Friday, September 01, 2006

As the Great Canadian Social Experiment Evolves...

Ontario children may end up being allowed to have more than two legal parents.
(H/T Lifesite.)

Isn't it going to get a bit crowded on 'Meet the Teacher Night'?


* * * *

Doggerel Party has also picked up on this.

68 comments:

Cherniak_WTF said...

Can't you find a better "newsource" than a Press Release from Lifesite?

The torturous logic was enough to make me cantankerous...

SUZANNE said...

A press release? It's an article.

So what happens if Heather has 2 Mommies and 3 Daddies? What happens if Heather's 2 Mommies and 3 Daddies disagree over schooling, where she should live, what town they should live in, etc? Do they go to court over this?

TrustOnlyMulder said...

When I was a kid we could have more than one person be legally responsible for us. But one was mom, one was dad, and the rest were legal guardians.

I guess the terminology of mom and dad are now under attack.

Lovely.

Here we go down the slippery slope. This is just the first step towards legalizing polygamy.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

This is just the first step towards legalizing polygamy.

Ah, but they said that would never happen, right? And of course we believe what we are told, like good little lemmings.

Cherniak_WTF said...

good little lemmings
Yes you are....

There are natural (here's that Natural Law again) of occurrence of polygamy...
Most biblical laws allowed polygamy and recognized it's existence without such harsh criticism. Certainly the sola scriptura crowd would agree with that.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Most biblical laws allowed polygamy and recognized it's existence without such harsh criticism.

I assume we're talking Old Testament here.

Anonymous said...

Keep in mind that the new-age No-Faulty Divorce changes have screwed children out of being the main Focus in creating a Family.

For every Divorce or common-law break-up where kids are created , there are usually 4 Grandparents and with each new child with the nexy partner it add 2 more grandparents where the oldest child sees 6 visitors wanting to access them for Birthdays , Christmas, Summer breaks and to visit them on their Birthdays as a family event for Gramma and Pappa.

If these selfish people treating new Humans as a Social experiment would just think back to their childhood to remember how it was the little things in life that mattered , kids have no concept for how Money works or why Daddy need a lawyer just to seem them twice amonth.
The "Single-Mom" tag has gone from a subtle reference to avoid "Judgemental" tones in a definition of a Fatherless home, to a current day Lifestyle choice
with demands for State-run child-care by the atheistic Socialists that now re-defined a 'Parent' or 'Parents' .
I won't be the least bit surprised at a Echo-effect 30 years from now where those kids with little feelings for Attatchment to others will solve the Health-care burden by re-defining who qualifies as having value,and my generation won't see the cronic-care phase because euthanasia for financial benefits will merely complete the circle of Life since Abortion on demand is the new norm in their lives.

Remember this....society doesn't always change for the better, but the good intentions
can erode basic Human-Values and one day somewhere down the road a Judge will side with the absurd because that Judge only sees the minor deviation from their perception of reality and not the Judge's versions that came befor them and will come after them.

Anonymous said...

Pastoralists in a low margin economy that valued donkeys higher than women.

counter-coulter said...

TrustOnlyMulder said...
Here we go down the slippery slope.


Speaking of slippery slopes:

SUZANNE said...
So what happens if Heather has 2 Mommies and 3 Daddies? What happens if Heather's 2 Mommies and 3 Daddies disagree over schooling, where she should live, what town they should live in, etc?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Wow! Anonymous. That is amazing food for thought. I wish you would use some other kind of handle though.

PGP said...

Kudos... we have an anonymous thinker in the mix......this must be an anon that we have not met yet!

Joanne (True Blue) said...

A very smart Anon, though!

What I find disturbing about this whole thing is that you are already sentencing this kid to a divorce-type arrangement with parents fighting for visitation rights, etc.

How is that in the best interests of the child? Oh yeah. That's right. Kids don't vote.

Anonymous said...

What should the status of women be? Barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen!

liberal supporter said...

I forgot my decoder ring, so I can't really figure out what anon wrote. I saw Focus and Family capitalized in the first sentence, but the comment is so laced with code words, it is difficult to follow.

But I checked the lifesite article. I am most relieved. The code is much more obvious there. We don't hear about about Mr. Justice Roy McMurtry, but Activist Judge Roy McMurtry.

Somehow, adding an extra name to a form is harming children. They don't explain why, we are just supposed to know. Somehow this is polygamy. The only sources I could find about this are various right wing special interest groups. They all talk about how crazy and abnormal it is to have two mothers. I'm sure adoptees would be thrilled to know the verdict on their normalcy.

Many children have only one parent registered, and often the new mother must go to court to force some guy to have DNA tests, so he can be recorded and required to pay child support. What's wrong with registering other people who agree to have a parental relationship with a child?

Do these "lifesite" people now think being a godparent is evil? An adopted parent doesn't quite cut it? Though I do believe that in court cases, they will lean towards any biological parent, unless they gave up their rights. Even then, biological parents had been known to interfere in adoptive families, which is why the records are sealed until the child grows up.

I think this is the same Roy McMurtry who, as Attorney General for Ontario was hanged in effigy outside 52 division in Toronto during the gay bathhouse raids.

Yes, even a Conservative, going back to Bill Davis days, appointed Chief Justice during the Harris government, can learn.

But lifesite says:
"Once again the needs of children in Canada are being placed a distant second to the personal wants of Canadian gay activists."

Yep, it's always about saving the children isn't it? The children's "needs", the queers' "wants"

vicki said...

anon(with the status of women question):if that is her choice...sure! I preferred slippers in the kitchen when I baked with my kids...or barefoot in the garden. I gave up the pantihose...some do...some don't...whatever...it was my choice and btw... my husband didn't force it on me!!!

Red Tory said...

This is just the first step towards legalizing polygamy.

Next stop... man on dog sex!

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Red, you seem to have some kind of fascination with that topic. Tell us more...

Anonymous said...

I don't know where to start with some of the comments about my comment above , as for the Capital letters for Foucs and Family it is normal to do that for proper names or titles .
I've seen daily errors in Newspapers by columnists or proof-readers , this is from the dumbing down in Schools and the new mind set for Sports where everyone gets a Medal as to not offend or hurt the feelings of those with shortcomings.
My apparent vagueness or Code-Words are normal when opining about a social value where I'm defending my view and not attacking
individuals from an existance negative bias , plus , since Canadians love to cite the U.N. Charters to push their views within Canada, I can only tell you that our Same-Gender allowance for marriage is a violation of the U.N. Charter Of Right's for children if creating a family
is the intent.
The fact is that two males need to use a "Rent-A-Womb" service and two females need a "Sperm-Donor" , this situation creates a Single-Biological Parent from the females using external means to have the baby , and....the males if one of them is supplying the sperm.

The idea of using orphans to back the basis for allowing Same-Gender marriages is a really bad example, this assumes the yardstick for measuring a Social value never aspires to the 2-Parent Male/Female model for the maximum chance of success for the child in the adult years.
Marriage is a Social-value , not a Human Right , so now that it's been reduced to the Feelings of two Persons the next fight will be to question why more than two persons Can't be a Family or even considered Parents.

I only posted an opinion based on my experience and what may happen in the future by a slow deviation from our original vision of Canada's make-up and ideals .
Try to imagine building a house and you cut long section of board or beams that are off by 1/10000th of a inch ( 25mm in a inch) , the results may not even be noticed over those short distances and the Blueprints could also be out by small amounts in the schematic drawings , BUT , if you were flying to Pluto and diviated by the same 1/10000th of an inch for Computer calculations you will be off by 1" for every 10'000 inches traveled forward .
So what's the big deal of a few inches here and there, well it's that fact that Pluto is so far away in Distance+Time that when you reach the point where Pluto should be in sight ,you missed it by millions of miles since you and Pluto were moving in Time and a "Diviation" turned into a massive error in the future.
Just replace Pluto with Canada's
expected version of reality in the distant future, then replace the deviation error to fly to Pluto with the Social value change from the previous norm.
Now tell me that the Canada we know today will be in the exact spot in the future that we assume it will be after years of travel through time and distance , my bet is that in 25-30 years from now we will be so far off the mark that Canada won't be close to where the calculations assumed it would be in its orbit .
Neville Chamberlain visioned 'Peace in our time' because he assumed Hitler would keep his promise to stay the course and not deviate from his plan for Germant in the future, 50 million deaths later WW2 ended with a Germany that wasn't even close to it's original direction in the pre-1937 Government.
Who would have thought in the early 1990's that Bob Rae would be running for the Leadership of the Federal Liberal in 2006.
party of Canada

Joanne (True Blue) said...

O.K. Way too many anonymous' here. The last one is making my brain explode!

I will need to reflect on this for a while. Great analogy about Pluto!

Joanne (True Blue) said...

What's wrong with registering other people who agree to have a parental relationship with a child?

Great! Let's register 10 people per child, and then shuffle him or her around to everyone. At Christmas they have to take turns, so real Mom will be seen every 10 years.

Give me a break.

Cherniak_WTF said...

Now RT, I think bestiality is tolerated in Canada (as long as no minors are present).
http://www.interpol.int/Public/Children/SexualAbuse/NationalLaws/csaCanada.asp
Bestiality in the presence of a minor or the inciting of performing bestiality by a minor is strictly prohibited by subsection 160(3), which reads as follows

Man on dog marriage is the one you are going for, no?

Anonymous said...

Joanne:

By now you figured out that I'm no fool and Politicians that
try to sell me their "Good Intentions" won't get off lightly with me just accepting the spin .
I have posted comment on other forums and use false personas to avoid Yahoo's following me to post rude retorts and make criminal allegation against me, there are some real shallow people out there and all they need is enough brain cells to use the internet .

btw, I didn't call Pluto a planet
since its recent demotion to a planetoidish orb beyond Neptune , the orbit for Pluto is such that from about 1978-1999 Neptune was the farthest Planet from our sun
but that's a moot point now and Neptune regains the title .

Red Tory said...

Joanne –- As I’ve said before, the expression comes from Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) who invoked this ridiculous slippery slope argument when advocating against gay marriage.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Red, I know. I was just trying to 'stir the pot' a bit. ;)

Mary said...

Since some people love dredging up things from the Old Testament, here; is a quote from the O.T. that I love.
It is from Ecclesiastes, Chapter 10, V:2, NIV, which reads:

"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."

I think that this applies, not only to a lot of life in general but also to politics as well.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Good one, Mary! lol!

I think Anne Coulter would agree with you on that one.

doug said...

testing other identity option

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Welcome, Doug. Always glad to have someone new join up. I assume you were one of the previous anon's.

It's always better to have your own handle, for the sake of consistency.

Just a word of warning - some of the guests here are very polite and others not so much. The only thing I won't allow is over-the-top, mean-spirited attacks on particular people, and the use of vulgarity.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

And when I say "particular people" I mean individual guests, or obvious over-the-top racism, etc.

Dianne said...

Marriage defined as between any two persons is destructive to the function and uniqueness of the traditional natural marriage of a man and woman, to families, and to the raising of children.

A child must feel confused when he or she is told they have two mothers or two fathers. They know
that is a lie that each child must have a mother and a father to exist. Who really are their parents?

Sexual issues are challenging enough for young people without the state/law endorsing the false notion of marriage between any two same sex people or multiple persons.

We see many adopted children searching for their birth parents. This is going to lead to major confusion.

You are correct Joanne about the slippery slope. It leads to the destruction of our society, the fall of the Canadian Empire.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Yes, Dianne, if more than the two biological parents are registered, then the whole issue of hereditary diseases, etc. becomes even more complex and muddied.

This is definitely not in the best interest of the child, but as I mentioned before, nobody seems to care much about that these days.

Red Tory said...

Here's another perspective that you may (or may not) find interesting.

And here's something that will allow you to rattle on about "activist judges."

By the way, that Pluto analogy was the most ridiculously absurd thing I’ve heard in a good long while.

liberal supporter said...

Well well, I was hoping to see comparisons to Hitler invoked sooner or later, and it only took 18 comments for some anon to do so. Typical. Right after Hitler, we see Bob Rae mentioned. I always thought we're suppose to connect Bob with the commies, not the fascists.


Mary, why do you quote NIV? Some consider it heretical, partly because of its corruption of such things as Ecclesiastes 10:2. Here is the KJV:

"A wise man's heart is at his right hand; but a fool's heart at his left."

How about the "Basic English" version?
"The heart of the wise man goes in the right direction; but the heart of a foolish man in the wrong."

The Latin word for left (the direction, the hand) was "sinister". Coupled with the fact that 90% of people are right handed, trying to use the "wrong" hand is difficult, with most things made for right handed people.

So I think the Bible is referring to right and wrong, not names of political views.

The one and only thing I ever found annoying about homosexuals, is that they hijacked a word, "gay" which meant cheerful or happy, to mean homosexual. Since most homosexuals are relieved when then come out, and most seem reasonably happy, the word "gay"'s original meaning is not being entirely hijacked as well.

Not so for the political "right". The word "right" is a direction and name for a hand, but also is used to mean "correct". Bizarrely, the word "correct" is now usually coupled with "political" as a name to call something that is deemed by you to be wrong.

So doing the correct thing is now wrong according to you, and radical authoritarian political views call themselves "right". Originally meant to indicate there are two sides which meet at the centre, the "right" now loves to portray themselves as being "in the right", as opposed to "left", being "wrong" or "evil".

And we even see comments about the "natural law", which of course is "right", just because it's natural. Most arguments of the "right" boil down to "because it's right". They seldom bother to say "because I think it's right". They prefer to claim there are absolutes, but like the Absolut vodka, they take the shape of whatever container they are in. Unlike the vodka, they make up a container to suit themselves, and claim it as the absolute.

And when anyone disagrees with you, the dissenters don't care and are heartless (and usually evil as well).

But of course, the heart is in the left side of the body...

Cherniak_WTF said...

Well, now I’m amused by Dianne wood – seems that you are in full Jesus mode…
Define marriage by the way you feel about it, but don’t impose your views on others – it’s that simple. SSM will not lead to the destruction of society, you can find your rapture elsewhere, please.
Children are much more tolerant than you are. Some societies have done well with “communal” parents in the past – the only problem I see, are the views that you are trying to impose on all.
Your arguments seem to fall into “it’s right because I say so” – meh….

Anonymous said...

Joanne :

Maybe I missed the basis for my post on Deviation , Liberal Supporter appears to have a greater skill at English Comprehension than I have since I tried to convey the dangers of subtle Deviations over Time and I'm now accused of linking Hitler to Bob Rae.

I believe the people of Germany kept their Leader in power because of a slow morphing of values and Deviating from the 1932 concept
of the Fatherlands traits that reflect the peoples desires, my experience in public speaking taught me about the intent of an opinion based on what words had the accent or where you put the separations of thought and main points to a theme.
Because of this I really never
learned the Media-Style reading of a fresh-copy story , as a Musician
I know enough about sheet music to read the universal language symbols
and abbriviated words to discribe moods and sound volumes , but typing out my opinion is more a challenge to the reader which may
need to review it once my conclusion creates a Context for hindsight.

I thought I concluded an opinion and added a Tag-Line of irony for thought, after all...even Bob Rae would have laughed at someone musing about if he would ever run for the Federal Liberal Leadership .

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Red, thanks for the links. Very interesting. Perhaps others would like to check them out & comment.

even Bob Rae would have laughed at someone musing about if he would ever run for the Federal Liberal Leadership

I certainly find it laughable.

TrustOnlyMulder said...

RT

Santorum Schmantorum. If you make it legal for a child to have five parents then the legal fine line between what the relationship of those parents to each other becomes very ambiguous.

So you can try to downplay the situation by comparing it to strong images like man on dog sex, but the fundamental issue of describing the relationship between those parents will still exist.

And the gradual change that anon discusses WOULD eventually get to man on dog sex or marriage.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Mulder - I agree with this much - once we start allowing the possibility that a child could have more than two legal parents, I really fail to see the argument against polygamy, especially if it is practised according to religious and cultural convictions.

We know it is already happening all over Canada, and the only time the authorities even consider prosecution is if minors are being forced into these "marriages".

If the Left wants us to consider the decriminalization of prostitution based on the fact that it is already happening, and protections need to be in place for the 'disadvantaged women', then why not for the women involved in a polygamist relationship?

I'm talking about adults in a consenting relationship here. And don't get me wrong - I am not in favour of polygamy, but I don't get the rationale behind keeping it as a criminal offence.

Sara said...

I only had 1 mom and it would of been nice having more but hey I was lonely without a dad

Sara said...

I believe the 2 parents should be the parents gay or not and the other two can be legal guardians.. if that is how it could work

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Sara, that courts won't buy that because it makes too much sense.

Daristotle said...

With divorce and remarriage many children have more than two parents.
The most important things children need are:
* The basic physical necessities
* A loving family
* Instruction
* Difficult challenges
* Praise for success in meeting
these challenges
* Encouragement when they fail
(if the challenges are
difficult they will often fail
at first)
* Stability
* Responsbility
* The ability to make choices
and gradually take control of
their lives
* Rules and boundaries on their
behaviour
* Discipline for violating
the rules and boundaries
This reslts in children who value themselves and others. How many parents do you need? It doesn't matter.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Daristotle, well that's interesting. And much of it I agree with. Your premise, then is that the number of parents doesn't matter, as long as everything else is in place, right?

Isn't there a potential for a problem though, when some of these various "parents" disagree on certain things? I guess that is why we have courts, but doesn't it set up the possibility of the child feeling some kind of push and pull regarding the conflict, if it isn't resolved in an amicable and fair fashion?

Mary said...

Thank you liberal supporter for your comments on my post and I always find your comments interesting and informative. So, I in turn am attempting to clarify some of my thoughts and comments.
By the way I love my NIV bible and don’t consider it heretical.

It’s not about whether the human heart is on the left side of the body or about left or right hands. It’s about our human thinking and our human and struggle with our deepest heart felt inclinations. It is about how the heart is inclined toward or away from God. By the heart I mean, the struggle in living in right relationship with him or away from and opposed to him. The farther a person drifts from God, the more he or she wanders onto the left side of the path of life away from God.

Man wanting his independence from God goes through all kinds of twists and turns to get away from his counsel and in the end opposes him to gain what he thinks is his total freedom to do whatever a man or woman wants to do when they want to do it.
To me the inward struggle is all about trying to see life from God’s point of view or man’s point of view. So again to me, it is all about following the human heart’s perspective or inclinations and following those inclinations to their end, the resulting choice is; whether it is going to the right toward God or to the left turned inward toward himself or herself.

Hey, I have a new bible verse for you to take apart: Mark 7, verses 20 to 23..

You may call all this right wing fundamentalist bible thumping thinking, but I call it peace, safety, love, joy, respect, kindness, faithfulness and the family that dwells in that rests in God’s everlasting arms.

Red Tory said...

TrustOnlyMulder -- I wasn’t really trying to downplay the situation, more just mocking the hysteria that surrounds this issue and most especially the ridiculous slippery slope arguments often invoked to make the case of those who advocate the case for the traditional definition of marriage.

How, may I ask is this so-called “social experiment” really any different from the case of a child whose parents have been divorced several times over? (Perhaps this point has already been made, in which case, apologies for the repetition.) Do they not have multiple parents –- all within the confines of the traditionally accepted definition of marriage?

Life is full of ambiguity, confusion and complexity. Get used to it.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Red, I'm a bit confused about all this too, but I believe the issue focusses around what's on the birth certificate.

Another thing is what was in the original contract between the sperm donor and the lesbian mother? It seems to me that the contract should be honoured, or am I missing something here?

Daristotle said...

Joanne's point about disagreements among parents is covered under stability. I could have used the word consistancy which would give a slightly different emphasis to my point. Either way it is not guarenteed with even one parent. Think of a single parent addicted to drugs or alcohol, or a manic-depressive parent. Many other less extreme examples could be given. Disagreements between two traditional parents are common. The same processes that rezsolve differences between two parents can be used to resolve differences between more than two. (when they are resolved at all, that is).

Dianne said...

Just a note to those who play the "religion card". Sorry to be so late in this but I was out walking in the woods.

Cherniak_WTF said...
"Well, now I’m amused by Dianne wood – seems that you are in full Jesus mode…
Define marriage by the way you feel about it, but don’t impose your views on others – it’s that simple. SSM will not lead to the destruction of society, you can find your rapture elsewhere, please."

When we come across a someone who tries to suggest that an argument in defense of sound morals is nothing but imposing a religious viewpoint, we need to look at what may really be taking place here.

Usually the person is not so concerned about the imposition of a particular view on others, they are usually trying to impose their view and usually this view is much less defensible in terms of sound moral thinking. Then they seek to short-circuit the discussion by stressing religious zealotry and imposition without ever confronting the ethical or bioethical argument itself.

What ususally happens here is that when the religious card is played, those who are Christians become weak-kneed about defending human life and sound morals, the other side then feels free to do the imposing themselves, without having expended too much effort on confronting the essence of the moral debate itself. We do not see this with those of the Jewish Faith or Muslim Faith as they do a much better job in defending their faith.

Law is fundamentally about imposing somebody's views on somebody else. It is all about imposition. It is the very nature of law to impose particular views on people who don't want to have those views imposed on them.

Car thieves do not want laws imposed on them that prohibit stealing. Drug dealers do not want laws imposed on them that make it illegal to sell drugs. But lawmakers are elected precisely to craft and impose such laws all the time.

The question is not whether we will impose something on somebody. The question is whether what is going to be imposed by the law is reasonable, just, and good for society and its members.

Some think that because religion happens to hold a particular viewpoint, that implies that such a viewpoint should never be considered by lawmakers or enacted into law. But religion teaches very clearly that stealing is immoral. Would it follow that if I support laws against stealing, I am imposing my narrow religious viewpoint on society? No. Stealing is so important to the order of society that religion also feels compelled to speak about it. Religion teaches many things that can be understood as true by people who aren't religious at all.

Atheists can understand just as well as those who are religious that stealing is wrong, and most atheists are just as angry as their religious neighbours when their house is broken into and robbed. What is important is not whether a proposed law happens to be taught by religion, but whether that proposal is just, right, and good for society and its members.

So Cherniak_WTF dont't pull the religious card on me. I will not back down. There are clear rights and wrongs that are best for society and I will work to defend them.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

My sense of what the left defines as moral and immoral or illegal, has to do with "everything is fine as long as nobody is getting hurt".

The issue then becomes, does "nobody" have any rights? (eg. unborn children, marriage commissioners, etc.)

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Sorry to be so late in this but I was out walking in the woods.

Dianne, please don't apologize for that! You must be getting much better weather than us, BTW.

Looking forward to seeing how he responds.

Anonymous said...

Mary :

I think many non-followers of Jesus misunderstand what he stood for.

First off , he came to abolish the 10 Commandments since nobody
could adhere to all of them at the same time , he spoke of Love for enemies and seeing all humans as brother and sisters under one father in heaven.
The non-Christians are looking at the Commandments in the wrong light since these are really the 10 "Freedoms" , I say this because just imagine the freedom to park your car while you left the keys
in it and nobody stole it , imagine the money for social justice and equity because Courts and Legal fees aren't used to fight a case because the criminal tell the truth and faces their due-punishment , imagine the freedom of knowing your neighbours won't try to sleep with your spouse , and the freedom for females to work late at there job because
people won't murder or harm them on their way home.

I think those type of rules give me new freedoms and the Security Of Person that our Charter has failed to do, imagine having no payment for Home Alarms, cheap car insurance with less fraud, Police that don't need guns , lower taxes to run the Country with almost no Jails or bogus SCOC cases that usually defend the selfish while ignoring the Social cost to all Citizens, and a sudden decline of aids cases as no new infection happen from a free-sex mind set with no rules.

Mary, these are freedoms to me , not oppressive commandments.

If the Jack Layton and Michael Moore types really want a separation of Church and State , then murder wouldn't be illegal because it's a faith based collective value by the public standards.
Trudeau used his Catholic vales to Create the Charter, it didn't just fall from the sky one day
and he agreed with the Rights it asserted , the Charter has gone through changes and i still predict that Humans will be on the SCOC and use THEIR version of reality and Moral suasion to define
Rights and Freedoms.

Growing up in Toronto I never heard of a local gun crime or robbery with a gun, 10pm curfews forced teenagers to be at home or a a night job, communities knew who was poor and food-Baskets helped at Christmas time, Police talked to parents before a Lawyer was needed for serious crime later in life.

I still don't know what Rights i didn't have in my Pre-charter days , but I do see the new Rights for Criminals while the victims
are left in the gutter from the hit-n-run Justice system.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

FYI, here is a great article by Margaret Somerville. I have alluded to this in previous posts, but it is worth repeating.

She advocates for the rights of children with respect to:

1. The child's right to know his/her parents and biological identity.

2. The child's right to be born from the union of one natural, unmodified ovum and one natural, unmodified sperm.

She didn't even get into the prospect of more than two parents on a birth certificate! I wonder what she would say about that.

Red Tory said...

Some think that because religion happens to hold a particular viewpoint, that implies that such a viewpoint should never be considered by lawmakers or enacted into law. But religion teaches very clearly that stealing is immoral. Would it follow that if I support laws against stealing, I am imposing my narrow religious viewpoint on society?

Better not be eating shellfish any time soon. Gotta love that old time religion…

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property."

"Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard."

"...do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material."

Well, I could go on, but you get the point. Those prohibitions from the Book of Leviticus are every bit as material as the grounds upon which fundamentalists base their objection to SSM and any number of other things. And yet IT’S IN THE BIBLE! Have ye no faith? Should not then awmakers enact a ban on poly/cotton blends in thy demonic garments because IT’S IN THE BIBLE?

Red Tory said...

p.s. Moderation sucks. (Besides, JDave is on holiday...)

Red Tory said...

Hey, it must be fun to be "Anonymous" because then you can say any crazy-ass thing you want to. You can speak for Jesus and morph his teachings into the Charter of Rights and goodness knows whatever else. If the Jack Layton and Michael Moore types really want a separation of Church and State , then murder wouldn't be illegal because it's a faith based collective value by the public standards. I can't say it on this blog, but WTF????

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I can't say it on this blog, but WTF????

If evil-twin Cherniak can use it in his handle, you can use it in a comment. Equality for all.

Daristotle said...

There are two fundamentally different ways to discuss right and wrong. One is to base your position on a particullar religious viewpoint. This is a position based on a particular moral code. It is only valid for those that share the same religious viewpoint. Both Mormons and Muslims believe polygamy is moral. Christains do not always agree on the norality of many issues, abortion, same sex marriage, and birth control are just a few of them. How can there be a productive discussion on these issues if an approach based on morality just leads to each side saying the others moral position is wrong, as demonstrated by Dianne and Red Tory?
The answer to the questian is in the second way of discussing right and wrong. It is called ethiccs. Both moral arguements and ethical arguements have a long history predating Christianity. An example of an ethical arguement is the exchange between myself and Joanne. An important thing to notice is that neither of us had to abandon our opposing moral positions to do this. An amazing thing happened. In spite of the fact that our differing basis for moral judgements couldn't even lrt us agree on who should be considered a parent, we found we were very close in what we thought a parent should do. We have developed what could serve as the basic outline of a high school couse on parenting. It also could prove very valuable in family law, as a guideline for social sevice organizations, and also in youth court cases.
I find this very exciting and tremendously positive. Instead of an attitude of "You can't even figure out what a parent is. You're hopeless!" I have an attitude toward Joanne of "We agree on so many things about parenting. There are huge numbers of ethical or moral choices hidden in those points, which we apparently agree on. I wonder why we can't seem to agree on the one little point of who should be considered a parent."
To me, this demonstrates quite conclusively the advantages of discussing issues of right and wrong using ethics instead of morality. Using moral arguements emphasises differences. Using ethical arguements for the same purposes can lead to a discovery of many simmilarities.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Daristotle, I might add that an important ingredient for productive discussion is mutual respect.

Yes, world view, religion, ethics whatever - Respect is paramount.

I enjoy your comments, BTW.

Anonymous said...

Red Tory:

Please enlightening us on why muder is Illegal , and don't retort with the usual "Because it's wrong" or "because it's against the law".

Just stick to the origin of how the Law was created and who defined murder as wrong, I'm sure if a group of pedophiles met in a Hall they would all think each other is Morally right and completely sane.
Read my post further up, I explain that people have resorted to insults and foul language by following me around the various forums.

Your tone seems very much like the persons that can't express themselves without attacking the author of an opinion you don't agree with, try arguing with the assertions and prove them wrong with a counter version of reality.
You meet nicer people that way.

Dianne said...

Well put Daristotle.

Cherniak_WTF said...

Ahh Dianne…..
Sound morals? Whose? YoursI would guess and no one else’s…
I’ve argued a “live and let live” attitude with the caveat of as long as you don’t hurt anyone else.
Your arguments boils down to “people better think like me, or they are not moral”….

I’ve respected your point of view and would hope that you’d do the same…

Moral thinking, bioethical? Such big words that mean nothing….
Law exists to protect from the tyranny of the self-righteous.
Car thieves are hurting someone – and of course should be illegal.

Joanne has it right when she states "everything is fine as long as nobody is getting hurt".

Your “clear right and wrongs” are not so clear – what you call wrong, I may call right and in no way will ever harm you.
What you want to do is impose YOUR moral code because you think that you are superior…
You use religion when it suits you, then switch to “natural law”… it the end it’s all the same BS.

Is there good in what you propose? Of course but a lot of it is mired in strange dogma.

Ethics are used to justify morals – and at that you fail because of a lack of consistency and logic in your arguments.

Dianne mentions “unborn children” – so I guess her arguments against abortion is a moral one? It is a fetus and not an “unborn child” – so the argument, in your case would be “what is the moral status of a fetus”.
By proxy, you are giving it some human equivalency - when does it become a “moral” being?
I would say when it can survive on it’s own.
You’ll tell me at “conception”
And this is where we will disagree…..

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Joanne has it right when she states "everything is fine as long as nobody is getting hurt".

Just to clarify something here, that is what I sense the world view of the Left is - Everything is o.k. so long as nobody is getting hurt. The issue then becomes, how do we discern if anyone is getting hurt? Who makes that decision?

Cherniak_WTF said...

The issue then becomes, how do we discern if anyone is getting hurt? Who makes that decision?
I have the feeling that God warriors want to make that choice for us...
What's wrong with two fags getting married?
What's wrong with smoking drugs in your own home (I'm anti-drug but defend people who partake).

What I see is that you are advocating for "you" and not those around...

Joanne (True Blue) said...

I have the feeling that God warriors want to make that choice for us...

No, the "God Warriors" don't want to make that decision, but we can't so innocently assume that our actions don't have any effect on others.

For example, let's look at swingers clubs. The Supreme Court decided that it was now acceptable to allow people to have group sex in a business establishment, where membership fees are paid. One would hope that safe sex is practised. If not, the chances of infection are greatly increased. And what about the emotional effect on the family; the children?

Smoking drugs in your own home is condoning and participating in the drug trade, which has all kinds of problems associated with it.

The gay marriage issue is something that I can't just glibly refer to here, but some Christians find the use of the word "marriage" offensive. It is almost in the same category as the Muslims being upset about the Allah cartoons. Not quite, but you get my drift (hopefully).

I could live with the civil union concept for everyone.

Abortion has a very real effect on future Canadian citizens that aren't allowed to be born.

My point is that every action has a reaction of sorts. It is sometimes up to society to decide what is best for the common good.

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

It is sometimes up to society to decide what is best for the common good.
The moderate view of that: Liberals
The fascist view of that: Conservatives
The socialist view of that: NDP

Daristotle said...

I think Joanne could start several new threads from some of the recent comments. I'm going to stick to the origional toopic (But the temptation is great to stray.) Joanne and I still disagree on the number of parents. We agree fairly closely on what a parent does. Wait a minute, what was that last part again? "What a parent does." Shouldn't everybody that does what a parent does be called a parent. This makes sense to me.
English seems to be lacking in a specific term to describe a person who actually parents a child. We have foster parent, bio-parent, etc. Let remedy the lack and say "nuturing parent. (I'm tempted to use "real parent.")
Let's look at a situation that was much more common a hundred years ago than today. Children would grow up having aunts and uncles and cousins and grandparents just a few doors or a few blocks away. The kids would be going from one house to another all the time. And they would have relationships with the adults in these houses that had all the characteristics of the parent child relationships. Children thrived in these extended, multi-parent families. The my children are your children, and your children are my children idea was very common in pioneer famjlies far from any relatives.
What worries me is that the case can be summed up by the following exchange between two three year olds.
"That's my toy and you can't play with it!"
"I can so play with it!"
That is frightening. A child is not a toy, and parents are supposed to be more mature than three year olds.
How many nurturing parents should a child have? It does't matter. And nuturing parents are the ones that really count in a childs life.

Anonymous said...

Earth to RED TORY....come in please, still waiting for answer to why Murder is illegal and morally wrong.....come in...come in please......