Defend Canada: A Debate on Homosexuality
Further, it demonstrates that those promoting this so aggresively, outright refuse to recognize that if I have to accept their rampant over-promotion of Homosexuality, then churches across the country should be able to send out flyers promoting Homosexuality as "unnatural", without resistance.RT: We Get Mail
RT: Sexually Immoral Conduct
As I have explained before (Ramblings: April 2005) the whole issue surrounding the acceptance in society of homosexuality and all of the trappings that come with is not a matter of anything other than equality rights. And, because we are talking about equality rights (everyone has them) a diminution of one person's rights is a weakening of everyone else's.
For instance if, because of an argument about the naturalness of something, one is able to restrict the behaviour of homosexuals - restrict marriage rights or permit ad campaigns against that conception of how to live, then one would have to accept the opposite. Again, for instance, it may be true that the traditional definition of marriage is un-natural. Anthropologists may determine that humans were ever meant to live together for more than seven years - they might cite the "seven year itch" and demonstrate overwhelming scientific evidence. Would we then wish to legislate marriage to restrict it to seven year renewable open term contracts (you know - like mortgages).
You can substitute the the terms of the above argument for most anything: unpopular, socially destructive, not-true-because-my-religion-says-so, unscientific, backwards etc... But, what you cannot do is substitute a rights based argument.
My point is this by couching the terms of the debate in rights and ensuring that recognition of homosexuality is done in terms of rights churches and other organisations are strengthened. A equal rights based argument makes it more difficult to threaten the place of churches in society.
Technorati Tags: Gay Marriage, homosexuality, politics, canada, conservative, rights, equality,
powered by performancing firefox
1 comment:
Now THAT was a fantastic argument! And I must say that I agree with you, as we are essentially saying the same thing.
I think religious organization have the right to free speech as long as it does not threaten the physical well being of specific persons they have an opinion about.
The same goes for the rights of homosexuals to speak out that the church and religion is backwards and outdated.
My whole point was that both sides have rights, and you cannot take either set of rights away - you simply both have to agree to disagree.
Hence my comment:
You can't cry about religious fliers that condemn homosexuality according religious beliefs and expect everyone to embrace Pride Week and Pride Parades that have a municipal cost - and an infrigement on the public space.
It is very simple, draw a fucking line and have all sides respect the line.
You cannot draw the line and expect one side to back away so you can re-draw it in the name of continued special interest.
If you can't agree to somehow drawing a societal boundary that allows people to express themselves equally without predjudice then what you have is inequality.
Post a Comment