There has been lots of debate on this blog and countless others regarding various social issues. Some people frame them as "rights". However, Canadian values have been highjacked by the extreme left of the continuum, thanks to militant activist groups representing their particular agenda. We have been force-fed this propaganda so long, that we are afraid to speak out for fear of being labelled "right-wing religious bigot" or "against human rights" or "against equality". Oh, they did a good job alright. And we swallowed it - hook, line and sinker. Well, some of us did.
We now know the election promise of a free vote on same-sex marriage will be fulfilled in the fall. According to the Sun, MPs will simply vote "on reopening discussion of same-sex marriage, rather than directly on the existing legislation."
Most people have likely heard enough of the rhetoric from both sides and are firmly entrenched in their positions. But why can't there be a compromise? Why are civil unions not good enough for Canadian homosexuals, but they are for British gay and lesbian "rights" groups. How and why are Canadian "rights" different from those of Britain, Australia, France, Germany, etc.? These are not backward third world countries.
France seems to be even recognizing the Rights of the Child as trumping adult lifestyle choices. If the notion that gay marriage as a "human right" is such an absolute truth, how is it that so many other modern countries don't share this supposedly universal knowledge and belief? Why is it that only our Canadian Courts have this view?
Again, with abortion we have been highjacked to the extreme left thanks to feminists, women's rights' groups and Liberal judges. The right of a woman to extinguish human life at any point in her pregnancy is paramount. Yet, Canada is one of the few countries in the world without any law or restriction on abortion at all. It is even legal (but hardly ethical) to abort for gender selection.
The latest issue of the Western Standard contains a shocking article, "Canada's Lost Daughters".
In Canada, the law makes no distinction between those seeking to terminate a pregnancy because the fetus has been diagnosed with a genetic disorder, or even because it's a product of rape, and those seeking to select the sex of their fetus."
Why is the "right" of a Canadian woman to destroy her preborn child at any stage for any reason, so much more important than practically anywhere else in the world? And again, what about the "right" of the late-term aborted baby to at least not have to feel pain as it is ripped apart or stabbed in the back of the neck? We have more sympathy and "rights" groups for animals.
Middle ground, folks. That's all I'm asking for. And maybe an intervention from a few more rational and civilized countries in the hope that we can somehow become deprogrammed from all these years of leftist brainwashing.
* * * * * * *
IMPORTANT UPDATE!!!: The June 6 National Post includes a reprint of the Western Standard article on the use of abortion as a form of gender selection.
Note to militant feminists: There won't be too many women left to champion your cause if you continue to fight for the right to abort females in Canada.
Note to militant feminists: There won't be too many women left to champion your cause if you continue to fight for the right to abort females in Canada.
3 comments:
Geneva Gin, that solution seems quite reasonable about registering the marriages by a civil servant, and then getting "married" or whatever you want to call it by your denomination of choice.
It is about the word. I agree. Why isn't anyone in the government looking at this as a possible resolution to this devisive issue?
Hey Joanne,
I agree we should be looking for middle ground. Especially on abortion. On the SSM issue I think it's over and done with. I'd probably sway on the side of civil unions myself because I always thought marriage was a religious thing and never really liked that the state can declare people "married". I don't like that you can become "married" just by going to the local courthouse and signing a piece of paper. However, that's how it goes and that's the law.
On the SSM thing, it doesn't affect my life in anyway to have two females or males become married. No church is forced to marry them, certainly no catholic church for that matter. Meanwhile I can live on with my life and marry any female I choose. I don't see how SSM infringes upon your marriage or anyone elses marriage.
I guess I could be a little lefty on this issue since I belong to the United Church where we've been marrying same sex unions for a while.
Thanks for your input, Riley. I think civil unions is a reasonable compromise. Unfortunately, Egale and other GLBT activists groups as well as Liberal judges aren't willing to budge.
Post a Comment