It's OK to discriminate against gays and lesbians...

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

....accroring to Alberta's Premier, it's OK to discriminate against gays and lesbians:

Quote:

"I have friends who are gays and friends who are lesbian and they're wonderful people," Klein said Monday. "I do feel that gays and lesbians ought not to be discriminated against in any other form other than marriage because I think that marriage is a sacred thing that exists between a man and a woman."

Link

This man has been supported for over a decade by our right-wing, redneck province...in spite of such views. It's embarassing.

Views on the disabled:

Quote:

Alberta Premier Ralph Klein added fuel to the furor created by his remarks over the province's program for the severely disabled, saying "severely normal" people don't want to talk about it.

Link

Higher Education:

Quote:

Over the last year, he has snapped at reporters, berated a Liberal MLA who requested his travel receipts and been accused of plagiarism in an essay on Chile, leading political watchers to question whether the testy Klein has become bored with his job.

Link

Homelessness:

Quote:

His alcohol abuse had never been made public until a few years ago, when Klein was being driven home after a late-night party. His car was going past a homeless shelter when Klein told the driver to stop the vehicle. The Alberta premier stepped out of the car and gave the homeless people in the shelter a tongue-lashing. In his rant, Premier Klein scolded the homeless people for not trying hard enough to get jobs, despite the improvements he made to Alberta's economy

Link

It's such a shame that people like Klein (and his American counterpart, Bush), can drum up so much public support in the face of so many personal deficiencies.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,715 • Replies: 26

No top replies

I can't speak for Canadian point of view, but from my own personal point of view, I would agree with Alberta's premier regarding homosexual marriage.

My own personal opinion would be to provide benefits to all unmarried couples in the form of Civil Unions but reserve marriage for one man and one woman. The gender of those "unmarried" couples is irrelevant as it sould apply to ALL couples.

0 Replies

I know we've talked about this before, but marriages are civil unions in the sense that they are civil contracts. I really don't know what the difference is between a civil union and a marriage unless you are talking about a religious cermony, in which case that would be up to the respective congregations.

0 Replies

I believe the American counterpart would be a governor, not the President.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

I know we've talked about this before, but marriages are civil unions in the sense that they are civil contracts. I really don't know what the difference is between a civil union and a marriage unless you are talking about a religious cermony, in which case that would be up to the respective congregations.

Yep-we've beaten this one to death before. Since local law recognizes "marriage" as a civil contract between one man and one women, it extends beyond the religious aspect of the debate.

I am a traditionalist and this is one tradition I would rather not see changed as a result of a insignificant (here comes trouble) minority looking for political correctness. They should not be discrimination regarding proterty ownership et. all, but the civilized world has recognized marriage as one man and one woman. That seems to have worked well.

0 Replies

I don't think they are looking for political correctness so much as they are looking for similar legal perks and protections. But I'll let this go as this thread is probably about more than the gay marriage issue.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I believe the American counterpart would be a governor, not the President.

I think candid was talking about a lack of compassion, understanding, and intelligence in his comparison...

...not the level of their respective political positions.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
I believe the American counterpart would be a governor, not the President.

I think candid was talking about a lack of compassion, understanding, and intelligence in his comparison...

...not the level of their respective political positions.

....Bingo.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
I believe the American counterpart would be a governor, not the President.

I think candid was talking about a lack of compassion, understanding, and intelligence in his comparison...

...not the level of their respective political positions.

....Bingo.

0 Replies

Ohmygod ! ! ! Yer kiddin', right? wrote:

It's OK to discriminate against gays and lesbians...

Whew, what a relief, i thought we were gonna hafta be nice to 'em forever . . .

0 Replies

The guy in the article really worded that badly. Its not OK to discriminate ..except...

<shakes head>

0 Replies

Don't know the politician in question and don't care. However, I do have concerns about the indescriminate abuse of the excellent word, "discriminate".

In my squadron days I discriminated against poor pilots, occasionally causing some to find another profession. For the last few years I have discriminated against poor engineers, chemists, geologists, and most severely against poor managers. In some cases the source of their poor performance was likely in sime of the lifestyle choices they had made, not necessarily sexual habits, but whatever it might have been that led otherwise competent people do perform poorly in their professional jobs.

"Discrimination" is not in itself evil or even undesirable. On the contrary it is how we make things better than they were.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Don't know the politician in question and don't care. However, I do have concerns about the indescriminate abuse of the excellent word, "discriminate".

In my squadron days I discriminated against poor pilots, occasionally causing some to find another profession. For the last few years I have discriminated against poor engineers, chemists, geologists, and most severely against poor managers. In some cases the source of their poor performance was likely in sime of the lifestyle choices they had made, not necessarily sexual habits, but whatever it might have been that led otherwise competent people do perform poorly in their professional jobs.

"Discrimination" is not in itself evil or even undesirable. On the contrary it is how we make things better than they were.

I never said that discrimination was inherently bad.
If we regard discimination as being "unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice", rather than,as you state, lack of experience or entry levels of understading of concepts and practices, or poor craftsmanship, then you have a valid point.
But if someone is denied a marriage license, and clearly on the receiving end of discrimination, then the issue requires further examination.

Although you stated that you cared not who the politician was, perhaps you should take the time to examine his policies, his prejudices and his public gaffes...not to mention his grade 10 education, and you may see my point more clearly.

0 Replies

candidone1 wrote:

But if someone is denied a marriage license, and clearly on the receiving end of discrimination, then the issue requires further examination.

But if marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman undertaken for their mutual and individual benefits and for the potential purpose of bearing and raising children, then if the applicant for said license is a pair of people of the same sex, there is no unfair discrimination in any sense at all. The pair have merely applied for something for which they are not eleigible.

We don't give electrician's licenses to plumbers: we give them to qualified electricians. If some plumbers suddenly decided that they must be henceforth called and licensed as electricians by all, or they would consider themselves to be the victims of unfair discrimination, we would naturally view their action as absurd. It is true that they would in effect be prohibiting the distinction or discrimination previously made between plumbers and electricians. However the distinction between the professions is meaningful, and we have a right to make it. Same goes for homosexuals who wish to prohibit others from making a meaningful distinction between their unions and others. There is a difference and we have a right to make the distinction.

There is no shortage of narrow-minded, ignorant people of every persuasion on most social and political issues. I have no doubt the politician you cited is as bad as you say. However, like other ill-informed bullies who wish to impose their prejudicies - or concepts of what is politically correct - on others, he represents only himself.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

There is no shortage of narrow-minded, ignorant people of every persuasion on most social and political issues.

Quote:

...Same goes for homosexuals who wish to prohibit others from making a meaningful distinction between their unions and others. There is a difference and we have a right to make the distinction.

Terrific juxtaposition of ideas.

Very appropriate.

But you really shouldn't be so hard on yourself. It's probably just a result of your upbringing.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

candidone1 wrote:
But if someone is denied a marriage license, and clearly on the receiving end of discrimination, then the issue requires further examination.

georgeob1 wrote:
But if marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman undertaken for their mutual and individual benefits and for the potential purpose of bearing and raising children, then if the applicant for said license is a pair of people of the same sex, there is no unfair discrimination in any sense at all. The pair have merely applied for something for which they are not eleigible.

And it was tradition that Rosa Parks broke, in spite of not being "qualified" to take a seat at the front.
It was a tradition that was broken when Christmas became a Holiday Season.
Old words take on new meaning as time passes, thus rendering "traditional definitions" moot points in and of themselves.

The fact of the matter is not that any "tradition" is being broken, or that we should be slaves to definitions, rather, the religious right feels threatened by a group they perceive to be abominations of the human race.

georgeob1 wrote:
We don't give electrician's licenses to plumbers: we give them to qualified electricians.

So what then, are the qualifications gays lack?

....more later, I have a child to attend to.

0 Replies

Frank,

A characteristic attempt to be both offensive and funny at the same time. However, even by your standards, it wasn't much.

Candididone1,

Don't know what tradition has to do with the question. A distinction between groups of otherwise like things exists or can be made if there is a meaningful difference between them, The passage of time doesn't change that at all. The key issue is whether or not it is appropriate to use a particular distinction as a basis for action. Clearly we have not thought for a very long time that differences in complexion are a suitable basis on which to assign seats in a bus. Such a connection is clearly arbitrary in that it has no relevance whatever to the use or design of a seat, or a bus, for that matter.

However sexual unions of people of the same sex are meaningfully different from those between men and women, in that, children can be produced in the latter, while they cannot in the former. The production, care, and rearing of children have long been considered a proper concern of both community and government. This is an obviously fundamental and important consideration that, in my view, makes it entirely reasonable to act on this distinction. Certainly you have offered no persuasive argument that it would be unreasonable to take any action based on such a distinction.

Note that I am not denying the right for homosexuals to form such unions. I am merely affirming my right to note the distinction between them and marriages between men and women, and the community's right to act on that distinction, in keeping with its past practices with respect to the rearing of children in families

0 Replies

Your remarks, O'George, imply that the institution of marriage is predicated upon reproduction. It is not. It's entire function as a social ceremony is for the preservation and/or transfer of property, and rights in property. Until quite recently in European history, and especially in Protestant nations, the majority of parents were not married to one another--and until quite recently, the majority of parents had no property or rights in property to an extent which would interest society. Your statement: . . . and the community's right to act on that distinction, in keeping with its past practices with respect to the rearing of children in families.--is nothing more than an attempt at the imposition of a contemporary religious value on an aspect of the social contract which has never been concerned with religion.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Don't know what tradition has to do with the question.

I mentioned tradition because we have been bombarded with the language of "traditional definition of marriage", and the governemnts who oppose such unions wrangle themselves around that nebulous concept in an attempt to make gays exempt.[/quote]

georgeob1 wrote:

A distinction between groups of otherwise like things exists or can be made if there is a meaningful difference between them, The passage of time doesn't change that at all.

So I don't misunderstand...elaborate on this please.

georgeob1 wrote:

The key issue is whether or not it is appropriate to use a particular distinction as a basis for action. Clearly we have not thought for a very long time that differences in complexion are a suitable basis on which to assign seats in a bus.

And perhaps in some time, we will not see one's sexual orientation as the basis by which marriage licenses are doled out.
Clearly the passage of time is relevant, as you have just indicated above.

georgeob1 wrote:

However sexual unions of people of the same sex are meaningfully different from those between men and women, in that, children can be produced in the latter, while they cannot in the former. The production, care, and rearing of children have long been considered a proper concern of both community and government. This is an obviously fundamental and important consideration that, in my view, makes it entirely reasonable to act on this distinction. Certainly you have offered no persuasive argument that it would be unreasonable to take any action based on such a distinction.

My persuasive argument would follow the standard lines of an individual in my position: the sole and identifying feature of marriage is not to reproduce, married heterosexual couples are not required by law to procreate, marriages are about love, property ownership and transference, committment etc. which are not unique to heterosexuals...and on and on.
This is standard fare, and I expect you have heard the contentions from both sides...likewise, I am unsatisfied with any of the arguments from those who sopport a ban on gay marriage.

georgeob1 wrote:

Note that I am not denying the right for homosexuals to form such unions. I am merely affirming my right to note the distinction between them and marriages between men and women, and the community's right to act on that distinction, in keeping with its past practices with respect to the rearing of children in families

Bolded words wouldn't constitute...tradition, would they?

*edited to change quote attribution*

0 Replies

Interesting assertions Setanta. I think you are grossly exagerating some relatively minor and local phenomena. Don't know exactly what you meant by "recently", but I do note that Homer was fairly clear about parentage and familial relations in his heroic tales about Mycenae and Troy. Surely you aren't attempting to deny the procreative aspect of marriage? Certainly the transfer of property (and in former ages, feudal rights) from one generation to another has always been an important component of (and sometimes motive for) the process of producing and rearing children. However there have always been numerous other ways of conveying property from one person to another. Civilizations of all types have devised numerous means of documenting and transferring ownership of property, of which these aspects of marriage are only one. Thus it is as false to say, 'marriage is all about property', as it is to say, 'property is all about marriage'. (One could substitute 'procreation' for property in that pair of phrases just as well. However, I assume you are not advocating the end of monagamous (or reasonably so) marriage as a preferred social institution.

Further, I certainly don't propose to deny property succession rights to unions among homosexuals.

We are left with my earlier assertion that there is indeed an objectively real distinction to be made between unions of homosexuals and marriages of men and women, and that based on long-standing norms of social behavior and legal practice, it is appropriate for government to take certain actions based on that distinction. Certainly I have seen no meaningful argument here that would deny the appropriateness of any such action based on it.

0 Replies

It's OK to discriminate against gays and lesbians...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know