Conservative Canada Apology To The World

[Liberalman]

Grant Hill former MP is keeping with Conservative party tradition and apologizing to the world for Canada’s decision to legalize same sex marriage.

An Apology to the World

To the world's leaders and people,
We, the people of Canada who support marriage solely as the union of a man and a woman, apologize to the people of the world for harm done through Canada's legalization of homosexual marriage.
We are grieved and troubled as we consider the impact this is having in weakening the fundamental institution of marriage in countries and cultures around the world. We understand that because Canada does not impose citizenship or residency requirements in order for same-sex individuals to be "married" here, couples are coming to Canada to seek legal sanction for their homosexual relationships with the intent of returning to their own countries to challenge those countries' legal definition of marriage.
We understand that Canada is seen by people around the world as a country in which public policy is developed carefully and judiciously. It would, therefore, be a natural assumption that in legalizing homosexual marriage our government and courts thoroughly considered the implications of this action through proper and extensive study of social sciences and facts. But it is essential that the people of the world understand that this was not the case. Our government and courts only considered adult "rights." Among other things, the impact on children's rights, children's education, parental rights, religious rights, adoption, the economy and family law were never fully considered. Changes were thrust upon us by court actions followed by a vote that did not allow for a free vote of every member of our federal parliament.
Our warning to you, the people of the world, is to learn from our mistakes and avoid repeating them in your own countries.
Forewarned should be forearmed.
To date, the following Canadian groups have endorsed the Apology

• REAL Women of Alberta
• British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life
• Sault Ste. Marie - CFAC
• REAL Women of Canada
• United Families Canada
• United Mothers, Fathers & Friends
• Christian Heritage Party of Canada
• Third Watch Ministries
• Father's Resting Place
• Dawn Stefanowicz - Author
• MY Canada Association
• Canada Family Action Coalition

·
http://www.restoremarriage.ca

What else does the Conservative party want to take away the Bill of Rights?

 

[sanctus]

Good for him! How brave to make such a public statement on an issue so controversial, to fly against the PC propaganda. Too bad it comes from a party I'd never vote for:-( Now if only the Liberals would take this hint....

 

[tamarin]

I've never supported gay marriage. Civil unions should have sufficed. But gays have benefited greatly from the tools of political correctness: the suppression of dissent, the broad marshalling of networks to contest opposing opinion and the clinching of key support in high political office. Homosexuality has not only left the closet in much of the West, it's fearlessly battling everywhere for positioning on our most important public platforms. It is an amazing story. Reminds me a little of L'Amour's How the West was Won.

 

[TenPenny]

An Apology to the World

To the world's leaders and people,
We, the people of Canada who support marriage solely as an issue between two people, apologize to the people of the world for harm done through some people in Canada, who feel the need to impose their beliefs on others regarding legalization of homosexual marriage.
We are grieved and troubled as we consider the impact this is having in weakening the fundamental institution of freedom to be responsible people in countries and cultures around the world. We understand that because Canada does not impose citizenship or residency requirements in order for same-sex individuals to be married here, couples are coming to Canada to seek legal sanction for the freedom to be human. Somehow, this offends a great number of people, who have an unhealthy need to interfere in the lives of others.
Why, oh why, do you people feel the need to interfere with other people's lives? What scares you about same sex marriage? Do you fear that some homosexual will force you to marry him/her/it? I don't understand your problem. How does this affect your own relationship? Why does it scare you?

 

[sanctus]

Why, oh why, do you people feel the need to interfere with other people's lives? What scares you about same sex marriage? Do you fear that some homosexual will force you to marry him/her/it? I don't understand your problem. How does this affect your own relationship? Why does it scare you?

Doesn't scare me, but it certainly concerns me. With the tenacious state of family life and marriage the way it presently is in our modern society, anything that makes a mockery out of this very institution is troublesome.

 

[tamarin]

Ten Penny, why do gays feel the need to meddle with the nature and substance of longstanding institutions and traditions? Why isn't civil ceremony sufficient? We've been over this territory a thousand times. Marriage in the West is under stress and it is the family unit that is fundamental to its prosperity and future. If gay marriage adds to that stress or diminishes the importance of such a union in our society, don't expect the future to be kind to your views on this matter. Your take is this: there are no constants, there are no absolutes - personal choice should guide our decisions; there is little merit in the common good.

 

[Sparrow]

The gay community would not have demanded legalizing their marriage if the government had opened their eyes. All they wanted were the same rights as heterosexual couples when it came to legal affairs. It would have been so easy for the gov. to make these changes and there would have been no need to legalize their marriage. I think the gov. wanted to stir up controversy, that is why they past the law. What harm would it have caused to give them those legal rights.

 

[tamarin]

Sparrow, it was my understanding the gay community already had those legal rights mentioned. What rights were denied them?

 

[Tonington]

Maybe it's just me, but I fail to see how changing the wording of legislation to give more legal rights to gay couples, who were shacking up before the law was changed, in any way will place further strain on society. All along divorces have been becoming more and more normal. The problem with marriage isn't that we're allowing gays the same access to marriage as the straight couples have, it's a societal problem. We heterosexual couples have done a fine job in this demise, it's silly to say we should be wary that homosexuals will be the ruin of marriage.

 

[tamarin]

Are there straws and are there camels' backs?

 

[tracy]

I will never get why people care so much about it. If you don't believe in gay marriage, you don't have to have one. Seems simple enough to me.

If the issue was really about the sanctity of marriage, I wonder why you don't hear anyone lobbying to make divorce illegal? That ruins half the marriages nowadays, so it would seem like it's the much bigger threat to family and marriage...

 

[Tonington]

Are there straws and are there camels' backs?

No. Though there is a rather large hump in the way every time this discussion arises.

 

[tamarin]

Tonington, you've extended the metaphor! Well done!
The gay marriage issue can be approached in many ways. I simply don't understand why in a democratic country I am being ordered to give equal status to a position, my peers, in their majority, disagree with. Why are Canadians being forced to mainstream minority opinion?

 

[Tonington]

That's just it Tamarin, you and I aren't giving anything up. I can live in the same way, love and marry as your generation did. The only thing that has changed is we allow minorities the same rights you and I have. I don't really see how my opinion matters to another couple anyways. It's their decision and their life.

As you have said so many times, there is enough government intrusion in our lives as it is, why should it be acceptable for government to intrude based on legal sexual preference?

 

[TenPenny]

Doesn't scare me, but it certainly concerns me. With the tenacious state of family life and marriage the way it presently is in our modern society, anything that makes a mockery out of this very institution is troublesome.

Makes a mockery? in what way? how? Same sex marriage no more makes a mockery out of marriage than interracial marriage does.

 

[TenPenny]

Your take is this: there are no constants, there are no absolutes - personal choice should guide our decisions; there is little merit in the common good.

No, them's your words, not mine. My take on it is, what two homosexual people decide to do has nothing to do with me. So I don't worry about it.

 

[TenPenny]

Maybe it's just me, but I fail to see how changing the wording of legislation to give more legal rights to gay couples, who were shacking up before the law was changed, in any way will place further strain on society.

Dunno, but it seems to upset the Catholic Church, and a bunch of right wing goofballs, as you can plainly see. I guess because they're threatened if anyone finds happiness and security without falling to their knees.

 

[Zzarchov]

I'd like to question the religious rights bit...
How is this an issue of religious rights other than furthering them. Some religions allow, some even hint you should be involved in, homosexual marriages.

I find it odd, so odd at the double standards. The list is full of them. I have never seen a study to chart the effects that mixed racial, mixed religious or mixed genders have on a childs development.

If a study was done, and it turns out that children raised by homosexual parents turns out far superior to children raised by heterosexual couples.
Would they then support banning heterosexual couples from adopting? from marrying?
They claim you need to know if they are equally capable, if they fail they should not be allowed. Does this mean that if they are tested and surpass heterosexual couples that heterosexual couples should be banned?
Or is this just words and they really mean " Darrr...I hate fags" and they don't want to come off as racist bumpkin hillbillies.

 

[gc]

Why the heck would the rest of the world care what a sovereign nation like Canada does within it's own borders and does not affect anyone else???

....then again, why would Canadians care what other people do that has absolutely no effect on anyone else????

 

[gc]

Doesn't scare me, but it certainly concerns me. With the tenacious state of family life and marriage the way it presently is in our modern society, anything that makes a mockery out of this very institution is troublesome.

How does two loving people of the same sex coming together in marriage make a mockery of marriage? In other words, how is heterosexual marriage affected, or threatened by homosexual marriage. I'm sorry if you have heard this question a million times, but seriously I can not understand this position no matter how hard I try. I'm hoping you can shed some light on it for me.

If anything, I would say THIS makes a much, much bigger mockery of marriage than homosexual marriage. But then again, I say to each his/her own....