reason is obvious, when you read section 15 carefully)
George,
I’m afraid I don’t follow your logic about how ’sexual orientation’ has anything to do with sexual desire being naturally problematic. No clue whatsoever.
As for your reasoning about the Charter, I’m afraid it just doesn’t hold water. The list provides is an inclusive, not exclusive list, as has been upheld many many times by the SCC. The list has also been expanded by the SCC to include marital status and citizenship status, by the way. Do you disagree with these equality rights as well?
The SCC was given interpretative oversight by Parliament, with the notwithstanding clause as their only method of overriding the SCC.
Sentinel,
There is clearly established jurisprudence by the SCC to determine when a particular equality rights claim has merit. They have refused to expand equality rights more often than not.
As for your argument about rapists, murderers, et al, here is an excerpt from Section 1:
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
I’m afraid your ramblings about the death of Canadian society because 2 guys can claim to be married to each other on their tax returns doesn’t make any sense at all, and your logic that the Charter leads to child pornographers running freely is horribly misinformed.
Have a read about the SCC’s interpretations of section 15 - you might be surprised at the number of limitations they have agreed were justified. Hard to imagine the anarchy you’ve described resulting from their rulings:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/informat.....p402-e.htm
Abattoir: If you have “no clue” why bother responding? I did not say sexual desire was naturally problematic.
I am simply saying that to be human is to be moral, to make choices to do one thing or another, in contingent circumstance, and dealing with the consequences of those choices for better or worse. In other words, being moral is what gives human life its dignity; so sexuality is subject to morality.
Sexual orientation, outside its proper context in psychiatry, is bad jurisprudence because not everyone has a sexual orientation; some of us try to be moral and not worship false gods.
How can you not understand this? People were able to talk about love and sex before the swanky sophistry of “sexual orientation” in our courts of law. Why can’t you?
Maybe you need to liberate your mind of popular dogma. :-)
As for this, “Do you disagree with these equality rights as well?”
Yes
Furthermore, the not withstanding clause is not the only means of parliamentary oversight. Theoretically, parliament could create another final court of appeal for Canada, say a parliamentary committee similar to the British law lords, to oversee the SCC. Parliament can also take the SCC to task for being unduly partisan by passing a motion by either house rebuking some decision or another. There are numerous ways that court decisions can be delegitimized.
If the SCC allows itself to become too partisan, then it needs to be treated as such. If anyone is responsible for the whithering of judicial independence and reverence for Canada’s courts, it’s the justices of the SCC. Parliamentarians need to start standing up for parliament.
George: “Sexual orientation assumes that sexual desire is necessarily “problematic,†BUT it’s not.”
I don’t understand this whole argument - so I didn’t address it at all. Nor do I understand what sexual orientation has to do with morality or false gods. I do understand that many on the right have strong views on the subject, but I see no inherent correlation between the two.
Since you appear to disagree with many of the equality rights granted Canadians by our Charter, I wish you luck on your efforts to push through a Constitutional amendment to bring it more to your liking. I will continue to enjoy them, and oppose the efforts of those who would remove them with every fibre of my being.
Abattoir: To be human is to be moral, to make choices to do one thing or another, given contingent circumstances, and then dealing with the consequences of those choices, for better or worse.
How can you not see the connection to morality?
Sexual orientation is THE eminent justification many people give today for why they experience the sexual desires that they do and therefore should act on them.
Regardless of whether you like getting your jollies from people of the same-sex or the opposite, all I’m saying is that sexual orientation is not a justification that morally sound people give for their sexual behaviour. I have adequately explained this above. Sexual orientation is relatively recent language, especially in popular culture, and outside its proper context in psychology, many people are decieved or ignorant of how it should be applied.
Clearly, this is the case with Canada’s courts and their acceptance of it. My argument is that their embrace of sexual orientation makes for very bad jurisprudence.
As for this: “Since you appear to disagree with many of the equality rights granted Canadians by our Charter …”
You’ve contradicted what you said above, and it is nonsense to think that equality rights can be all encompassing. That would cause—and IS causing—chaos, as seen in the logical consequence of SSM on existing laws concerning polygamy and incest.
George’s arguments are not logical, but ideological. There is no reasoning with him and he will continue to be a broken record as long as we are willing to converse with him.
Spoken like someone without a clue.
Smiling Moose nails it.
Commenting here seems to cause StE a great deal of pain. Is he being compelled to comment?
Aaron,
My conscience compels me to point out things that I think are wrong, misleading, or simply illogical. I really wish you would quit using same-sex couples’ legal right to marry as a rhetorical link to nut bar comparisons with absolutely no credible linkages.
If, perchance, George or you had anything interesting or new to say on the topic, then bring it on. But you cannot, and have never demostrated anything of merit on this topic. We have all read these arguments before, hashed them out over and over again, and for what? No reason at all except to give your voice a forum for this crap.
The discussion hasn’t progressed passed the ridiculous comparisons that George draws and the silly little sound bites he parrots about the non-existence of sexual orientation; the bitchy and sensational posts that Aaron frequents upon us; or the flaccid pontificating of Tom and his obsession with the demise of masculinity.
Here are the things that have actually changed. First and foremost, the law. More and more gay and lesbians are getting married legally and there is nothing you can say or do to stop it or reverse it. Next, the majority of Canadians have moved on from this issue and see it as finished. Furthermore, politicians who are concerned about re-election are glad that it is over and that they no longer have to deal with it or the nut jobs on both sides that flooded their mailboxes, offices, and phone lines. Most of them won’t touch it with a ten foot pole.
So draw your funny little fake lines in the sand and get out your moral guns to defend it. Keep beating the dead horse, pound on your chest and keep turning the crank on the old gramophone to play the same tired old record that most of us don’t want to listen anymore. Hold up your framed photo of liars like Ann Coulter and continue to use her as your model for framing arguments - because she is a keeper, right? (Heck, burn a candle underneith her if you must, but please be sure to set the bitch on fire.) But, as long as you do, I will feel it my duty to point out how utterly ridiculous you sound, how illogical your points are, and how none of them are proven by anything except screwed up ideology. Sadly, I am afraid that is exactly what you want. Oh well.
So, keep claiming that I don’t listen, that I don’t understand, that I am stupid, a whiner, a drama queen, that I must support your ridiculous notions because I refuse to refute them any longer, and that somehow I am fucked up emotionally because I disagree with everything you say on this point, because it does nothing to progress your arguments. Mostly, it just make you look like jerks.
Have fun trashing me for a few more posts it if helps you sleep better. It will give Greg that number of hits he needs to get more advertising revenue (our small way of contributing, right?) However, rest assured I sleep well at night knowing that the Canada we live in does not agree with your points of view and wake up in the morning with hope and quite refreshed. I love that in Canada our governments try their best to introduce policy based on evidence, rather than developing evidence based on policy or ideology (which is mostly what we see here).
Until the next time, boys.
“So, keep claiming that I don’t listen, that I don’t understand, that I am stupid, a whiner, a drama queen, that I must support your ridiculous notions because I refuse to refute them any longer, and that somehow I am fucked up emotionally because I disagree with everything you say on this point, because it does nothing to progress your arguments. Mostly, it just make you look like jerks.”
OK. Thanks.
“Until the next time, boys.”
I thought you said you refuse to refute our arguments anymore … not that you ever did once.
And for your peace of mind, I did not say sexual orientations do not exist.
>
oh, so then you deny writing this?
“The dogma of sexual orientation is stupid because it assumes—as it has been read into Canadian jurisprudence—that everyone has a sexual orientation. This is simply not true! The only persons with a sexual orientation are those who choose to have one, those who choose to JUSTIFY their sexual desires as innate UNCONTROLABLE urges. Of course, this is nothing more, outside the utility of psychology, than base justification for amoral conduct.”
“Never forget that the language of sexual orientation was meant to speak “scientifically†about a persons sexual hang-ups, or pathological fixations toward their experienced sexual desires, desires some individual is have trouble understanding and thereby directing toward what would be best for them.”
Posted on 04-Feb-07 at 10:36 am
And this:
“Scott, you speak of sexual orientation like it is a verifiable fact of every individual.”
“This is not true! Sexual orientation is not like race or sex primarily because human beings are intelligent; they are what they choose to become.”
“The dogma of sexual orientation is really quite evil once you remove it from the confines of psychology. Applying it to everyone nullifies moral culpability for sexual desires and, to that end, is dehumanizing.”
Posted on 27-Jan-07 at 12:03 pm
>
Give me a break and take a few seconds to check. You really are like Ann Coulter, all flash, no substance, forgetting what you wrote in the past, and certainly never checking your facts.
“Heck, burn a candle underneith her if you must, but please be sure to set the bitch on fire.”
And once again BtE elevates the quality of comments on this site.
I think Ezra is smarter than you.
I don’t deny any of the above. If anything, those comments prove that I said sexual orientations do exist.
The existence of sexual orientations is not in doubt.
The existence of sexual orientations is not in doubt.
That scraping sound you hear is the goalposts moving.
Look at the pot calling the kettle black.
Coming from a man who wrote this:
“Keep Ann Coulter around forever. Anyone who can annoy the sensibilities of the post-modernist left this effectively is clearly an international treasure.”
This:
“Indignation doesn’t seem to suit you. Try fishing. At least you’ll be participating in a less feminine past-time.”
This:
“Be an indian, get a free pass to run someone down and drag him on the pavement under your car until he’s dead:”
This:
“By the way, saying “bigot†as often as you do was intimidating back in the 60s when you were in your sexual prime. Not anymore. So grow up.”
And this:
“Tom, with wit like that, you should really be the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.”
I will take that as a compliment.
Amazing how you two morons can carry on without making one well-reasoned argument. … Speaking of pathologies ….
Grog, if the goalposts be moving, please, enlighten us.
My original point is that there is no reasoning here. That your arguments are not worth reasoning with. So why would I even bother trying to engage you on the topic? My only goal now is to point out how ridiculous you are, and it is working.
Fallacious arguments, be they fallacious, can be refuted. If my reasoning is poor, then you should refute me.
Instead you ever so graciously tell me that my reasoning is poor, mustering no sound reasoning of your own. A word to the wise: in ridiculing someone, it is generally a good rule of thumb not to look ridiculous yourself.
I promise you, BtE, it’s not working.
By the way, when have I advocated killing a public figure? When have I ever used the misogynistic term “bitch”? You have. So if you can’t elevate the quality of your comments, maybe it’s time for you to move on.
Let’s see:
George in Comment #11: To make a long story short: you only have a sexual orientation—whatever it might be—if you say you have one, in which case you are immoral and should try harder to be moral,
More or less stating two things here - one that sexual orientation is essentially somebody’s imaginings, and two that if you claim to have a sexual orientation, then you must be an immoral being.
In Comment #40: I don’t deny any of the above. If anything, those comments prove that I said sexual orientations do exist.
You can’t have it both ways, George. You can’t dismiss someone’s experiences and accuse them of being immoral and then turn around and claim that you are accepting their experiences.
Your reading of the Charter of Rights is deeply flawed. Sex is not a guaranteed right in the charter. Discrimination BASED UPON someone’s sex (read: gender) IS prohibited by the Charter.
A long series of court rulings over the last 25 years has expanded the interpretation of Section 15 to include quite a large range of other, recognizable, groups as protected under the auspices of that section.
What you keep insisting - primarily that you have a right to act discriminantly against gays and lesbian people because they are “immoral” has been postulated to the courts repeatedly, and has been rejected equally repeatedly.
You are ever so free to believe that GLBT people are “immoral” - what you are not free to do is curtail their right to equal treatment before and under the laws of this country BECAUSE you believe they are “immoral”.
To return to the original topic of the post, so far you have postulated that the discussion around polygamy and incest is directly and specifically related to SSM, but you have, in your blind distaste for the GLBT, failed to recognize that both polygamy and incest have substantive and important characteristics that distinguish them from SSM.
- BTW - I don’t appreciate being called “moron” - I haven’t descended to calling you names, I’d appreciate the same consideration in return.
At the risk of dragging this thought-provoking and insightful exchange back to something within a shotgun blast of its original topic…
Much conservative writing on the “slippery slope of gay marriage” seems to assume some kind of unbroken continuum of depravity, with each liberalization or decriminalization of sexual behaviour marking a new descent toward an eventual chaos of complete sexual license.
I don’t think that’s quite right. All communities periodically examine both their sexual mores and the laws that enshrine them, and decide that things have changed. A particular sexual strategy appropriate to a given period in a group’s history (e.g., polygamy among populations with low density, a limited gene pool, low live-birth rates, high infant mortality and a labour intensive economy), but when circumstances change, the sexual mores change too.
Given what we now know about reproductive biology, it seems unlike that incest will ever be viewed as a prosocial behaviour.
When people act, doing one thing or another, if asked to explain themselves, they usually give a justification. That’s what sexual orientation has become, a popular justification for ones sexual desires and behaviour. But, as I have explained numerous times, sexual orientation is language that derives from psychology, from its attempt to diagnose pathologies, wherein someone compulsively desires or acts a certain way to the neglect of moral responsibility.
That said, sexual orientations do exist for those who have them. That said, sexual orientations only exist until those who have them are better able to take responsibility for their desires and actions.
As I have said, time and time again, to be human is to be moral, and I’ll add now that you are what you choose to become. To believe that EVERYONE has a sexual orientation, that those who have them can do nothing but surrender to its compulsiveness, is to believe in a false god. Sexual orientations are not gods because people, being intelligent, are capable of doing unpredictable things and breaking with old habits of behaviour. Desires change over the course of a lifetime because human beings mature and change as they react to each contingent circumstance they face.
How can you not understand this? I’ll tell you why: dogma. You want to believe that human beings are base and amoral when it comes to their sexuality so that you don’t have to see sexuality as being moral. You can therefore make the leap that sexuality is unintelligent and predetermined like race or eye color; thus justifying the gay rights movement as the civil rights challenge of our time.
This is bullshit! Men are men, women are women, regardless of their sexual desires. You are what you choose to become, and being a morally culpable creature, one should try to give adequate justification for why one does what they do. The nature-made-me-do-it excuse is pretty lame!
To justify your sexual conduct on the basis of some sexual orientation NECESSARILY speaks to something being wrong, or problematic, with your sexuality; when it comes to sex, you’re a compulsive retard. But, ultimately, you have no reason to believe this to be true; to believe that all people necessarily have a sexual orientation is to believe in a false god. You only have a sexual orientation, if you say you have one, or some psychiatric assessment say so, AND you choose to do nothing to get rid of it.
From there, you have a choice: to surrend to it as the ultimate excuse for acting the way you do (not unlike people who blame everything that’s wrong in their life on their parents), or choose to overcome it by directing your desires and actions (whatever they be) toward was is good, and justified as such. People who embrace having a sexual orientation are essentially refusing to accept responsibility for directing their sexual desires toward what is good; that is, beyond the dictates of natural impulse, which is just about any inclination whatsoever.
Think about it! Do we not expect people to keep their desires in check with morality? Do we not imprison those who do not? rightly so?
Society expects—it is totally dependent on!—people being moral.
Back to the point of this thread, it is a simple fact of ordered reality that the relationship between one man and one women is not equivalent to one between a man and a man, or either of those to a relationship between a woman and a woman. Sex matters! Feminists will back me up on this point.
Sex is in the Charter, not gender. Gender is only meaningful to the extent that it is a conventional reaction to the physiological experience of sex, of being male or female, and the effort by society to reinforce moral norms accordingly—which is a good thing.
In accepting SSM as an equality right on the basis of sexual orientation, they ignored sex (which is written in the Charter) in favour of sexual orientation (which is not written in the Charter). Traditional marriage, something every man and woman can enter into with someone of the opposite sex, has been shafted because it is no longer protected for the unique relationship that it is between a man and a woman. It is a unique relationship and in no possible world is it equivalent with SSM; with exception to the completely arbitrary number of persons—two.
But apparently sex no longer matters in Canada’s courts! One would think feminists would be screaming bloody murder! But, unfortunately, too many feminists are too narrow-minded to see the bigger picture.
Since traditional marriage is no longer acceptably unique, and SSM is equivalent to it on complete arbirtrary lines, the door of tolerance is not wide open to polygamy and incest.
Notice I have not been making conservative arguments, per se, but rather operating from what we all know by common sense. Somethings in human reality do not change across time, namely, the biological fact of sex; that it means something different to BE a man than to BE a woman; they being different physiological experiences of reality.
Sex, and sexuality, is something human beings REACT to because they are intelligent and wilful, and therefore moral. And morally responsible people do not slip comfortably into their pathological hang-ups, nor excuse them simply because they are compulsions. Morally responsibly people try to take responsibility for their actions because they know that they ultimately are what they choose to become.
I note that Justice Scalia, in bemoaning the potential impact of the Lawrence decision, warns us that this may also put in jeopardy state laws against “fornication”, “masturbation”, and “obscenity”.
Imagine what would become of our society if we weren’t protected by law against these abominations.
Yes, imagine. With the exception of obscenity, I didn’t know there were such laws.
Correction on third paragraph from bottom. It should read:
Since traditional marriage is no longer acceptably unique, and SSM is equivalent to it on completeLY arbirtrary lines, the door of tolerance is noW wide open to polygamy and incest.
STE: If i were pontificating about masculinity, then, yes, it would be flaccid. But I’m pontificating on manliness, about which, hun, there’s nothing flaccid about that!
George,
Your argument rests upon assertions - in particular the assertion that homosexual relationships are “immoral” - an assertion which makes no sense outside of your individual moral constructs.
Second, you assert that “Sex” (not gender) is specifically protected in S.15. of the charter. The last 25 years jurisprudence in interpreting S.15 has been quite clear that S.15 uses the term ‘Sex’ as a synonym for ‘Gender’, not as a reference to coital acts.
Third, you derive from the asserted notion that legal heterosexual marriage is somehow devalued or “muddied” by homosexual legal marriage, but because you merely assert that to be the case, I cannot accept the deduction you claim - you have given no coherent reasons that your assertion has any grounding in a knowable reality.
Lastly, as I have stated repeatedly through this discussion, you fail to acknowledge the differentiating features of incest and polygamy with respect to homosexual marriage, and in doing so, you blind yourself to the arguments that would run against those two topics that do not necessarily relate to either traditional heterosexual marriage or homosexual marriages.
Grog,
I have not questioned the morality or immorality of homosexuality on this thread. I just think justifying sexual behaviour, whatever it might be, on the basis of a “sexual orientation,” is amoral; mostly convenient for explaining away immoral behaviour. We all know that sexual desire can be perverse, thus becoming harmful, degrading or oppressive to human beings; morally responsible people stear clear of giving the nature-made-me-do-it pathological justifications for their behaviour.
Believe it or not, there are people who engage, or have engaged in, homosexual behaviour and don’t have a pathology about it.
Sex is both a distinction between male and female physiology, and a specific act that requires one male and one female to engage in. The Charter refers to sex in the former sense, as the distinct physiology between males and females, and not the social conventions of gender, transgender, whatever. If it did just refer to gender, it would serve no good as an equality right for those who desired sex be an equality right in the first place.
Gender roles are maleable, while the sexual fact gender roles are a reaction to is not. If the Charter only refers to sex as gender, then the Charter would not be able to advance sexual equality in Canada because it would be hard pressed to throw off—having no objective basis to do so—time worn gender roles that majorities tend to support. Sex is the objective fact that, for a judge, helps navigate through the traditions and myths that accompany gender roles, as they adjudicate equality rights. If the sexual fact of men and women is not what “sex” in the Charter entails, it would be utterly useless as an equality right.
In knowable reality, we know that men are men and women are women. We know that men have a different physiological experience of reality than women. We know that only one man and one woman can have sex and procreate. We know that the gender role of fathers is distinct from the gender role of mothers, both of which are reactions to the sexual fact of men who are fathers and women who are mothers. These known knowns are what make marriage a unique institution and homosexual marriage unequivalent to it.
Only in heterosexual union is there a bridge across the sexes in human relationship. Homosexual unions do not have any of these qualities and therefore do not, and cannot, constitute marriage. And a relationship between two men is hardly equivalent to a relationship between two women.
Canada’s marriage laws no longer recognise the unique relationship between one man and one woman, that only one man and one woman can enter into, as exclusively constituting marriage. This lack of exclusive recognition for the uniqueness of traditional marriage—the exclusiveness of which is a known known—infringes on the equality rights of every man and woman to marry someone of the opposite sex and have it recognized beyond simply a partnership between two people. Believe it or not, both sides can play the recognition game! And right now, in Canadian law, marriage cannot be recognized as marriage because the courts and Parliament have confused its CLEAR DEFINITION with arbitrary qualifier of partnership between two persons.
To allow homosexual unions to constitute marriage is to make non-sense of the distinct category of marriage; there is nothing significant in and of itself to the number of two persons in a marriage.
Back to the topic of this thread, the rationale for Canada’s current marriage law is that it is a union between two persons; so distinctions that used to constitute incest no longer carry their moral force and effect because the consequences of incest (deformed offspring) are no longer readily apparent. And if they are, as Tom points out, there is abortion.
As for polygamy, its advocates now have a stronger hand for the same reason: marriage between two persons is a completely arbitrary qualifier.
And furthermore, same-sex marriage will ALWAYS be same-sex marriage, not simply marriage, because the unique relationship that marriage constitutes between two human beings—specifically, between one man and one woman—is a self-evident common sense fact.
Pray tell how SSM is entitled to equal recognition as “marriage,” under the law, and not incestuous or polygamous relationships.
That’s what this thread is all about, and NOT—I repeat NOT!!!—the morality or immorality of homosexuality!
That’s what this thread is all about, and NOT—I repeat NOT!!!—the morality or immorality of homosexuality!
Good - thanks for admitting that - now, can you quit bringing up whether someone’s sexuality is moral or not?
Pray tell how SSM is entitled to equal recognition as “marriage,†under the law, and not incestuous or polygamous relationships.
Please see comment #2, and comment #48 for some of the basis points regarding incest.
Polygamy is perhaps a more difficult topic as one has to be able to demonstrate that polygamous marriages would result in either harm or unresolvable legal disadvantage to those affected by it.
For example, one line of reasoning that perhaps would apply is that polygamy would create a pseudo-tribal structure that is inherently hierarchical rather than equal, and thus someone in that relationship would be surrendering legal rights. Similarly, one could easily argue that in situations of divorce and death that the legal entanglements around asset ownership are unresolvable.
Not being terribly familiar with the polyamory community, I don’t know how, even if, they attempt to deal with such issues.
My point is quite simple - SSM isn’t about either incest or polygamy - those are distinct issues and should be considered on the basis of the merits and problems that each raises.
Yes, proponents of either will look to the SSM debate and attempt to reuse what they perceive to be “successful” strategies and arguments, but that doesn’t mean that those arguments are valid in light of the characteristics that differentiate those other issues.
“Good - thanks for admitting that - now, can you quit bringing up whether someone’s sexuality is moral or not?”
I have not nit picked on anyone’s sexual morality. I am explaining why sexual orientation makes for bad jurisprudence; why the equality right upon which SSM was ushered into Canadian law should not be an equality right.
You show no understanding of the rule of precedence in common law courts, or how SSM sets very bad precedence because of the legal reasoning it entails.
Or a very good precedence depending on which ideological frame you choose to view the world.
Not everyone has an ideological bias because some people are reasonable.
You show no understanding of the rule of precedence in common law courts, or how SSM sets very bad precedence because of the legal reasoning it entails.
George - Your argument, as I have stated repeatedly, is based upon the ASSERTION that it sets “bad precedence” because of the reasoning.
Asserting that something is “bad precedent” doesn’t make it so. Go read cases like Vriend vs. Alberta and some of the referenced cases sometime. The jurisprudence you are whining about is pretty clearly laid out in those cases.
If you wish to discuss the particulars of the judicial arguments beyond the blanket assertion that it is “somehow bad”, then get into the particulars.
I’ve spent more than enough time pointing out that you keep asserting things without actually substantiating it in facts.
(Newsflash: Moral assertion is not the same as rational fact)
So far, you have given me no REASON to believe that SSM or Sexual Orientation make for “bad jurisprudence” - lots of assertions, but no reasons.
Returning to the original point of the posting, I believe my previous comment(s) address quite clearly the distinguishing characteristics that differentiate SSM from either incest or polygamy (which are individually unique in the factual and social frameworks involved)
You need to learn to read and think.
You really have know idea what a sexual orientation is, do you?
If you don’t like what I’m saying about sexual orientation, then take me on. I’ve given very good reasons for why it is an inappropriate equality right; least of which, not everyone has one.
What is a “rational fact”? Please, enlighten.
You’ve shown no understanding of the difference between ethics and morality, nor between reason and dogma.
You need to learn to read and think.
Really, George. You can do better than that.
I’ve read your arguments in this thread in considerable detail - and pointed out why I think that you are being quite irrational about the discussion.
If you choose not to address those points, that’s up to you. Asserting that you are right ever more shrilly doesn’t make your argument stronger.
Quite irrational?
You have yet to justify sexual orientation as good jurisprudence; therefore failing to take on my argument. You have yet to rebutt the argument that the jurisprudence behind SSM opens the door to incest and polygamy; except, that is, like, to totally point out how different incest and polygamy are from SSM (so what?) and how, like, totally irrational I’m being.
You’re very earnest, but not very perceptive; quite irrational really. Yes, quite.
If you don’t like what I’m saying about sexual orientation, then take me on. I’ve given very good reasons for why it is an inappropriate equality right; least of which, not everyone has one.
George, you may as well argue that skin colour, religion, or marital status make for inappropriate equality rights, as not everyone has one of those either. It makes absolutely as much sense.
Of course everyone has every one of those things - even atheists. Everyone also has a sexual orientation. Morality has nothing to do with it, whatever your posts to the contrary. I don’t believe anyone’s gender preference for sexual partners needs to be ‘justified’ using sexual orientation, as you so eloquently put it.
I don’t know how you can ‘not’ have a sexual orientation - even a lack of sexual interest (asexuality) is one. If you are attracted to the opposite, same, or both genders, this makes you hetero, homo, or bisexual, respectively. There may be various shades between, and it can change over the course of one’s life. Same things could be said of skin tone, religion, or marital status, all of which are also protected Charter rights.
Is there a reason why George doesn’t show up as one of thepolitic.com’s top commenters? Is it because he is also a contributor?
Abattoir: Do you know what it means to say that something is pathological?
Anonymous: I contribute from time to time, yes.
He should contribute more.
You have yet to justify sexual orientation as good jurisprudence; therefore failing to take on my argument.
Ummm … no. Incorrect. In comment #59, I pointed you to:
Asserting that something is “bad precedent†doesn’t make it so. Go read cases like Vriend vs. Alberta and some of the referenced cases sometime. The jurisprudence you are whining about is pretty clearly laid out in those cases.
If you can’t be bothered to go read the actual cases on canlii, then I can’t be bothered to try explaining them to you.
As far as I can tell, your entire argument about jurisprudence descends from your moral outrage over homosexuals - which is, as I have repeatedly said - pure assertion.
I’ve read Vriend.
I’m taking the court to task for reading sexual orientation into such an eminent part of Canadian law, outside the confines—the proper context—of psychology.
Abattoir seems to understand this, why don’t you? Abattoir is willing to engage me on this central bit of reason while you seemingly dance around—sexual orientation as good jurisprudence—like a ballerina on crack.
Do you know what a sexual orientation is? that anyone, whatever they prefer, can have one? that not all homosexuals do?
I’ll give you a hint. People were able to speak of sexual desire and moral responsibility before the age of popular psychology, when pathologies become wholely unintelligible, more or less convenient amoral excuses for immoral behaviour.
I’ll give you a hint. People were able to speak of sexual desire and moral responsibility before the age of popular psychology, when pathologies become wholely unintelligible, more or less convenient amoral excuses for immoral behaviour.
You’re going in circles, George.
You keep on claiming that Gays and Lesbians don’t deserve to be treated as legal equals because you perceive them as “immoral”.
You’ve twisted this into the claim that sexual orientation is “bad jurisprudence” because it is a topic of psychological analysis.
I argue that both the fundamental assertion you are making is questionable, as well as what you are deriving from that assertion.
Your claim that sexual orientation is “bad jurisprudence” is not sustained within the body of context that is Canadian Law and the body of Case Law that has evolved in the last 25 years.
So…the burden of demonstration that it is in fact “bad jurisprudence” falls to you. Sadly, since your entire line of reasoning derives not from existing law, or any semi-current psychology/medicine that I recognize, it remains argument from assertion - which means you are obliged to demonstrate a factual basis for your assertions. (BTW - simply stating that someone’s sexual acts are “immoral” doesn’t create a construct that is comprehensible)
BTW - I don’t appreciate name-calling. I haven’t descended into that, and would appreciate it if you didn’t as well.
“As far as I can tell, your entire argument about jurisprudence descends from your moral outrage over homosexuals - which is, as I have repeatedly said - pure assertion.”
Umm, right. ‘Cause no one can be opposed to the naked judicial power exhibited by the court in Vriend without thinking that those homosexuals are just so icky.
Why at the base of these arguments do we always find an obnoxious urbanite who thinks he’s more sophisticated than everyone else?
Interesting. On most blogs it’s the moderators who try to elevate the discussion above the level of insult. What a refreshing innovation.
“Umm, right. ‘Cause no one can be opposed to the naked judicial power exhibited by the court in Vriend without thinking that those homosexuals are just so icky.”
I don’t think Grog is arguing that at all. He is dealing with the elements that George has repeatedly put forward in his posts.
“Why at the base of these arguments do we always find an obnoxious urbanite who thinks he’s more sophisticated than everyone else?”
Umm, right. Those that are opposed to George’s views on this issue are exclusively pretentious and obnoxious urbanites? Get a grip.
Well said Aaron.
Grog writes: “You keep on claiming that Gays and Lesbians don’t deserve to be treated as legal equals because you perceive them as “immoralâ€.”
I’ve never claimed this once!
Sexual orientation is only “a topic of psychological analysis” so much as it is a conceptual means of psychological analysis.
I have already demonstrated that sexual orientation is bad jurisprudence and you have yet to actually challenge my reasons.
All human beings are moral, to be human is to be moral. I’m not singling people out, so much as I’m putting the language of sexual orientation in the context of the human condition; showing it to be bad jurisprudence because the law should apply equally to all, and not everyone has a sexual orientation.
You can re-read what I’ve written and, for once, challenge it, should you finally wish. Start with figuring out what actually constitutes a sexual orientation.
Hint: It’s not just sexual preference.
The problem with popularizing sexual orientation—especially enshrining it as an equality right—is that it says human sexuality is ALWAYS, for EVERYONE, in EVERY CIRCUMSTANCE, unintelligent, amoral and compulsive; that when humans experience sexual desire they will ALWAYS respond like a glutton around french fries—they can’t help themselves.
This is not true!
Umm, right. ‘Cause no one can be opposed to the naked judicial power exhibited by the court in Vriend without thinking that those homosexuals are just so icky.
I didn’t say that, although it certainly comes through in the repetition of George’s arguments.
My point is - and has been:
1) George has NOT demonstrated that “sexual orientation” is bad jurisprudence, he has ASSERTED that it is.
2) George has repeated ASSERTED a moralizing position on the matter, and has not substantiated that position in any knowable way that can be reasonably discussed.
3) Deriving that sexual orientation is “bad jurisprudence” from the assertion that it is is circular reasoning, and disregards the reasoning presented in the cases involved.
(And Vriend vs Alberta contains a long list of referenced cases, only a handful of which are purely related to sexual orientation)
So far, George AND Aaron have ASSERTED that rulings such as Vriend are “bad jurisprudence”, but I have yet to see either actually examine the ruling and show why it is “bad” in the specific context of the ruling itself.
You may assert that you believe this to be the case, but that doesn’t make it so. I can assert that the clouds are really fluffy cotton candy in the sky, but that doesn’t make it true - does it?. I’m insistent that if you are going to make those kind of assertions that you back it up in some form that can be intelligibly examined.
Why at the base of these arguments do we always find an obnoxious urbanite who thinks he’s more sophisticated than everyone else?
Aaron, must you descend into name calling just because you don’t have a real point to make?
Your dichotomy between assertions and reason does not apply because I have given a reason for everything I have said.
I have said nothing about Vriend, and could but do not see the point. The point I’m making is that “sexual orientation” is not good jurisprudential LANGUAGE.
It would really be nice if you would challenge me on that! And since you think it is only an assertion—when my reasons are clearly stated—you should be able to say WHY sexual orientation is adequate jurisprudential LANGUAGE.
Grog writes: “I’m insistent that if you are going to make those kind of assertions that you back it up in some form that can be intelligibly examined.”
I have made no assertions. THE ONLY REASON you think I’m making ASSERTIONS is because you don’t know what “sexual orientation” means; unwilling to even broach the subject.
Enough with the ASSERTION that I am making unfounded assertions. I have given reasons for everything that I write and you have not. I have challenged the LANGUAGE of “sexual orientation” as not good jurisprudence, stating my reasons for saying so. You refuse to challenge what I ACTUALLY WRITE, regularly dancing around whining, or shall we say “asserting” unfounded assertions on my part, and how mean we are for calling you a few names.
Buck up!
Aaron makes a great point!
The reading in of sexual orientation into the Alberta Human Rights code in Vriend—and the initial reading in of sexual orientation into s. 15 in Egan—is another egregious example of secular progressive judicial activism; in Aaron’s words, naked judicial power—shall we say, fiat.
“The reading in of sexual orientation into the Alberta Human Rights code in Vriend—and the initial reading in of sexual orientation into s. 15 in Egan—is another egregious example of secular progressive judicial activism; in Aaron’s words, naked judicial power—shall we say, fiat.”
Let me get this straight - you see these decisions as examples of egregious judicial activism? Homosexual men and women should enjoy the same societal and legal stature as heterosexual men and women - you know, being free from persecution based on their sexual orientation, etc. How is this activism? What are you afraid of?
How is it activism? It’s judicial activism because the court, not the legislature, altered the law (rather than striking it down). We didn’t write the definition.
What am I afraid of? Judge-made law. Something that any democrat should be afraid of.
As for equal rights: Straight people aren’t free from persecution based on their sexual orientation. Straights, after all, are not a traditionally-disadvantaged groups. Equality rights jurisprudence in Canada is a one way highway.
“Straight people aren’t free from persecution based on their sexual orientation.”
Quite true. Are you under the erroneous impression that gay people are “free from persecution based on their sexual orientation”.
No. But they are (and this is what I should have written) protected by the courts on the basis of their sexual orientation. Straights aren’t.
So let’s not pretend that gay equality rights are all about lifting gays up to the position that straights are currently at. If I go to a judge and tell him that I was discriminated against because of my sexual orientation, he’ll tell me to get lost.
I’m trying get this (can’t resist) straight: is it your view that gays have never been discriminated against because they’re gay?
No, of course not.
In response to Ryan’s question, I’m afraid of the willingness of Canadian courts to legislate from the bench (be it SSM, and soon enough, polygamy and incest) on the basis of some warped view of human sexuality.
This warped view is, as I stated in comment 75: “The problem with popularizing sexual orientation—–especially enshrining it as an equality right—–is that it says human sexuality is ALWAYS, for EVERYONE, in EVERY CIRCUMSTANCE, unintelligent, amoral and compulsive; that when humans experience sexual desire they will ALWAYS respond like a glutton around french fries—–they can’t help themselves.”
If Canada wishes to protect homosexuals from discrimination and intolerance, then it was always the responsibility of Parliament to legislate accordingly. Reading sexual orientation into s. 15 was a radical departure from judicial restraint, and it opens a judicial can of worms because “sexual orientation” can be used for all sorts of legal ends.
Sexual orientation should not be mentioned at all in such anti-discrimination law, rather specifying whom exactly needed protection: be it here persons who engage in consensual homosexual relations, of legal age to consent to sexual relations.
Protecting people on the basis of their sexual hang-ups is ridiculous! I would be equally troubled—and I am troubled—over laws passed by Parliament that infer that everyone has a sexual orientation.
I think popularizing the language of sexual orientation, outside its proper context in psychology, is an absurd and morally irresponsible way to talk about people—especially when it comes to enacting laws governing all people.
“If Canada wishes to protect homosexuals from discrimination and intolerance, then it was always the responsibility of Parliament to legislate accordingly.”
Exactly.
[...] some of our commentators can go over to Europe to help shore up the numbers of atheists and secularists. This entry was [...]
Sour grapes taste gross. No wonder you guys are such sower pusses.
Protecting people on the basis of their sexual hang-ups is ridiculous! I would be equally troubled—and I am troubled—over laws passed by Parliament that infer that everyone has a sexual orientation.
Perhaps, when you’ve been fired from a job, had the tar kicked out of you, or been refused service because of what someone ASSUMES about your sexuality you might understand. Just the assumption that someone is gay can have lethal
It’s amazing to me that one hand, I hear you people whining about judicial activism undermining the will of parliament, and on the other hand, when the will of parliament similarly reflects what the judges have ruled you bitch about that too.
In other words, what it boils down to, fundamentally, is you believe that you have to have someone you can look down on socially, and you want the legal right to marginalize and discriminate against otherwise law abiding, productive members of society.
No. Not at all.
You should learn what it actually means to have a sexual orientation and stop carping at me about gay rights. You’ll then have a better context to understand such rights.
Believe it or not, there are homosexuals in the world who think, as I do, that same-sex marriage is really stupid—it’s not marriage and never could be, even when legal.
But, apparently you would rather worship a false god and live in total darkness.
Check out Shane’s post on lies and paranoia.
http://www.thepolitic.com/arch.....-paranoia/
As Dr. Sanity writes:
“The paranoid solution to unacceptable thoughts or feelings is to say, “If I am having these bad thoughts or feeling or behaviors, then someone else must be to blame and is making me do it.” The Paranoid person does not take responsibility for his own thoughts or feelings or behaviors.”
That’s what this discussion on sexual orientation is all about. When popularized, it is a paranoid view of human sexuality. And thanks to judicial activism, it’s now a heavy handed part of Canadian law.
More from Dr. Sanity that applies here:
“A healthy individual’s solution is to take responsibility for his or her thoughts, feelings, behaviors, successes and failures. Even if it is sometimes painful to acknowledge. But by owning his or her feelings, the healthy individual is able to exert control over inappropriate behavior that might spring from those feelings.
Another way of saying this is that you cannot choose the feelings that you experience- emotions are not generally under conscious control; but you can choose how to act on those feelings, because behavior is under conscious control.”
George,
You stated in an earlier post that you never claimed that homosexuality was immoral. Your last post infers that point clearly, by quoting Dr. Sanity’s on ‘unacceptable thoughts or feelings’ and ‘inappropriate behaviour’.
Either you are claiming that homosexuality, as a sexual orientation, is immoral and wrong, or you are claiming some other, immoral, sexual preference (incest, pedophilia) is a form of sexual orientation also deserving protection under the Charter given the jurisprudence. Which is it?
If it is the former, then you are reading your own morality beliefs into the law, where you would of course disagree with the SCC and Parliament. And me.
If it is the latter, you should realize that the words ’sexual orientation’ have not been magically inserted into the Charter. The SCC has determined, on a case-by-case basis, that the gender specificity of the former marriage definition violated s.15. Gays and bisexuals enjoy equal protection under the Charter, as an identifiable group. There is clear SCC jurisprudence on this matter.
Homosexuality is no longer a crime - incest and child molestation clearly are. Further, those wishing to engage in incest and child molestation are not eligible for protection under the Charter. A quick review of previous SCC decisions would show you that.
Neither, I’m not claiming anything about homosexuality, per se, but rather the popular effort to speak of human sexuality in pathological terms as though it is always pathological; the designating of protected minorities according to their pathological self-understandings.
Sexual orientation is not good jurisprudential language because it is not a complete picture of the reality of human sexuality. To think that everyone has a sexual orientation—that homosexuality is necessarily a sexual orientation—is a deformation of reality, a deformation of human sexuality.
On questions of gender and sexuality the SCC has shown itself to be utterly incompetent: ignoring the objective ground of sex (the physiological experience thereof: it means something different to BE a man than to BE a woman, as feminists have long argued) with respect to gender; ignoring that to be human is to be moral, so human beings do not necessarily have a sexual orientation.
If you want to protect homosexuals from discrimination via some form of anti-hate legislation, fine. But Parliament was the legitimate institution to go about doing it, and in doing so, neither Parliament should have taken “sexual orientation” out of psychology and applied it to everyone. The purpose of such legislation would not be to protect everyone with compulsive sexual hang-ups from discrimination, but, rather, consenting adults who engage in homosexual behaviour—taking responsibility for it because they have to live with the consequences—and should not to be treated like Jews oft get treated for doing so.
By saying that homosexuality is necessarily a sexual orientation the courts have created different categories of human beings on the basis of their sexual behaviour. This is absurd! These are not objective criteria and sexual desire is not written in stone from birth because people change—their desires can change—as they experience new things in life.
Canadian courts, in attempting to protect homosexuals from discrimination, should have tried to do so under freedom from undo discrimination on the basis of religion; sexual orientation being gay right’s god of worship, however false it be.
There are different streams of liberal doctrine, like freedom of religion and association, that the courts could have gone to without the deformed and decontextualized popular psychology of sexual orientation.
George, sexual orientation isn’t a pathology, nor is it a disease or mental illness. It is a preference that people are born with or develop. Further, your arguments are perpetually coloured with your moral views on homosexuality. (’compulsive sexual hang-ups’ was fairly clear on that)
You are again confusing sexuality with morality, and arguing that somehow not everyone has a sexual orientation. We all do, by definition. Do you prefer the same gender, opposite gender, no preference, or neither? It’s a simple question, and not one that has anything to do with sexual hang-ups. We all have biological instincts for sex, how we decide to act on those desires is how we define morality, not on whether we acknowledge the desires exist in the first place.
You’re absolutely right that sexual desire is not written in stone from birth. It would be very unusual for a young child to be anything but ‘asexual’ (from a sexual orientation point of view, that is - children of course have a gender). As they grow, either genetics or life’s experiences may drive development one way or another.
This matters not one iota. Religion is also not set in stone from birth, do you believe this is not a Charter right? I can call myself a Christian today, but decide to convert to Islam tomorrow - do I forfeit my Charter rights in doing so? I call strawman on that argument.
What matters is whether you are identified as belonging to a certain group or class or people. If I prefer the opposite gender, I may be considered part of the ‘heterosexual’ group. If I prefer the same gender, I may be considered part of the ‘homosexual’ group. Society can distinguish between the groups, and therefore discriminate.
If you insist on refusing to consider heterosexuality as a sexual orientation, then simply divide society into 2 easy camps: ‘normal’ people, and gays/bisexuals. Is that easier? Most people can self-identify with one of those two groups.
Neither group is breaking the law, nor harming society by their existence. There is no compelling reason to allow discrimination based on this identity.
Now do you see why I didn’t bother getting into this conversation with George? It isn’t worth it, because it gets no one any further ahead.
George, from what I hear from people who know you face to face, you just need to get laid and get on with it my friend. Maybe then you will stop worrying about what everyone else is doing between the sheets and projecting your misguided ideologies on others.
Have a little fun, go out, meet someone nice, get married or don’t get married, but for the love of God, find something else to put all of this pent up sexual energy into and find a topic worthy of your passion, because, when it is all said and done, the law has changed and there is nothing in this world that will turn it back.
STE: If George Freeman’s arguments are simply the result of repressed desires, then how should we understand your arguments?
And if people’s arguments are generally the result of their desires, then shouldn’t the blogosphere shut itself down, and be replaced with a pharmaceutical distribution system, administered by, let’s say, Supreme Court justices?
Ask someone who knows me face to face Tom.
STE: Nah, not interested. Besides, such people tend not to be very reliable.
Better Then Ezra. Worst. Commenter. Ever!
She is married to someone one you know, Tom.
“Better” “Then” Ezra” ?
Two out of three words right. Worst. Transcription. Ever?
Abattoir, I’ve never said heterosexuals could not have a sexual orientation toward their heterosexual desires and behaviour.
Human beings are intelligent and are what they choose to become. Experienced reality is something human beings REACT TO intelligently and wilfully. Do you disagree?
I’m not going to get drawn into some stupid argument about homosexuality because I really don’t think its worth addressing. I really don’t care what two or more guys want to do with each other sexually; this always has gone on and always will; and there are better and worse acts they can do with each other. I think there is such a thing as a pervert, and I’m certainly NOT arguing that all homosexuals are perverts. But there are better and worse people in the world, and better or worse by choice.
What is worth addressing is the popular LIE—and it is a lie!—that sexuality is not moral, that human beings are not capable of directing their sexual desires toward better or worse consequences as they react to them.
It is your inability to accept reality, your willingness to believe in false gods that inhibits your apprehension of the truth. To say that sexual orientation is “a preference that people are born with or develop” is to say nothing about how psychology uses it to speak of pathologies. BY DEFINITION NOT EVERYONE HAS ONE! Psychology would not have coined the term if it were otherwise. Sexual orientation entails HABITUAL and COMPULSIVE conduct!
Pathologies can be inherent inclinations or develop from experience; just look at alcoholism to see why this is the case. Alcoholism is still a pathology, and being human—BEING MORAL—the alcoholic can find ways to intelligent react and overcome this pathology and be free of it. The story is much the same with people’s sexual hang ups, whatever they be; that is sexual desires and behaviour that are not well directed toward what is morally good.
To operate from some dichotomy of heterosexual/homosexual is false because people in the real world desire all sorts of things and those desires can change with time. Regardless, we still expect people to be moral with their sexual desires and behaviour. After all, Canada penalizes pedophiles and rapists.
I think GLBT culture is very much an inner-worldly religion. It has all the traits, including faith in the god of sexual orientation as providing ULTIMATE DEFINITION of what makes a human being dignified. So if the courts want to protect members of that community from discrimination, then the courts should protect them on the grounds of freedom of association and religion, not on the basis of their pathological nature-made-me-do-it excuses.
—-
STD, I don’t know who you are or how you claim to know me. You must be a real winner.
You should answer Cerber’s questions.
George,
Agreed, human beings are what they choose to become, for the most part. However, I cannot choose to be black, or left-handed. A schizophrenic cannot choose to be cured.
I have no argument with your assertion that sexuality can be moral..it certainly can. In most cases, it actually is. I don’t know what you’re on about there.
As for your repeated assertions that sexual orientation is a term used by psychologists to describe a pathology, I suggest you look it up. Here’s a link:
http://www.apa.org/topics/sbehavior1.html#whatis
Unless the American Psychological Association is not a reputable source of psychological information, sexual orientation is not a pathology. It does not entail ‘habitual and compulsive conduct’. Moreover, homosexuality cannot be ‘cured’, as your post seems to infer. [In order to be cured, there must be something wrong in the first place.]
No-one suggests there is a dichotomy of homo/heterosexuality, and I’ve already said that sexuality can (and does) change with time. Again, strawman.
You are still conveniently ignoring my point of identification. And your rants about religion, while amusing, are completely irrelevant. I worship no false ‘god of sexual orientation’. I do recognize that it is a fundamental human characteristic.
There are ways of finding out who I am George. Just like there are ways of me finding out who you are. It wasn’t that hard.
“There are way