Saturday, June 17, 2006

A Request for Informed Study and Debate

No, I'm not referring to the current Liberal leadership race, although they could use a few pointers.

I am actually referencing the Letter of the Day ("Let's have a responsible vote on same-sex marriage") in today's National Post, which is unfortunately behind a subscribers' firewall. Douglas Farrow, associate professor of Christian thought, McGill University, Montreal wrote a rebuttal to the previous day's editorial, "Vote your Conscience".

Friday's editorial was a poorly-written piece in my opinion. It was full of logical flaws and outrageous partisanship, but finally ended on a note urging each M.P. to vote his or her conscience during the free vote in the fall:


It is clear that Canadians remain divided over the issue, a divide that is founded on the basis of individual morality and religious beliefs, but also on the basis of support for equality rights, minority protections and adherence to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Consequently, Canadians would be well served if MPs of all parties were to ignore the agitation of special interest groups and their party leadership, and vote their conscience.

Such a vote should be further informed by the consequences -- or, more accurately, the lack of consequences -- of allowing homosexuals the same rights to marriage as heterosexuals. The issue is an emotional one and has attained an outsized political footprint as a result. But in truth, gay marriages have had a very small effect on life in this country: The fact is that relatively few gay couples have availed themselves of the right. Despite predictions to the contrary, the fabric of Canadian society has not been rent.



Professor Farrow counters:

In point of fact, there is no such thing as purely private morality. Morality, whatever its guiding lights, is by nature public. But in any case -- as every serious participant in this debate knows -- we are faced with here a conflict of very different, and equally public, moral claims. Chai Feldblum, a legal scholar and proponent of same-sex marriage at Georgetown University, was quoted in The New York Times last week to the effect that it is only honest to acknowledge that "we are in a zero-sum game in terms of moral values."


In response to the 'sky hasn't fallen yet' argument:


But who is really so foolish as to suppose that the consequences of a major change in public moral values, or in the social institutions that embody them -- especially marriage -- will appear in the first year or even in the first decade?



And legal consequences like question of parental names on birth certificates:

Many people do not seem even to be aware that C-38, in its consequential amendments, removed the very concept of "natural parent" from Canadian law and, at a stroke, made parenthood a gift of the state -- a legal construct -- rather than a natural right.


Finally, he agrees with the Post that each M.P. should vote his or her conscience but only after diligent study and reasoned debate, as that which occurred in France where a Parliamentary Report on the Family and the Rights of Children concluded that same-sex marriage was not in the best interests of the child:



I'm not sure what will happen in France, but I know what I would like to see happen in Canada. Let our MPs vote their conscience, by all means. But consciences require both formation and information. So ... here's my suggestion: Before holding another vote on same-sex marriage, let the present Parliament act in a more responsible manner than the previous one and follow the French example. Let our MPs sit down and study the issues properly instead of behaving like a university student union. Let them digest the French report, and perhaps even write one of their own. Then let's have the vote.

79 comments:

Sara said...

too much for me but let me know if anything about childcare comes up.... I'll cover it like a wet blanket lol...

does sound like a set up though

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Sara, wait til your child has to endure

this


(Or maybe you're o.k. with it).

Andrew Smith said...

Although I really don't have a big problem with gay marriage, gay adoption is a whole other matter. There is another person involved who doesn't have a say - the child. I think we should stand up for the right of children to grow-up with a mother and father. I believe a child who grew-up with two parents of the same gender would be very confused and would miss so much of what you learn from both your mom and dad. Studying the matter is a good idea, but we shouldn't jump head first into, what I believe is a very misguided social experiment.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Thank you, Andrew, for that voice of reason. Fact is gay adoption is happening now. It is a fait accompli.

Zac said...

"I believe a child who grew-up with two parents of the same gender would be very confused and would miss so much of what you learn from both your mom and dad."

So I child who grows up in a single parent household will grow up equally as confused?

Dirk said...

The quoted portion of the editorial by Prof. Farrow is not something that can seriously be used in a "request for informed study and debate". Anyone that disputes a notion of individual morality and gives credence to the French government's report does not deserve to be taken seriously as anything but a strongly biased voice in this debate.

Re. individual morality:
My own morals are different from those held by colleagues, friends, and relatives. I mention those people, because I know them, and I know our moral values to have differences.

Re. the French government's report: "Parliamentary Report on the Family and the Rights of Children":
This report was sponsored and written by socially conservative elements in the French government. S o basically this documents adds as much meaning to the SSM debate as a Focus on the Family publication. That is to say, this report clearly has its biases.

In short, none of what has been quoted from Prof. Farrow proves anything or offers reasonable opposition to the notion of SSM.

And if we're being honest here, if you're in agreement with the French government's report, and with the main tenets of the Prof. Farrow quotations, how can you also be in favour of civil unions, which are identical in everything but name to marriage?

Lord Omar said...

watch this

Lord Omar said...

Hel-lo, Jo-anne.

Dirk said...

Omar:
funny stuff

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Hel-lo, Om-mar. I'm somewhat reluctant to view anything without a hint of the link. It's not that I don't trust you...

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Dirk, if it was worth the effort to debate you, I would. From past experience I know it would just degenerate into a name-calling troll-a-thon. Therefore I will not bother. And trust me, it isn't that I couldn't decimate each of your pathetic little arguments.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

So I child who grows up in a single parent

Zac, nobody is talking about single parents. OMG, another reason to Vicki and Sara and I to mother you!

Red Tory said...

I believe a child who grew-up with two parents of the same gender would be very confused and would miss so much of what you learn from both your mom and dad.

Yeah, they’d miss out on that whole “He’s an asshole” and “She’s a bitch” thing. What a crying shame.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Yeah, cause gay people never use the "b" word, right RT? That is the exclusive domain of the heterosexual community.

Give me a break.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

RT - BTW, Happy Fathers' Day!

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I wonder how the kids adopted by lesbians or produced "in vitro" celebrate Fathers' day? Do they make a card for their two moms?

RGM said...

They probably just wouldn't celebrate it, unless the family knows who the father is, in which case they may send him a card.

Back to the topic at hand, I do agree that there is a need to study this issue more so that people understand that SSM is a question of rights. It is wrong on the part of the government to deny a segment of our society the same priveliges, entitlements, and (very importantly) responsibilities of the majority because they happen to go to bed with someone of the same sex. All Canadians deserve the same rights and equality of rights under the law. All. Not most, not 85%, not 39.8%, all.

Zac said...

Zac, nobody is talking about single parents.

My point essentially Joanne, is that if the children of a gay couple would be confused because they don't have both mom and dad around, then surely by the same logic children of single parents would be equally confused.

Would I be correct?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Zac, without getting too personal here, did your mom raise you as a single parent from the beginning, or did things end up that way? You don't have to answer if you feel uncomfortable about it.

RGM - Rights? If civil unions were granted, wouldn't gay folks have essentially the same right? Where I have a problem is the adoption issue.

Zac said...

Zac, without getting too personal here, did your mom raise you as a single parent from the beginning, or did things end up that way?

Joanne, no problem. Had both parents growing up, they divorced when I was 18 but things are still good. We still spend the holidays together and stuff.

My overall point here is that the "children need both mom and dad" arguments is a faulty one when addressing the issue of same-sex marriage and adoption. If it is not wrong for single parents to raise children then by the same logic it is ok for a same sex couple to raise a child, as they both lack the male and female component to the relationship.

There are many other arguments against same-sex adoption which are good, it is just that that particular argument has serious flaws.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Zac, I'm glad you're so well-adjusted. If your parents had to get divorced, I guess 18 isn't too traumatic an age to have that happen, although I'm sure it's difficult just the same.

If it is not wrong for single parents to raise children then by the same logic it is ok for a same sex couple to raise a child,

If a man or woman decided to adopt or somehow have a child totally on their own, I would have a problem with that. Sh*t happens, but let's give the kid a fighting chance. Let's not deliberately start out that way! It's totally selfish.

Now, I'm not talking about an unwed mother here, unless she deliberately tried to get pregnant by saying she was on the pill when she wasn't etc.

There are many other arguments against same-sex adoption which are good... Please enlighten me!

Lord Omar said...

I'm somewhat reluctant to view anything without a hint of the link. It's not that I don't trust you...

Um Joanne, I think I am being unfairly characterized once again. I have never posted anything untoward here and never would. That is simply a link to a blogging-friend and a post he did in May on gay families.

Zac said...

I guess 18 isn't too traumatic an age to have that happen, although I'm sure it's difficult just the same

Looking back it was probably for the best. My uncle told me they stayed together until I was 18 so that it would be easier for me. It wouldn't have mattered either way though. If you're not happy, you're not happy. Might as well move along.

Let's not deliberately start out that way! It's totally selfish.

I wouldn't say so. I feel that single parents are more than capable of raising a child. True, it is more hectic and most parents end up working a "double day" where they work a full time job in the day then come home to raise their child by night, thus another full time job, but it can work.

I would never deny the right of a single women or man from raising a child. I don't think that children need both to be adjusted or loved in some way. In fact, I have met many people who were raised by single parents and it worked out fine for them.

Please enlighten me!

Perhaps I should have re-worded that. What I meant was that I have heard better arguments in the past.

It's good to see we're having so much fun with the italics Joanne

Joanne (True Blue) said...

lol! O.K. Omar. I checked it out. Yeah, it's pretty well done, I must admit. Let's see some statistics though regarding their claim.

Zac - My point is simply that why not aim for the ideal? Is it about the kids or the adults? Anyway, we could argue this for a thousand years and neither of us would change our POV, so let's just drop it.

Regarding the italics, I don't even have to look at my cheat sheet anymore! :)

Dirk said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dirk said...

I should proof-read more often. Repost:

"Dirk, if it was worth the effort to debate you, I would. From past experience I know it would just degenerate into a name-calling troll-a-thon. Therefore I will not bother."

You're right that past debates have degenerated into name calling, but I've never been the one calling the names. One need only look your previous post for evidence where you make malicious comments towards me.

"And trust me, it isn't that I couldn't decimate each of your pathetic little arguments."
For someone who made "A Request for Informed Study and Debate", I find this whole little diatribe of yours to be disengenuous. I've presented a reasonable comment with what I feel are valid points rebutting your quotes from Prof. Farber's piece. It's fine if you don't want to comment on them, but dismissing them as pathetic without offering reasons is just that.

Dirk said...

"My point is simply that why not aim for the ideal? Is it about the kids or the adults?"

The ideal would be for a child to grow up in a home with a loving family. If those two parents happen to be two men or two women, I don't see a problem. I don't want to do that myself, but I'm not going to judge those who do.

Now, what of a situation (one I've seen first-hand) where a dad passed away while his kids were young, and the Mom had her sister move in to help raise the children. Both mother and aunt have made a loving, nurturing home for the children, and they seem like good, well-adjusted kids. Sure the situation isn't ideal, given they lost a husband and a dad, but these kids have a good thing going. So how is this current arrangement not ideal?

"Anyway, we could argue this for a thousand years and neither of us would change our POV, so let's just drop it."
Again, this would be another example, where the original "Request for Informed Study and Debate" is rendered moot. Reasonable points are raised challenging the "two same-sex parents isn't normal" arguments, and we get dismissal.

Blake said...

Dirk:

The only reason this isn't a place of informed study and debate is due to the secret Liberal plot to prevent this issue from being discussed.

Red Tory said...

Joanne -- Yeah, cause gay people never use the "b" word, right RT? That is the exclusive domain of the heterosexual community.

Thank you for (perhaps inadvertently) reinforcing my point.

I’m sure there is strife between marital couples in a homosexual relationship, just as there is in a heterosexual relationship. The fact of the matter is that 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce. These are not usually pretty affairs. Quite often they are nasty, rancorous battles that can be extremely damaging to the children caught in the crossfire. To hold up the union between a man and a woman as an “ideal” when it’s so blatantly prone to failure seems like rather a pathetic argument against the concept of same-sex marriage.

I agree with rgm that this is a question of fundamental rights and equality.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

O.K. So let's grant the gays the same right to mess up their lives just like everyone else. I believe that is what you're saying, RT?

Sara said...

sex in the class rooms is taking it away from the parents to teach. Most stuff in school that is taught is because they don't believe parents will do it right. We as parents are to watch our children and make sure they know right from wrong but government believes we are not capable. That is why we are here today.

I don't know what to do about gay, I'm as confused as the rest of you but I do know my friends are gay and I can nor will not treat them like freaks. I do love them and they us. Our daughters will know who they are and for the most part already do even though they are so young.
What do I do about teachers going over board and trying too much with my children, what any mother would do. Lose my freaking temper and make that teacher run away screaming....


by the way Zac,

The fact that you are a liberal and debating this all the time makes me respect you more... we are not trying to convert you. I'm still me, it doesn't matter who I voted for nor who I will vote for next (basically the childcare will sweep my vote). Something would be very wrong with Canada if two different political groups could not debate... or should I say we'd be the U.S.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Sara - sex in the class rooms is taking it away from the parents to teach.

Especially in B.C. where parents likely won't be allowed to withdraw the child from the classroom even if they object to how the material is handled.

Nanny state definitely knows what's best.

aliasdictus said...

"and trust me, it isn't that I couldn't decimate each of your pathetic little arguments"
Joanne, what a total cop-out. The fact is you won't engage in a debate because you can't. How could you possibly defend the proposition that there is no private morality?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Nice try, Dirk-Blake-JDave clone!

Blake said...

Way to defend yourself against the accusation that you're not interested in real debate, Joanne.

Sara:

"sex in the class rooms is taking it away from the parents to teach. Most stuff in school that is taught is because they don't believe parents will do it right. We as parents are to watch our children and make sure they know right from wrong but government believes we are not capable. That is why we are here today."

Sex ed is not just a morality issue, it is a health and safety issue, and schools need to teach it. A few years I would have agreed wholeheartedly with you, but my eyes were really opened to the other side of the picture by a book I had to read for a Russian lit/women's studies class I took at U of W. For whatever reaon I can't find it to give the exact title or author, but it dealt at length with the issue and the situation in the Soviet Union before sex ed was allowed in the classrooms (for many years under the regime it was verboten). It was a worldview-changing read for me, to see beyond the persepctive of, "teens shouldn't have sex so let's not tell them about it".

And the fact is, most parents can't teach sex ed well, just like they can't teach math, science, languages, literature, or phys ed. They're just not qualified to do it. That's why public schools were founded in the first place, because people realized that their children needed to be educated and they couldn't do it themselves.

Red Tory said...

O.K. So let's grant the gays the same right to mess up their lives just like everyone else.

Well, if you want to describe marriage as a way of messing up your life, then yeah, I guess so.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

RT - Why bother with the ceremony. Don't couples living common law get the same rights and benefits?

Zac said...

RT - Why bother with the ceremony. Don't couples living common law get the same rights and benefits?

You went for the ceremony. Why deny two people the same right as you simply because they are of the same gender?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Zac - Why deny two people the same right as you simply because they are of the same gender? You missed my point. I asked why would anyone bother getting married these days? What would be the incentive in terms of benefits and right? Can you not get those same rights by living common law? Does anyone have this information from a reliable source? What I'm getting at is what is there in being "married" legally, that you can't get from a common-law relationship other than the big party?

Sara said...

And the fact is, most parents can't teach sex ed well, just like they can't teach math, science, languages, literature, or phys ed. They're just not qualified to do it"


I am told that daily and its wrong. We are qualified to teach it but some choose not to. Teaching my kids about sex for health reasons is one thing but when you get into the teacher demanding that their agenda is to be followed is another. A parent has the right to make the decision for their children until they are 18 and after that it is up to the child. If the parent is horrible CAS steps in not the nanny state. I am qualified to do many things, no not take an appendix out but explain to my kids what aids, condoms, gay, etc... is about YES I AM... and I get very offended when I hear I am not qualified. You don't know me or them stop assuming we are guilty. We can't learn unless the state backs off. If the state keeps taking over parents won't be qualified to wipe their toddlers butts. I'm not kidding somethings we just have to learn on our own. Sexual intercourse is one of them, health for sex is great but going into more detail is not the schools right to do so. You know the saying back off government this land is our land, well back off government these children are OUR CHILDREN....

Joanne (True Blue) said...

back off government these children are OUR CHILDREN....

Well said, Sara, but I think Ken Dryden would disagree with you. Can you imagine if the federal Liberals were in power now?

Zac said...

Can you not get those same rights by living common law?

Joanne, you missed my point. If you can get the same rights living common law, why did you decide the get married?

The motivations are the same for you and your husband as it is for same sex couples.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Zac, you seem to want to always bring this down to a personal level. I am trying to have an objective discussion. Is it possible for you to discuss this without always making a reference to my personal life? If not, then we may as well just call it a day.

Zac said...

you seem to want to always bring this down to a personal level

Not particularly. If your offended I appologize.

I'm just trying to say that Joanne, you should examine why you yourself got married. They want to get married for the same reasons that you wanted to get married. That's all.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Not really the same thing at all, Zac. When I got married it was very unusual for people to be living together, and gay marriage wasn't even thought of yet. (O.K. that dates me for sure).

I am asking what benefits are there legally and financing that can't be acquired through common-law relationships now? I would be very grateful for a legal opinion on that.

Red Tory said...

Joanne -- I believe there are some legal distinctions between living common law or being in a civil rights union and marriage (simply by virtue of the dumb reason that many laws on the books do not reference such alternative living arrangements and would therefore have to be re-written or updated to reflect the change), but that seems to miss the point as to why some homosexual couples to want to enter into marriage in the first place. It is, as has been said before here by myself and others, a matter of equality. Those who feel strongly about the issue don’t want to be placed into a sub-class of marriage that’s essentially the same only different. They believe they should have access to all the same rights and obligations of heterosexual couples who elect to become married to one another, both legally and otherwise. Goodness knows why they want to get married, but I say why deprive them of the misery?

Zac said...

Everyone gets married for their own reasons. My parents got married for their own reasons, just like as you, Joanne, and RT got married for your own.

It would be naive for any of us to speculate as to the motivations of some to get married, rather we should ensure that everyone is able to enter into marriage when they feel they would like to.

Sorry for prying into your personal life Joanne, but I was simply trying to state that everyone has their own reasons for getting married.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

RT - Your point is well taken, but I would simply like to know the difference in rights and benefits between marriage and common law families. We have no civil union in Canada so that is irrelevant.

Possibly that changes from province to province. I am looking for a legal opinion. If you don't think that has any bearing on the issue at hand, that is fine. This is Canada and you can have any opinion you want.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Zac, *sigh*, that is not my point, but I'm going to give my wrist a rest. I'll take you on another day. Promise.

Zac said...

It's a date...er...deal.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

lol! Good. :)

Red Tory said...

The issue interests me so little that I couldn’t be bothered to go rummaging around in the virtual attic for the legal differences between common law living arrangements and marriage (neither, would it seem are you inclined to undertake this tedious journey).

But as I said, this really misses the point. Obviously I didn’t make myself clear enough, so allow me to clarify what I was attempting to get at. Aside from all of the legal mumbo-jumbo (which I’m sure most heterosexual couples are completely unaware of vis-à-vis their legal rights/burdens of responsibility) the reason for marriage is primarily symbolic. As such, we must view the argument through that prism, rather than getting sidetracked into matters of legal rights.

That’s not to say that the legal rights aren’t important as obviously they are, but if we’re considering why people get married, that isn’t usually of primary importance. Gay people get married for the same harebrained reasons that straight people do, even if it’s just to have the goofy ceremony and fabulous reception after the fact. They also want that bond to be publicly and officially recognized as being legitimate and on equal footing with heterosexual couples.

If you boil this issue right down to its essence, it becomes one of acknowledging that gay people are just regular folks and deserve to be treated as such.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

RT - I'll chew on that while I ice my wrist.

Dirk said...

"Zac, you seem to want to always bring this down to a personal level. "

This is quite something, coming from the person who in this same thread, asked Zac if he was from a single-parent household. Based on what, I don't know. But Zac's question at least had merit, since he was raising the point that straight couples and gay couples share similar motivations. It also seemed like a rhetorical question, for that matter.

"I am trying to have an objective discussion."
I am not saying this to be a jerk or anything, but let me be clear:
In this thread alone, you have dismissed or ignored most of the reasonable points raised against your positions. That's not objective, nor is it a discussion.

Dirk said...

Sara:
"I get very offended when I hear I am not qualified."
I'm sure that you and your husband are doing a fine job in passing your values about human sexuality and onto your daughters and are also providing them sex education. My wife and I also intend to do the same for our kids. Our oldest is 2, so we're basically at the poop and pee stage now, as far as genitals are concerned.

That said, I know for a fact that there are many parents who are ill-equipped to provide their kids accurate and complete sex education. And that was Blake's point. He didn't say that you weren't qualified.

Because there are a good many kids who would otherwise not get sex ed in their homes, the school system must do so. I'm all for this, however, my wife and I will still talk to our kids about it, simply because they need to hear it from us too.

"If the state keeps taking over parents won't be qualified to wipe their toddlers butts."
Noone is saying that parents shouldn't talk to their kids about sex. It's just that tons of parents don't do this, so schools need to step in.

"somethings we just have to learn on our own. Sexual intercourse is one of them, health for sex is great but going into more detail is not the schools right to do so."
This is a scary idea. My mother-in-law was scared out of her tree when she had her first periods, because her mother didn't tell her what to expect. Is this what you're suggesting here? I doubt it is, but that's how it reads.

"You know the saying back off government this land is our land, well back off government these children are OUR CHILDREN...."
And these children are citizens of the state. I, for one, don't want to live in a country where a good many people walk around with little or no idea about human sexuality.

Blake said...

"If the parent is horrible CAS steps in not the nanny state."

Unless I'm very much mistaken, CAS is an arm of "the nanny state". And CAS would never step in because of poor or non-existant sex ed teaching. Ever.

Again, the need for sex education in schools has arisen becasue parents by and large were not educating their children properly. People felt that STDs, teenage pregnancies, and just plain bad sexual experiences were taking place due to lack of education.

And nobody's sayig parents are somehow inable to chip in their two cents' worth when it comes to their children's education in any regard. If parents wish to instill a certain sexual ethic in their children, so be it: just like they can go ahead and have their children instructed in grade 5 math when they're in grade 4, if they so wish. But I think when you look at what happens to societies without abundant sex ed - and especially to women in those societies - it makes it pretty clear that sex ed ought to be taught.

Yes, parents should be active in instructing their children in sexual ethics, but that does not invalidate schools from teaching it themselves.

Or, I guess you could always shelter and homeschool your kid all their life until they finally get free from that and go wild. That's always an alternative.

Sara said...

ok,

wow not to lose my temper here because you do have an honest way about it but.. I am a mom remember that ok


If you assume I am doing right by my children why are you assuming so many are doing wrong?

My youngest is 3 and she has been potty trained for quite a long time but yes I understand.

My children are not citizens of the state first then my children next, they are my husbands and MINE. No one else shall raise them but us. If we start to fail then and only then does the state interfere, do not assume I am guilty just by association of parenthood.

I was told for my own period that "Sara something is going to happen soon" at about 11 yrs of age. My children will know more but you cannot force this upon anyone. You can say here it is if you want it but to force it on someone is completely wrong. A parent has the right to raise their children in their own beliefs with no interference from the state unless otherwise proven unfit! No assumptions, no bullshit where you say well a qualified person can do a better job,, NO just mom or dad or both biological or not it equals the same answer, Love does conquer all. Most serial killers can be traced back to their parents leaving them, beating them, showing no love towards them and daycare or school would never have changed if Charles Manson used a condom on his victims or not!

I said before and I'll say again, sex ed is fine but going too far is not. Some things we have to deal with on our own. For a change assume parents do have good intentions. When and if they do not call CAS not the federal government to say create more parenting in school or daycares.

Sara said...

Zac,

why I got married?


hmmm been in love with hubby since the day I met him, I was 14 he was 15... wanted to get married but had no money, couldn't wait for marriage wanted kids really bad got preggo then jumped in the church to get married lol.. I didn't want to have my children without being married something in me just didn't. It had more to do with getting rid of my own last name than having to do it in front of god. I grew up without a dad but always had his name and I hated it. So now I have a last name I cannot even pronounce lol but I like it.

I think people get married to show love, religion, respect and get drunk... many different reasons and yah if they want to go for it but...
I can't see forcing the churches to perform the ceremony against their will a good way to do it. United church and many others do it along with the state so leave it there and if they don't like it then they can honestly start their own church for this thing.


by the way,

I didn't think you got too personal but sometimes (as I do) we get very meooowish when it comes to protecting our family and privacy. We get attacked all the time for the stuff we say..Jo, yah she jumped the gun but as I knew she would she relaxed and realized it was you and not someone else. By the way no dating your substitute mommies! lol

Joanne (True Blue) said...

You tell em, Sara! Well done.

Blake said...

"If you assume I am doing right by my children why are you assuming so many are doing wrong?"

Because they are. Plain and simple. And I think you're quick to equate "doing right" in this regard with "not allowing public schools to educate your children about sex". My parents made sure I got sex ed at school, and I think I turned out ok. A hell of a lot more balanced than TJ, at any rate.

"My children will know more but you cannot force this upon anyone."

Neither can you force kids not to learn about this. Look, most parents are very uncomfortable with teaching this material and very ill-prepared to do so in a way sensible to kids. "Something's gonna happen soon" isn't exactly A-rate teaching. Kids are going to learn about this. Would you prefer they get their information from the schoolyard, or from a teacher who's being monitored by evaluators and principals? I have a definite preference.

"A parent has the right to raise their children in their own beliefs with no interference from the state unless otherwise proven unfit!"

This is a clear case of special pleading, and therefore an invalid argument. You wouldn't make the same arguments viz. maths, sciences, or languages, so why sex ed? Teaching a child about what is happening with their body, what sex is, how it's done and what it results in, and the dangers associated with it, does not interfere with anybody's beliefs, unless you believe your child should make his/her life infinitely more painful and hard than it needs be by keeping them misinformed about the subject.

"Most serial killers can be traced back to their parents leaving them, beating them, showing no love towards them and daycare or school would never have changed if Charles Manson used a condom on his victims or not!"

Wow! Somebody stop the ignorance bus, here!

1) Nobody's talking about serial killers. We are talking about unwanted teenage pregnancies and STDs, though, along with people who get hurt during sex due to misinformation.
2) Teaching children about sex does not mean their parents will abandon and mistreat them.
3) Charles Manson didn't personally kill anybody: his followers did, on his orders.
4) Charles Manson didn't rape anybody.

I really, really don't get the whole "daycare and school would have changed if Charles Manson had..." comment. I've tried to parse it every way I know how and I'm still drawing a blank.

"Some things we have to deal with on our own."

Why does sex ed have to be one of those things, when the vast majority of parents prefer that it be taught in schools.

Dirk said...

Sara:

"wow not to lose my temper here"
I don't think I said anything that controversial...

"I am a mom remember that ok"
I think I caught that... and I'm a dad.

"If you assume I am doing right by my children why are you assuming so many are doing wrong?"
You clearly care about your kids, and about childcare related issues. So I can only assume you put your money where your mouth is. You can't possible believe, though, that all other parents take raising kids as seriously, say, as you or I do. In my neighborhood, for instance, I see three-year-olds running around without supervision. I see other kids under ten playing outside at eleven PM. I see kids with abominable manners, who throw their junk food wrappers wherever they happen to be. I could go on...

I would say that it's the norm for kids to be under-parented. And if how many parents supervise their kids or teach them manners is any indicator, then what makes you believe that all parents are equipped and willing to deal with something as tricky and uncomfortable as sex education?

I agree that all parents should talk about this, but it's true that many parents either won't or can't.

"My children are not citizens of the state first then my children next, they are my husbands and MINE."
I don't think it's a case of first or second. That's like saying I'm a son first, and a father second. I'm both. Just like my boy is a citizen and my son.

"No one else shall raise them but us."
Yes, we've got the primary responsibility to raise our kids, but it takes more than parents to raise kids: it takes a community. Schools, churches, neighbors, etc., all have some parts to play as kids grow into adulthood.

"If we start to fail then and only then does the state interfere, do not assume I am guilty just by association of parenthood."
Just because I'm advocating sex ed in schools does not indicate failure on your part as a parent. I think that's a defensive way of looking at this. If your kids are informed, great. The refresher at school can't hurt. Especially if you talk it over with them.
Another example: I believe that kids ought to have rudimentary reading skills before they start grade school. Does that mean that I feel the school system is treating me as a failure because phonics are part of the grade school curriculum? No!

"I was told for my own period that "Sara something is going to happen soon" at about 11 yrs of age. My children will know more but you cannot force this upon anyone."
That's like saying we shouldn't force math or reading on our kids. I don't see how informing kids is bad.

"Love does conquer all."
In movies, yes, in real life, not all the time.

"I said before and I'll say again, sex ed is fine but going too far is not."
Until this point, you have said that sex ed in schools is not fine. But at least I'm glad that you're in agreement now. I'm not sure what you mean by "going to far", but if you mean when curriculum gets into the realm of moral choices like premarital sex, and stuff like that, then, yes, I agree. Just the facts, please.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

And these children are citizens of the state Sounds like something Scott Reid would say.

Dirk said...

"Sounds like something Scott Reid would say."

Who cares. Really.

We're all citizens. Unless you want to want to give up your Canadian citizenship and move to Antarctica or something, you're stuck with it.

Red Tory said...

It’s a bit odd how this thread has devolved. Joanne, you never addressed my point about how legal issues are not at the root of this issue. Sarah, the government doesn’t force churches to perform marriage services. If it’s contrary to their beliefs then they have the right to refuse to provide a SSM ceremony.

I’m not sure what the problem is with sex education. It just makes plain, common sense. I’m not going to compare it to the teaching of calculus, but many parents are uncomfortable with the subject, so for the sake of public health and safety, it seams reasonable that it should be taught in school.

Speaking personally, my wife and I never had a formal, sit down “birds and bees” discussion with our kids, but just addressed their natural curiosity whenever it came up at an early age as to where babies come from and how they are conceived. They were not unfamiliar with the word “vagina” "penis" or “uterus” at a relatively early age. At the risk of over simplifying, our approach has always been one of: These are the mechanics, this is the way it works -- be nice, have fun, and play safe. I have four kids, three over the age of 20 and one who is getting close to that and things have worked out with no problems. If anything, they’re remarkably prudish (much to my surprise). Maybe we scared them…

Sara said...

sex education for health purposes is what I agree on not explaining what happens between a man and woman or woman woman or man man. I am agreeing on teaching the health reasons for it. I took sex ed but not at 7 years old nor did I hear about filatio but sooner or later it will or has come into our school and if the parent disagrees we are told to shut up. No that is not what Canada is about. Stop assuming the worst in parents. If the school tells me too bad put up with it then the state is taking over my right as a parent and that is against our own right of parents in Canada. I seem to remember it being called Russia, yes that was the name of the place that forced their citizens to do as they were told. Hmmm what happened to them?

Your views are not always the view of everyone, stop enforcing your opinion onto others unless there is an immediate danger. IF you even think you will force parents to do as you obey we will have a civil war... that I can guarentee

Blake said...

I seem to remember it being called Russia, yes that was the name of the place that forced their citizens to do as they were told. Hmmm what happened to them?

I've already mentioned that. Sex education was not allowed to be taught in the Soviet school system; it was forbidden by the regime. It ended up that a whole bunch of people got hurt, tons of people were having abortions, and STDs were all over the place. Funny thing, the regime realized how bad it was getting and then made sex ed mandatory and the situation unsurprisingly improved. I used Russia as my first example, so this shows how much attention you pay to what others are saying.

And how can you teach sex ed without teaching what happens between a man and a woman?!? I'm sorry, that's part of the package. "Here's what sex is, here are the dangers."

Sara said...

whether russia did it or not is not what I was saying, they forced so many citizens into doing what they didn't want to do. Sex ed no but everything else yes, either way they broke because of it. One size fits all plan does not and never will fit everyone. That is what I am saying... maybe you should pay attention too

TangoJuliette said...

It certainly takes a well-balanced individual to have to keep broadcasting just exactly how comparatively well-balanced that self-declared individual really is.

"I'm so smart. Not like so-and-so. I'm so well-balanced, unlike whatsisface. I'm just so gosh-darned teriffic, overall, unlike all of the other lemming on the planet."

Trying to sound very much like Cassius Clay cum Mohammed Ali, but tragically looking very much like a pale honkie version of a a buffoon.

The USSR (Soviet Union) (Russian Imperialism under a different name) started having social problems in the 1920s when they first dissolved the 'bourgeoisie' practices of religion and marriage.

Within twenty years they found that it would be advisable for the state to re-establish the 'nuclear family' concept and re-invent marriage, outside of any church environment, but with all the bells and whistles which the newly created 'Hall of Marriage' could generate.

Too little, too late.

Most of the widespread social problems throughout the Soviet Empire could just as easily be attributed to the totalitarian oppression manifested by the 'left-leaning' political superstructure, as to any combination of any number of other contributing factors.

In fact, any one specific problem within the 'Soviet' system could be easily traced back to its root causes in the politics of the revolution.

Two things they may have been good at:

1.) Maternity leave/Daycare. First seven years of each child's life.(But even that was fraught with horrendous problems stemming in the areas of job security for return to workforce after seven years, or more.

2.) Children were deemed to be more 'teachable' stating at the age of seven.

TangoJuliette said...

Wow! Somebody stop the ignorance bus, here!

3) Charles Manson didn't personally kill anybody: his followers did, on his orders.

Interesting juxtaposition of thoughts here.

The one giving the orders is 'absolved?'

The ones who were 'just following orders' are off the hook too, right?

No victims here. Just approved enemies of the leader.

Gortta love that left-leaning t***e & t*****e!!

Blake said...

"they forced so many citizens into doing what they didn't want to do...One size fits all plan does not and never will fit everyone. That is what I am saying... maybe you should pay attention too

Nobody is being forced to have sex because of sex education. I've sat through more public school sex ed classes than I can remember, and not once was I forced to have sex. All sex ed is, is the process of informing students as to the hows, whats, and whys and why nots of sex. If they choose to remain chaste until marriage, that's up to them. If they want to become sexually active earlier, that's up to them. But whatever the decision they make, at least they'll be equipped to do so responsibly.

I can't see any downside to that.

By the way, I managed to find the book. Allow me to quote an excerpt:

"[Archil Khomassuridze] is enraged by the officials in Moscow's Ministry of Health who until recently refused to disseminate any birth control information, arguing that such measures would slow down the nation's birth rate. He is exasperated because until the Gorbachev era, the prudishness imposed on the Soviet press forbade the use of such fundamental words as "menstration" or "prostitution". Such taboos, in Dr. Khomassuridze's words, have maintained "a level of national ignorance relating to all sexual matters equaled only by the most backward countries - Iraq, Iran.""

The book is entitled, Soviet Women: Walking the Tightrope. Fascinating read.

Sara said...

you aren't forcing the children to have sex, of course not... are you that mad you can't see what I'm saying....

ok here it is clearly

YOU ARE FORCING THE PARENTS TO DO IT ONLY BECAUSE YOU YOU YOU THINK IT IS RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!


I might agree with it but I do not agree with forcing anything upon them.......ITS NOT ALWAYS ABOUT YOU!

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Well said, Sara!

Blake said...

Yep, we're forcing kids to learn basic rules about sexuality for their own good. It's no more egregious than forced phys ed in the younger grades, forced math, forced sciences, forced reading, forced homework assignments.

Please stop the special pleading. If this were not a topic about sex, we wouldn't be having this argument. Or at least start being consistent and say it's not the state's business if we want our children to grow up illiterate and uncultured, so kindly allow us to do so.

Sara said...

Yep, we're forcing kids to learn basic rules about sexuality for their own good."


there you go again "for their own good"

who are you to tell me what is good for my children??? Do not force your opinion on other peoples children. THat is what I am saying! For their own good shit it was in our best interest to eat meat 3 times a day in the 50's now if we followed the canadian food guide we'd all be 400lbs of canadian bacon eh... you don't know what is for their own good unles it is for your own children not mine. I am not stupid I will make the decisions for my children and my children only!

Dirk said...

Well said, Blake!

;-)

Sara said...

yah the two of you can gang up on me and force me to do what you want me to do with my children,, NOT my instincts will kick in and kick your asses for it (not literally), it won't happen...

You cannot force a parent on how to raise their children.

Blake said...

"there you go again "for their own good""

Yeah, pretty horrible that I'd take such a despicable tack, isn't it? Worrying about people's own good - shame on me.

"Do not force your opinion on other peoples children. THat is what I am saying!"

This is a pure canard. Total red herring. The discussion here is about whether it is right or wrong for children to be left in a state of pure ignorance about sexual matters due to some moralistic agenda or people like yourself. Sex education doesn't interfere with moral instruction any more than teaching children how to use tools properly in shop class or cooking properly in domestic studies, or whatever it's called now.

"For their own good shit it was in our best interest to eat meat 3 times a day in the 50's now if we followed the canadian food guide we'd all be 400lbs of canadian bacon eh..."

So, people aren't dying from AIDS? Gonorrhea and herpes aren't being spread around teenagers? Teens still aren't getting pregnant and having abortions or dropping out of school? For crying out loud, you are oblivious to the fact that the parents who are to be so trustworthy don't seem to be doing a very good job at sex ed!

"I am not stupid I will make the decisions for my children and my children only!"

Then pull them out of school entirely. No sex ed, no math, no shop class, no science, no language and literature. Do it all yourself. Let me know how that works out for them.

This is pure pride. That's the only sticking point in this conversation at this point.

Blake said...

"You cannot force a parent on how to raise their children."

Tell that to a police officer next time you're driving around with a baby not in a car seat, and see how far that argument will get you.

Again, this whole discussion is based on special pleading. Any other subject that sex, and we wouldn't be having it. There's been zero interaction with the dangers of not instructing children on sex and its consequences. None whatsoever. But, based on the typical Christian mindset, I'm sure some people here think people who have sex in a non-perscribed way deserve to get some horrible disease, so this is hardly surprising.

Sara said...

what other people think here about gay sex is not my concern what my children are taught in school is. Have you ever read my thoughts on any of this? no, obviously not.... I actually agree to a lot as I said again and again but I would not force it upon anyone... the police officer would stop the parent if the kid was not in a seat belt but the police officer would not take the child away immediately and strap him in the back of his car now would he??? no the schools are doing this without asking the parents. I think we can all agree that a seat belt is for immediate safety but going to far with sex ed is not... when the time comes it will be needed but forcing it in the schools against the parents wishes is wrong......