Monday, August 15, 2005


Stay tune for some pretty good blog on this issue. Matthew Glenn was charge with Assault tonight at the Acadian gathering in front of City Hall!!!!

Acadian Vs_ Anglo-2


Michael McKay said...

Charles I think that you have gone a bit too far on this one, you probably weren't even there and from what I was listening to, you and your ego have only served to make an embarassment of yourself. I am utterly astonished that you would write something like this when you were not there to hear what was said or what happened between Matthew and the other Gentleman. You need to be more responsible when you post on issues like this. This kind of thing can get way out of hand and un-necessary damage can occur. If you could be more tactful in what you are writing then maybe people would take you more seriously. You tried to link me with what was going on, but as you noticed I did not carry any picket signs at all. Instead I was just chatting with Matthew I didn't even know what supposedly happened until Mr. Glenn mentioned it to me. So I arrived there after it happened.

You have a lot of issues in your various posts on your site and I think they are well worth the readers time, but shauty posting such as this one can only serve to harm your efforts.

I Do not say this harshly, I consider you a friend and as such I do not want to hear of you making any more problems for yourself than you need to.

Please Get all of the facts on these issues before you write about them, the whole truth needs to be told, not just your own little spin on it.

Spinks said...

Mr. Glenn has been in trouble with the law before so this isn't totally unbelievable but I would prefer to wait for the facts as well.

The unfortunate part about the Matthew Glenn/Anglo Society story is that most of what Matt says is true. If anyone ever has the chance to sit down, put prejudices aside, talk to Matt and listen to what he says and not just listen to what you want to hear, you'll probably be surprised. **NEWSFLASH** He doesn't hate French people or Acadians. His interest lies in protecting the English language and culture in N.B. The very same thing the SAANB fights for on the French side. The two really aren't different at all except for this... it's considered acceptable if the SAANB makes demands and questions language practices, but if the Anglo Society does it, they're labelled as racists and bigots often even BY THE MEDIA through slanted coverage. This is an example of biased journalism at it's best. It will be interesting to watch the coverage over the next few days on this one to see how fair it is.

Charles LeBlanc said...

hey? I consider Matthew a good friend of mine. Even if I call him a bigot! Hey? I'm also a bigot because of my dislike of Quebec! Anyway? He showed me the papers that he was charge with assault and told me the whole story. Stay tune for more. I hope the guy gets off with the charge because he is a nice guy! The guy was charge and I blogged the story! You'll see more about this in the french papers in the morning and I saw the french reporter vhat with a guy from the Gleaner so it may also be in there....

Anonymous said...

The Anglo Society is NOT about proecting the English language, because the English language is not threatened and does not need protecting. They're about wanting to put French-speakers back into a position of inferiority in this province and country, where they were for generations. They want francophones to be gratefeul for being "accommodated" in their own country and province, instead of being equal citizens.

And English culture in NB? That's a fiction! There never was any such thing! There is a history of Irish culture, and Catholic and Ptotestant culture, and lots of local cultures, like say Saint John culture or Miramichi culture, but there enver was an English culture to be protected or revived.

I have spoken to Matthew Glenn, and he resents Acadian pride, and any advances by French-speaking people. I'm not saying he hates anyone, but he definitely resents Acadian advances. I'm a unilingual anglophone myself, and not an Acadian, but I can see this clear as day.

Anonymous said...

I can heartily and happily echo and agree with 2:50AM's comments. I am also unilingual Anglophone and resent and laugh at any attempts to legitimize intolerance under the guise of "protection" of anything other than antiquated bigotry.

Anonymous said...

Glenn Matthew is a bigot and so is Spinks. Spinks constantly complains about everything on this site. Here is an opionated man who deserve to have his own site and may be he can get some admirers there.

Spinks said...

Just because someone has another point of view does not make them a bigot. English speaking people in NB are slowly losing their way of life in N.B. through reverse discrimination.

Example - French schools - If a student at a French school brings a CD with an English artist and plays it at school during a noon hour they can be suspended. This happened in Rogersville in the late 1990's. Can you imagine if a student brought a French artist CD to an English school and was suspended. CBC and the Globe and Mail would have a field day and SAANB would demand head roll. Double standards exist even if you choose to ignore them. Glenn is passionate but it doesn't make him wrong. SAANB and he are fighting for the same thing.

Anonymous said...

This is the same type of Crap we'll all be hearing on TOTT again, when it returns, and LNG.

This English, French issue should have died long ago after The Battle On The Plains Of Abraham.

To the victor go the Spoils Of War.

God save the Queen

Charles LeBlanc said...

La reine???? ughhhhhh!!!!

Anonymous said...

Spinks, francophones in NB and North America are surrounded in a sea of English, and the assimilative pressure is enornmous. (Didn't you write in opposition to assimilation somewhere on this site?) The francophone school system in NB tries to keep the school experience French so the kids will develop and keep a sense of French culture. It's not like these kids aren't surrounded by English TV, movies, radio, internet and CDs outside of school? What's the harm?

And "reverse discrimination"? What is that, anyway? I take it you mean discrimination directed at a majority. How does your example -- French students subjected to restrictions not imposed on English students -- amount to discrimination the discrimination you allege against English students?

And Glenn and SAANB are not fighting for the same thing. They are at odds. SAANB fights for the empowerment of minority group, and Glenn fights for the subjugation of the same minority.

You're right about one thing: Glenn's passion is not what makes him wrong. It's his ignorance, and his refusal to expose his "arguments" to critical thinking.

I usually enjoy your posts, which apply critical thinking to the anti-government, anti-business, anti-intellectual postings to which so many of the posters here are inclined. But on this issue, as on a few others (CBC comes to mind) you're demonstrating as much bias, ideology and ignorance as those people.

Spinks said...

I like to view it as another point of view (granted not one that's shared by many) and not a bias but I respect your opinion.

There is a real concern among many English people that they are being relegated to the back of the proverbial bus in N.B. Even I don't think that's really true and that English will be done away with in favour of French but that doesn't change the fact many English NBers feel that way. If you haven't heard that before bring up the subject in a Tim Horton's in a place like St. George or Hampton or even Saint John and you'll see it to be true.

My point is that many do feel that way right or wrong and I don't think it's productive to simply blow off the Matthew Glenn's or the Charles Leblanc's for that matter as nut-jobs. Their feelings and passions are real.

Matthew Glenn is trying to protect something he feels passionately about and is concerned. I have no doubt however that bigots exist in the Anglo Society just as I know from personal experience that bigots exist at SAANB. Very few buy the reverse discrimintaion argument but it does exist across North America. Glenn's concerns are real, he feels passionate about it and should be given the respect of being listened to just like anyone else.

Anonymous said...

2:56 here. :)

I know a lot of English-speaking NBers THINK they're somehow the victims of bilingualism. I was surprised when CoR did as well as it did in '91, but it longer surprises me when bigotry finds a sympathetic audience.

But still, just because a fair number of people think bilingualism is unfair doesn't mean it is. There's obviously also a lot of people who believe adamantly that heterosexual marriages are somehow jeopardized if gays are allowed to marry. They're wrong, too, but narrow minds are what they are.

Spinks said...

Actually narrow minded can be used to the reverse as well. Why is 50% of the country which is against homosexual marriage considered narrow minded while the other 50% are simply considered right. That is another discussion.

COR did so well in 1991 because like a lot of the people here, politicians failed to recognize the very real concern being felt by people. That is why it is so critical that people be listened to and not blown off. 1991 proved what can happen if you ignore a huge segmeent of your population or write them off as nuts.

One point of clarity. I don't agree with Mr. Glenn protesting at Acadian Day celebrations. There's a time and place for protest and dialogue. That wasn't it.

Anonymous said...

There is no such thing as reverse discrimination. It is a cry for keeping the status quo. That those who are kept in subjugation must be kept in subjugation. Some people want to hang on to power and control forever.

On the other hand people are not anti-government as such. Some are just fed up with the incompetence of Lord and his government. Ask those those who have been hurt by the incompetence of Lord including victims of VLTs and disabled community.

Anonymous said...

Spinks asked: "Why is 50% of the country which is against homosexual marriage considered narrow minded while the other 50% are simply considered right. That is another discussion."

Because those who favour or tolerate same-sex marriage have generous, broad-minded, and libertarian motivations. We say, if there's not a compelling reason to deny equal rights to a minority, let's give them equality. If there's no demonstrable harm to be caused by allowing same-sex couples to marry (and there is not), let's let them. We cite human dignity in support of our position, and note that dignity is promoted by free choice and equal rights, while dignity is denied by discrimination and denial of free choice.

I've yet to see any argument against same-sex marriage that isn't narrow-minded, and driven by mean-spiritedness or fear or prejudice. Please, prove me wrong. I'd like to feel better about my friends and colleagues who oppose same-sex marriage.

Spinks said...

This will probably get into a pretty lengthy discussion but I'd be willing to debate the same-sex marriage issue on things such as health, children, etc, if you're game to having an open discussion. I think the religious angle isn't going to wash here so I'd be prepared to leave that part out if necessary. At the very least you may understand where your friends and family who oppose it are coming from. I have no doubt some simply simply hate homosexuals but plenty do not and hopefully you'll understand the reasons why many are opposed to it. I should have some more time over the next day or so to get into the issue at length. I'll post it here.

Spinks said...

This discussion is likely to last a while but first of all let’s look at the health reasons as to why same-sex marriage is a bad idea.

In February of this year a group of physicians presented to Parliament scientific evidence that homosexual marriage is a health risk to Canadians. If you haven’t heard of it, you can be forgiven, barely any media covered because it is not politically correct to do so even if it’s the truth.
The doctors warned that the new law would result in the further normalization of homosexual sex which has already resulted in severe health risks and related costs to care for and treat persons affected by risky sexual behaviour, and it is risky despite an attitude that it is not.
Anal sex which is practiced by most gay men, has a large number of diseases associated with it,. Most of those diseases are rare or unheard of among heterosexuals. A few would be anal cancer, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Giardia lamblia, Herpes simplex virus, HIV, Human papilloma virus, Isospora belli, Microsporidia, Gonorrhoea, Syphilis, Hepatitis B and C, etc.

The report stated that “young homosexual men aged 15-22, who had anal sex had a fivefold increased risk of contracting HIV over those who never engaged in anal sex.” It continues to note that, “Over 70% of all AIDS diagnoses in Canada in adults over the age of 15 up to June 2004 were in homosexual men.”

The brief also warns “Any attempts to legalize gay marriage should be aware of the link between homosexuality and pedophilia. While the majority of homosexuals are not involved in pedophilia, it is of grave concern that there is a disproportionately greater number of homosexuals among pedophiles and an overlap between the gay movement and the movement to make pedophilia acceptable.”

To come up with this the doctors cite the Journal of Homosexuality in demonstrating an overlap between the homosexual activist movement and the promoters of pedophilia. Moreover, the paper references studies showing that while “the number of homosexuals in essentially all surveys is less than 3%,” “the percentage of homosexuals among pedophiles is 25%.” It concludes: “Therefore, the prevalence of pedophilia among homosexuals is about 10-25 times higher than one would expect if the proportion of pedophiles were evenly distributed within the (hetero- and homosexual) populations.”

Tolerance used to mean accepting the right of another person to think another way. Today tolerance means accepting what someone else does no matter what the consequences. By condoning and endorsing same-sex marriage the Canadian Government is sending us on a massive social experiment which contradicts thousands of years of civilization. Arrogance is sending us in this direction so quickly without looking at all of the evidence. I’ll examine the impact on children next.

Anonymous said...

Actually, do some research on the polls. Most polls are telephone polls, the only people who answer them are geezers. That 50% is 50% of geezers.

The only polls done specifically of younger people were done by CBC and Ipsos-Reid and both showed similar results.

For those under 40 the numbers are closer to only 20% opposed, and for those under thirty the numbers are practically non-existent. Unfortunately, young people don't vote.

This will be no different than when inter-racial marriages were first occurring, and many thought them a threat to family and health. Many still feel that way, and at first because of people's prejudice's it does have impact for a while, but then the next generation comes along and it becomes the norm.

Anonymous said...

Spinks, those doctors received little coverage because they're quacks, with little credibility. The "studies" and "evidence" they cited are not credible among serious academics.

Now, anal sex is a riskier sexual activity than most, but (a) it's not exclusively done by gays, not even close, and anyway (b) there is no connection between anal sex and same-sex marriage. Are you suggesting that now that same-sex marriage is legal, heterosexual males will decide "hey, I never thought about receiving anal sex before! i think I'll try that!" Ridiculous, eh?

Same-sex marriage benefits the partners, who gain rights and therefore security if they marry. It provides stability and security to the children of the partners. It allows gay youth to see adult gays as nornal and mainstream, and thus might contribute to reducing self-loathing and suicide among that vulnerable group.

So, lots of good comes from same-sex marriage. And no one loses.

And puh-lease, there is absolutely no credible evidence of any connection between homosexuality and pedophilia, and even less indication that same-sex marriage will promote pedophilia.

Anonymous said...

First, there is the religious argument. Catholics, mennonites, muslims and certain strains of buddhism are still opposed based on interpretations of religious texts, while the united church is quite open.

There is also the 'traditional' argument, based on what is considered 'traditional society'. Of course there was no 'nuclear family' until the 1950's. However, the idea here is that changing the definition of marriage will diminish it. This is a common argument, but pretty specious. At "", a pro-traditional marriage organization, a study looks at nordic society which has had gay marriage for awhile:

"The separation of marriage from parenthood was increasing; gay marriage has widened the separation. Out-of-wedlock birthrates were rising; gay marriage has added to the factors pushing those rates higher. Instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage, Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable. "

Why exactly gay people getting married will make others NOT get married is still a mystery, unless those who hold such ideas somehow think that MOST people are closet homosexuals.

Anonymous said...

There is also one issue that conservatives don't like to bring up, but which lurks beneath the surface.

There is no surprise that it is almost exclusively conservative and fundamental religious strains that oppose gay marriage.

One thing these groups have in common are religious and traditional views that typically have women in a subordinate role. If not in a subordinate role then certainly in a very specifically defined role. While a woman may feel comfortable within that group, they still aren't free to change roles.

This is a real fear since gay marriage essentially solidifies marriage as a 'partnership' and not a 'man as head of the house' definition. A look at virtually every major religion and traditional way of life has the man as head of the household.

Another argument is that it is merely another stepping stone in the dissolution of our "traditional way of life". It is a change, there's no doubt in that, but why it's a bad one isn't clear.

Finally, there is the argument that the constitution doesn't specifically define discrimination along 'sexual identity' lines, so the court had to 'read in' sexual identity. Therefore if that can be read in, then all sorts of other things can as well. This is also true, but is not a bad thing either, why shouldn't we be moving towards a society with more rights?

Anonymous said...



Anonymous said...

Who is this racist and bigot fellow?

Anonymous said...

What is the impact on children of homosexuality? Spinks, you said you will examine further.

Spinks said...

Given the comments so far I'm not convinced those posting are really interested in hearing the other side of this debate but I did promise to discuss the children aspect so I'll keep my word. I encourage you to read all of my comments from beginning to end and not cherry picking so you can get the full context before passing judgement. Let me say books have been written on the subject and I can only scratch ther surface.

One comment first - while there are undoubtedley people who hate homosexuals, many including myself do not. Opposition to same-sex marriage is not about hate but about debate. The opposition is what a significant amount of people see as a devastating move that will further weaken the family and harm children. This type of debate and opposition is not hateful because morality is not bigotry. Sadly there rarely is any real debate on this issue except to call someone a bigot and run a smear campaign instead of thoughful discussion.

Why should we keep traditional marriage and what does it mean for the kids of tomorrow. No human society has ever tolerated "marriage" between members of the same-sex as the norm for family life. By making marriage between two men and two women as normal as one man and one woman we're saying that neither is any different or better than the other. It's only in recent years (a millisecond of history) thanks mostly to a handful of judges that we as society have arrogantly believed we could improve on the time-proven tradition of marriage.

Marriage is the way culture promotes monogomy (free of disease I might add as nature intended), allows males and females to build a life together and ensures that every child has a mommy and daddy. When both parents have a biological connection to the child, the likelihood increases that the parents 1. identify with the child, 2. are willing to sacrifice for the child, 3. and reduces the likelihood that either parent will abuse the child.

For example, a daughter raised in a strong marriage between a man and woman will know what to look for in a man and be better able to resist those who want to take advantage of her. Lesbian mothers are saying that a father is irrelevant to parenting while gay fathers say a mother is irrelevant to parenting. I find it hard to believe that anyone is serious in suggesting that two men can take the place of a mother's love or two women can take the place of a dad.

Every child deserves a mom and dad. It's as nature intended. If it's considered unfair and cruel than nature is unfair and cruel and even more so it would be cruel to intentionally deny a child a mom and dad through same-sex marriage and parenting. The most loving mother in the world cannot teach a little boy how to be a man. The same with the most loving man who cannot teach a little girl to be a woman. A gay man cannot teach his son how to love and care for a woman and a lesbian cannot teach her daughter how to love a man or know what to look for in a good husband.

Despite arguments to the contrary, gender does matter in nature and for the sake of society. What two people do together is their own business but once greater society is brought into the picture the reprecussions years and decades down the road are complete unknowns. The government and the courts have been irresponsible and arrogant when sending us down this social experiment road.

A final thought on children. We've had this discussion before and I was surprised at the people who disagreed with me but it bears repeating. Every child should have a mother and father who bestow commitment, caring and love. The child is given a sense of security and sees feminine and masculine models. I'll concede in our world of rampant divorce, immorality and the complete overhaul of the definition of marriage, this ideal is fading to a memory. But this is so important for the children that we as a society must work towards that ideal anyway instead of against it even if we know we will not achieve it.

Anonymous said...

Politicians want to be politically correct and tow the line in favour of homosexuals to get votes. Why do you think judges decide in favour of homosexuals when they really do not lose or gain anything?

Spinks said...

"Politicians want to be politically correct and tow the line in favour of homosexuals to get votes."

I think you're absolutely correct but they do so at a detriment to society as a whole for some of the reasons I've mentioned previously.

Anonymous said...

The above is a common argument, you can see a more thorough explanation of it at "" on the link that studies marriage in Nordic countries.

First, though, we have to simply discount the argument completely, since granting human rights has nothing to do with their children. Canada's legislation does not go nearly as far as Spain's, where legislation pretty much guarantees no discrimination even in adoption and family matters.

Children is a completely separate issue, many couples, and many gay couples have no intention of putting children anywhere near the picture. So we can discount this entire argument as a criticism of gay marriage. Our legislation is defining 'marriage', not 'family'.

If we want to dispute the claims, however, it's easy to do since most of the claims are completely false and more effort should have been put into research.

First, monogomy is not even the norm in marriage. Far more societies have had polygamy as a norm than monogamy. As far as children goes, this is far more beneficial for society since in our society we see many people who simply find one spouse too much work and responsibility so they stay single. Also, a man obviously can spread his seed far and wide so with ten wives one man can literally build a colony.

One woman with more than one man is also beneficial since we are finding more and more men not being about to produce viable sperm, so couples have to resort to expensive medical aids.

There is some evidence that WOMEN have a stronger attachment to delivered offspring, in fact some evidence of this points to the fact that there is even a difference between a natural birth and cesarian, and some theorists have even maintained that forced cesarians in third world countries have been aimed at decreasing that 'maternal bond' for political reasons. It's far from conclusive though.

However, there is no evidence on the male side, and the whole idea is clearly ludicrous. There is NO evidence that shows that child abuse is more prevalent in adopted households than in 'regular' ones.

In fact, gay marriage would clearly be beneficial to society since they would either decrease the numbers of children who must rely on foster homes, or else may look to others to bring the child to term, people who obviously wouldn't have children anyway (or else they wouldn't give them up). This adds to the population base.

The other argument is completely hypothetical so we can't even discuss it because there aren't enough gay adoptive parents to study; the idea that gay parents will somehow teach or 'illustrate' that two different gender parents are necessary for a 'family'. First, a half decent sex education class should clear up how babies come about. Second, and more importantly, the answer is YES, they probably would teach that two different gender people are not necessary for a family, because they are not a different gender, and they are a family. What else would they teach? "Yes, Jimmy, you are the product of an abomination" Marriage is re-defined, so in fact they would be teaching what marriage actually IS, not what it WAS.

The 'nuclear family' is a very recent phenomenon, throughout most of human evolution there was no such thing, and even up to the early 1900's women were considered property with no rights whatsoever, that's what the temperance movement was about in large part. Men's families in most early societies also included their concubines, and in the middle ages most 'families' would be more closely aligned with what would be called a 'commune' today.

What many think of as 'traditional family' is something that can only be traced back to the fifties.

In anthropology, it's actually interesting reading that many native canadian cultures actually saw bisexuals as 'gifted', and they were often the shamans of the group as they had a 'foot in both worlds'. It's really interesting stuff.

The disease stuff is just silly, gay couples can be as promiscuous or monogomous as a straight person or couple. If a single man or woman 'sleeps around' we MAY morally censure them, but usually don't, and certainly don't restrict their rights because of it. Following that logic we should start screening people before marriage to make sure they meet the conditions.

Finally, in a family it comes down to LOVE. And the idea that you need a man and a woman for this to extend to a child is just wrong. I fell in love with my wife, and she was certainly of no relation to me, so if a gay couple brings in a child the same is true. Again, though, children do not have anything to do with marriage rights. They may in future, but that's a different argument.

Anonymous said...

There is a saying that "it takes a community to raise a child". The idea that a family is a mother and father and children on an island is not an apt one.

A family provides structure and love, pure and simple. At an early age they are more important as a child depends on them to survive. Perhaps people fear that Freud was correct and identity is created by the age of six so if a MAN isn't around then the child will turn out fruity.

From a very early age most of the socializing is done by society in day care, school settings, not by parents. In fact, many mothers head straight back to work almost immediately, some out of choice, but many simply to survive.

My father was in the military so was always travelling, but we don't say "you can't marry military" or "you can't have children with military".

Personally, I think it is appalling that so much discussion is put into this at all. Take a look at our society, a "corporation" is a legal person, this was also done by the judiciary with NO discussion in society. The effects of this are ravaging the country, while we bicker about whether gays can be married. Interesting where our priorities lie.

Anonymous said...

"Why do you think judges decide in favour of homosexuals when they really do not lose or gain anything?"

Spinks, you did not answer this question.

Spinks said...

It's because it is such a radical change that there is so much discussion and I'm concerned that so many want to censor that discusion. Unfortunately this includes our Liberal Government who don't want to hear any dissenting voices or blow them off as a earlier poster did in reference to the doctors as quacks. They are legitimate medical doctors who also deserve to be heard and have sound science behind their analysis. Just because they don't subscribe to the popular belief doesn't make them quacks.

I've stated where I stand. We can argue this one until the end of time blowing holes in each other's theories.

I'll leave you with these points. The first on how marriage has been further cheapened by this legislation.

The Ottawa Citizen recently reported on two straight men who decided to get married. While sitting in a bar it occurred to Bill Dalrymple, 56, and Bryan Pinn, 65, that since both of them were single, without any serious opposite-sex marriage prospects on the line, it wouldn’t be such a bad tax-saving idea to get hitched…to each other. Thanks to the newly instated civil marriage act, extending “marriage” rights to same-sex couples, that’s not a problem. And since the new act doesn’t include any discriminatory restrictions on ‘sexual preference’ the two thoroughly straight men have a clear path to the altar.

We've crossed the line folks and there really is no going back. I can't think of a reason why pologamy can't be legally allowed whenever someone decides to challenge it, or worse. The NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love association is pushing to lower the age of sexual consent in the U.S. to 13. These types of groups obviously do not speak for all homosexuals or probably even the majority but there are groups which exist which will push this to the limit. To ignore those facts is dangerous. Our children risk being raised gender confused. As stated before gender is important not only in nature but in society. To believe that gender is irrelevant is foolish and arrogant. We're all products of a mom and dad for a reason.

Spinks said...

Sorry 1:10pm, there are many questions and it's tough to answer them all.

The judges for the most part are left leaning liberals who view civil rights above all. Our society prizes what seems fair more than what is true. Kids need a mom and dad. To deprive them intentionally of this is cruel. There is much research and just look in your neighbourhoods to verify it. Generally the kids who come from loving homes where dad loves and respects mom and vice-versa are better off in a host of ways for the reasons I mentioned previously. I know it isn't going to happen but it's still the ideal we should as a society strive for. You don't throw in the towel when it comes to kids.

Anonymous said...

Judges are 'left leaning liberals (is there such a thing?) who favour human rights above all else'? That's laugh out loud hilarious. We just saw the supreme court tell natives that since they can't prove they've been logging all these years they can't call it 'trade', of course natives haven't been ALLOWED to cut, but that's beside the point.

To answer the question of WHY this is happening federally is easy, because eight out of ten provinces have legalized it and the feds know it would make them seem out of touch if they didn't finally address it. You'll remember in 1994 the liberal government was completely opposed to it. At the provincial level courts found that they simply couldn't avoid that it was discriminatory, plain and simple. New Brunswick was one of the last, though not last (for once). The feds are far more adept at procrastinating.

As for other arguments they are patently absurd. Two gentlemen get married to benefit from tax purposes-so what? You think a man and a woman have never done the same thing?

The other remarks really are just bigoted, talking about the age of consent, raising the issue of 'man boy' sex. You think the same doesn't occur in male female relations? Some religions permit marriage at 14.

The comments on 'nature' are pretty funny too, an introductory biology course does a world of good, but I seem to remember Spinks as being the guy 'too busy' to do any research. In nature it's extremely rare for both the mother and father to raise the babies, most times the male is gone as soon as he's done. In the vast majority of other cases animals are raised communally, and of course in most mammals it is only one male who impregnates ALL the females. So so much for that argument.

Of course when all is said and done with most prejudicial arguments the "oh well, we could argue all day" comes out because it really can't be justified. Prejudice is prejudice. The 'family' that is being talked about really doesn't exist, every family is different. If we aren't going to refuse to grant people a divorce, you can't very well state that the single entity marriage is the most important thing. Love is love. Fortunately, it's done now and the next generation won't be so dogmatic.

Anonymous said...

Gender is a huge issue, go read some real research on it. Take for example the first woman MP in canada, who was it? Actually, even if you knew that it is wrong. There were actually many female MP's that we know of now. This is because before 1920 women were not allowed to vote and had no rights, so you had 'gender switching'. Many women dressed as men, many even had families-back then it was easy you just found some neighbours with a lot of kids.

Gender identity is a huge issue with lots of interesting historical stuff, look it up some time. Of course much of our current attitudes are still around from Victorian England and puritanical values, however, even those aren't as rigid as many think.

Anonymous said...

Now that same-sex marriage is legal in Canada how would it impact on Canadian society? Do you think, Spinks, immoral and udgodly society will ultimately destroy itself? What will happen if there is no procreation? Is rest of the world laughing at us as only few countries have recognized same-sex marriage?

Is homosexuality learned behaviour? If so then would there be not more and more homosexuals because it is an accepted behaviour under the law and others will learn homosexual behaviour? I do not know the answers just asking the questions after reading Spinks' comments.

Anonymous said...

Again, I urge people to read the study done at This study is on nordic countries which have had gay marriage for awhile.

Suffice it to say that the 'family', like the rest of society is undergoing huge changes. So its not surprising that many want to 'put a stop to it' where they can.

While the dream scenario of a mother and a father who have tons of time to lavish on their children is a potent dream-it is just that. Most parents have difficulty just making ends meet and providing for their children.

Conservatives would probably find more allies if they didn't have such draconian economic ideals. They want a nuclear family, yet at the same time often fight against unionism and government intervention which would enable families to actually have the choice of one adult staying with the child.

We ARE seeing changes, divorce, step parents, etc., single parents are making the 'family' into something it has never been before. Gay marriage can be seen as 'the last straw'. That's the problem with that nordic study at, they look at all these new familial developments and claim that they are a result of gay marriage even though every other country has seen the same thing and one doesn't have anything to do with the other.

We are seeing a breakdown in the family, sort of. Part of this is because women have power, and don't have to take the shit they were dished out previously. However, marriage is becoming 'a luxury', something malleable and subject to our whims, and a lot of people don't like that.

Anonymous said...

People don't say, but there's still the idea that there's 'something wrong' with homosexuality:

"In Canada during the same period, the focus was immigrants, and the method of control was psychiatry. A physician named Charles Kirk Clarke oversaw the two largest Canadian asylums before accepting Canada’s top mental-health post. Clarke advocated eugenic policies to limit the immigration and marriage of the “defective.” He also used psychiatric diagnoses to incarcerate new citizens. Foreign-born patients were 50% of his institutionalized population, including political activists, homosexuals, and other “defectives.” 26

Clarke’s sociobiological leanings are still alive and well at the institution named after him, The Clarke Institute in Toronto, where Ray Blanchard works. 27 There, Kurt Freund and Blanchard used Freund’s controversial plethysmograph to delineate deviance. 28 Though the quack device is just a lie detector for the penis (open to manipulation and interpretation by both subject and observer), they used it extensively to separate homosexual from “non-homosexual,” and later to do sex experiments on “male gender dysphorics, paedophiles , and fetishists,” which they lumped together, yet divided into homosexual and “non-homosexual.” 29

In historic diagnoses for sex problems, homosexuality and masturbation were “diseases” that could strike either sex, but other problems were gendered degeneracy: women who had “too much” interest in straight sex had the now-discredited disease “nymphomania,” while men who had “too little” interest in it were inverts or perverts, a still legitimate disease category called “paraphilia.”

Anonymous said...

There was a site which said Bernard Lord was homosexual. Then that site was discontinued. If Bernard Lord is homosexual then it should make it easy for homosexuals in this province.

Anonymous said...

Does anybody know who had the web site ????

Anonymous said...

Charlie initially posted the site here. He should know. Ask him.

Anonymous said...

I emailed the guy who ran the site, he said he thought he'd 'made his point' and simply lost interest in it.

Anonymous said...

Homosexuality is s sin to nature's God and the God of nature. We will pay with God's wrath. You might not believe in God but God believes in you. Remember Sodom.

Anonymous said...

Does that mean God will destroy Canada because it did not follow His ways?

Anonymous said...

Homosexuality occurs ALL THE TIME in nature. Anybody wants to show me on a map where Sodom is and we can discuss it. Every city and civilization has perished at some point or other, more often it's pride, not sodomy. Pride goeth before destruction. It turns out one reason the younger generation isn't so opposed to homosexuality-turns out the prostate is a man's G-spot!

Spinks said...

3:06pm - Sorry my comments about arguing all day were misconstrued. Certainly we can continue the discussion for as long as you wish.

I can't say I agree with the earlier post that the family of a man and wife and kids is a new thing. Children certainly weren't raised by wolves before but maybe I'm misinterpreting the comment.

This discussion got started when I was asked earlier about why I and in fact millions of Canadians disagree with same-sex marriage. The aforementioned are a few of the reasons and I belive them to be valid arguments much as those supporting same-sex marriage believe there's to be valid. I appreciate the opportunity to debate the issue. I'll leave you with a couple of paragraphs from the book "The death of right and wrong" by Tammy Bruce. You may be surprised by Ms. Bruce's background if you're not familiar with here. She was and is a pro-abortion, lesbian feminist who was president of National Organization of Women (NOW) in LA back in the 1990's - tough lady to call a bigot but given how the word flys so freely I'm sure a few of you will anyway. Bruce points out that for the gay radicals this fight isn't about society simply accepting homosexuality. It's about "eliminating the lines of decency and morality across the board."

From her book - "Today's gay activists have acrried a campaign a step further, invading children's lives by wrapping themselves in a banner of tolerance. It is literally the equivalent of the wolf coming to your door dressed as your grandmother. The radicals in control of the gay establishment want children in their world of moral decay, lack of self restraint, and moral relativism. Why? How better to truly belong to the majority (when you're really on the fringe) than by taking possession of the next generation. By targeting children , you can start indoctrinating the next generation with the false construct that gay people deserve special treatment and special laws. How else can the gay establishment actually get society to believe, borrowing from George Orwell, that gay people are indeed more equal than others? Of course, the only way to get that idea accepted is to condition people into accepting nihlism that forbids morality and judgement."

I encourage you to pick up her book. It's interesting reading and further illustrates why I and many Canadians are concerned for our children's future. If we have no morals, we have anarchy and society cannot survice. In the "me" generation, morals are further crumbling and we're seeing many of the results already. My concerns are real and shared by many. As I've said before debating those concerns with a thoughtful response (as a few have been) is responsible. Blowing those concerns off is as intolerant as what I'm accused of.

Anonymous said...

So, Spinks, gay people want to teach children homosexuality. If that is the case then it means in future everybody will become gay. Prime Minister may be gay, Premiers may be gay, priests and ministers of other denomination will be gay. No one will be there to procreate. That will be end of Canada and if homosexuality spreads to other parts of the world (it is there but with greater intensity and openness) then it will be the end of the world as we know it, no humans left. May be that is what armageddon is all about.


Spinks said...

8:37am - that's not what I'm saying at all and you know it. I'm all for thoughtful debate but don't put ludicrous words in my mouth that the whole world will be gay. I never said that and I can't think of anyone else who ever has either even though there are those who have tried to paint people with that brush as you have. Please try again.

Anonymous said...

So how we save the world from gays. Spinks, are they not destroying the morals of the society? You did say it will impact procreation adversly. Population will slowly dwindle and then vanish. Would it not????

Anonymous said...

We now know Spinks is anti-gay, sympathetic to anti-French bigots, and, let's see, what else? Oh yes, he's comfortable with race-baiting tactics, as he did in the discussion about CBC-NB's on-air newspersons. He's opposed to reproductive choice. For all these views, he cites questionable "authorities".

I've just realized I know who Spinks is!

Ladies and gentlemen, Stockwell Day is in our midst!


Spinks said...

One single comment above does deserve a response. I'm not against reproductive choice. I'm against killing babies. If you're for dismembering children in the womb, that's you choice but I really don't know how you sleep at night.

Anonymous said...

Stockwell, I'm against killing babies, too. Everyone is.

Abortion is completely different, though, at least until the point of viability.

Anonymous said...

To be fair to Stockwell Day, even he cannot be that outlandish. This is not far right this is plain crazy.

Anonymous said...

What do you mean by reproductive choice. Gay men cannot conceive babies so what choice is there? Do not tell me about surrogate mothers. Could be a booming business but ....

Spinks said...

If you support abortion, you believe killing babies in the womb is fine.

Anonymous said...

Spinks, people like you support war in Iraq. It is killing young Americans and Iraqis and that is OK in your philosopy and for your fellow conservatives. However, abortion is wrong. Also these anti-abortion crazies going to abortion clinics and killing people or hurting them and that is ok but abortion is wrong. Is this not self-contradictory argument - bring them in this world and then kill them.

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

I had to delete the last one so I could add some more to respond to the last post.

When have I ever said anything about the Irag war???? Now you're making things up.

Yes I believe killing babies is wrong regardless of the circumstance. I stand by that completely. We shouldn't kill the innocent and I do not agree with bombing abortion clinics and never said anything even close to that. That is violence and violence is wrong. You're grasping my friend. If you want to discuss what I've talked about, that's fine but don't make up words I never said.

It's interesting that no one commented on the Tammy Bruce comments. Tough to argue with her when she's seen it all first hand, isn't it?

Anonymous said...

By the way how you delete comments. If I make a mistake and want to delete then what am supposed to do.

Anonymous said...

How come you did not answer these questions:
What do you mean by reproductive choice. Gay men cannot conceive babies so what choice is there? Do not tell me about surrogate mothers. Could be a booming business but ....

Spinks said...

8:33pm - you have to sign in as a blogger. It's no big deal. All you need is a valid e-mail address. Charles doesn't get the address and neither does anyone else unless you wnat them to. Then you can delete comments under your name as long as you log in under your name and password. I would encourage more people to do. It makes it easier to know who you're talking to.

8:35pm - I'm not totally clear on what your questions are but I'll try. As I've said in another post, unless there's a star in the sky and three wisemen enroute to the house, the reproductive choice takes place with the two individuals who choose to take the action that produces the baby. The drunken uncle raping the girl argument is rare and is nowhere near the bulk of the 800 babies killed in Fredericton at the DECH and Morgentaler's clinic each year. Abortion is being used as a form of birth control.

If the mother does not want to keep the baby, let's try to make adoption easier and provide more programs to assist new parents both emotionally and financially. Some organizations in the U.S. have created apartment complexes to help new moms with housing, etc. Most of the abortions are by women in their twenties who don't want to mess up their career. That's unfortunate but killing the baby by dismembering it in the womb shouldn't even be an option.

The gay man question I'm not sure what you're asking on but I'm guessing you're referring to where do two gays men get a child from. If that's your question, the answer is simple, they don't. As I mentioned earlier, if that's cruel, then nature itself is cruel. Two men can't have babies and neither can two women because nature intended for children to have a mommy and a daddy for all the reasons I mentioned in earlier posts. That's reality even if it's not considered fair. Only a male and female can produce a child and there's lots of good reasons for that. We can't put fairness above reality and the truth. Hope that answers your questions.

Anonymous said...

All that is necessary for a baby is a sperm and an egg. Perhaps you've heard of in vitro fertilization. For two women all that is necessary is some sperm, that's it. For two men all that is necessary is a surrogate-that's it (or they can adopt). A sperm is a looooooooong way from being a 'daddy' and an egg and uterus is a loooooooooooong way from being a mommy.

Let's take a look at how gay marriage was finally legalized in New Brunswick. A couple felt they were being discriminated against so they retained a lawyer. They took it to the New Brunswick supreme court who this year agreed. That's hardly 'radical'. Why this is 'morally relative' or 'anarchic' is likewise unclear-they were simply findings of the court. The typical argument is "anything I disagree with is morally relative and chaotic, so long as I agree then it is sound"

Abortion is only permitted up to a certain age because up to then it is a fetus, not a baby. Nobody is claiming that is a good thing, but a fetus has far far far far far less awareness, nerves, brain, etc., than the animal you got your dinner from. Take a look at the meat processing industry which does far more than 800 cases a year. Obviously it isn't 'life' that is sacred to you.

It's also ironic that the same poster who mentioned about putting money into making abortion less desirable was also the one who complained that Planned Parenthood was getting more money than Meals on Wheels. So so much for consistency. Keep in mind that Canada is far more liberal than the US, where abortion is MUCH higher, and NB and Alberta are far less liberal than other provinces and they have higher abortion rates than others.

The above post that said that a mother, father and child was a NEW thing, didn't read the comment. Obviously two people concieved, yet rarely were children raised by them, they were raised by the COMMUNITY. When I was a child I spent as much time at the neighbours as I did at home, and saw my friend's parents as much as I did my own. This is especially common in the military where fathers were gone for long stretches, and in this day of working overtime to pay bills, lots of kids spend as much time with grandparents as with kids. Kids need LOVE, it doesn't matter where it comes from.

Gay adoption isn't about where the child comes from, but how it is raised. While individuals may have a right to their opinion, they are not allowed to have their opinion rob others of their rights. Just like others may not agree with your opinions, but that's a long way from locking you out of the website and robbing you of the opportunity to speak your mind.

Anonymous said...

"One single comment above does deserve a response. I'm not against reproductive choice."
You, Spinks, said that in your 2:42 PM commment. What do you mean by reproductive choice?

As far as surrogate mother is concerned, is that not demeaning to women. They are seen as baby making machine especially when paid for it. It is cruel because mother has to depart from the child after birth. It is also selling one's body to incubate a child. Does that not constitute prostitution especially when payment is received for such incubation. Just confused about surrogate mother part.

Spinks said...

I'm not sure if the last two posts were from the same person or not. You folks need to start sticking names to it. You can just make a name up if you want but it would be easier to respond and know who I'm dealing with.

Reproductive choice - see my 8:53pm comments. I'm not sure where you're going with the surrogate mother part. I can't find anywhere I was talking about surrogate mothers (?)

Comparing animals to humans is like apples and oranges. I'm speaking about human babies and so there is no confusion yes I value their lives over any other animal and make no apologies for that.

Mom and Dad go back to the beginning of time. I highly doubt the neighbours raised you. If they did that is unfortunate. ALL kids need a mom and dad for all of the reasons I mentioned.

"Abortion is only permitted up to a certain age because up to then it is a fetus, not a baby." I'm going to be blunt on this one. This is the biggest crock to come out of the pro-abortion movement. Somewhere along the line it was decided that if the baby was called a fetus instead of a baby it would be easier for the public and mothers considering abortions to swallow. Mothers considering abortions who get the new 3-D imagery of their baby almost always change their minds once they see the child. It's a lot tougher to kill someone when you have to look them in the eye. If no one thinks abortion is a good thing then we're in agreement, let's get rid of it and look at other alternatives. The PP argument doesn't wash because I'm not against sex education as I've stated. I'm against the kids not getting full disclosure and they're not getting it as I've mentioned in previous posts.

It's interesting that Henry Morgentaler who survived the holocaust is responsible for his own holocaust by killing so many hundreds of thousands of babies before they're given a chance to take their first breath. One of the argument he gives for doing it is that he's reducing crime because the kids won't be in a life of poverty. That's ridiculous. How does he know what these kids could have been any more than how could I know what would happen to them? There's one distinct difference. My way doesn't result in the brutal death of an innocent baby. His does.

Anonymous said...

Something can't be called prostitution when it involves no sex. It's a typically male view that surrogacy 'demeans' a woman. Imagine being able to grant a couple something they could not have themselves. It's hardly 'cruel' since a woman CHOOSES it, and is even allowed to change their minds.

And nine months away from work with the health risks is hardly just a charitable act. Some people can't have children, some women can give it to them. If there is a case where one party is being treated unfairly that's what the courts are for.

Anonymous said...

Since you believe so strongly then go to planned parenthood and tell them that for any woman having an abortion you will agree to pay for and adopt their child for them.

Anonymous said...

Ever notice how some people who want to regulate morality always want to regulate OTHER people's morality, never their own.

Anonymous said...

It's ridiculous to say 'let's stop it'. Abortions have been going on since caveman times. Making it illegal simply means that women will do it unsafely, and we have loads of evidence that shows many women die. So people who claim to be 'pro-life' have to realize that their ideology means women will die.

I don't see why human life is supposed to be so sacred while animal life is not. A person with a brain injury is no smarter than a clever animal and a baby is no different than any other animal. A cow feels as much pain as you do, even a fish has more nerve endings that a person does. All the functions found in a baby are found in other mammals. You don't need to apologize for your views, in fact you shouldn't, but you also have to expect that people will view you as a hypocrite, which means ALL your arguments become suspect.

A baby is not a baby til it's born, sorry to burst your bubble. At first it is an embryo, and almost half of abortions take place at this stage. Of course this could be avoided by making the 'morning after pill' commonly available without a prescription and at schools.

I still haven't seen ANY reasons given why a mother and a father are necessary. There are TONS of lousy fathers and mothers out there, as far as violence in our society goes you are far more likely to be hurt by a family member than anybody else. Ask a police officer, virtually every violent death results in the first suspect being the spouse or parent.

In fact I was partly raised by my neighbours, and far from being 'unfortunate' it was a wonderful experience. Rather than simply being close to two people, there is a whole community of people who I love dearly. I of course love my parents, and they did more for me than my neighbours, but several of my friends didn't have both parents and they also benefitted. While it may be 'nice' to have both parents, it is far more important that the parents one does have is happy. Sometimes this involves only having one parent. There are also plenty of kids who grow up in foster care who have no 'parents'. Obviously if one's parents die then you still survive, so it's never a question of 'need'.

The average parent now works 60 hours per week in canada. That's eight hours, seven days a week. Deduct sleep, time spent with friends, time at school, etc., and that leaves hardly any time for interaction between parent and child. So it's clear that the STATE raises our children, they spend eight hours a day at school then usually have homework. They have friends from school. In many cases parents do little but put food on the table. So by far, the necessities of childhood, even young adulthood, are not provided by parents.

The point of not being narrow minded is seeing things from other people's point of view and realizing that your point of view isn't the only valid one. Or you can go through life trying to tie society down with your ideological chain. Of course that won't work, because everybody outside of you KNOWS that yours is just another opinion. Those gay people who went to the supreme court are not going to stop because people are bigots, and good for them. Likewise, Planned Parenthood will go on and people will continue to fight for their rights. You can sit on a high horse and sit in judgement all you like, it just makes you sad, not righteous. Fortunately, it also makes you powerless.

Anonymous said...

"Something can't be called prostitution when it involves no sex."

I will think it will be prostitution especially if money exchanges hands. A woman rents her body for sex for a short time and for a surrogate mother for 9 months. That is why cost is probably much higher. It is still renting the body. It is demeaning as woman is used as a baby making machine and paid so much to do it.

Those who become surrogate mothers out of the goodness of their heart are few and far between. Then there is casual and consenual sex also which is not considered prostitution.

Anonymous said...

You can think what you want but there's a legal definition (and a common one) for prostitution and it involves sex. If there's no sex, there's no prostitution.

You can call it 'renting out one's body', that's fine. What else is work but renting out one's body? You go to your employer, he uses your body (and your mind! even worse!) and in return you get money.

You might think its immoral, but it sounds like you're a man so you'll never have to deal with the issue (unless you need a surrogate for a baby-then you're outlook will probably change). If it's something you'll never deal with, why worry about it?

Anonymous said...

There is a differenc between renting one's body for work (if you want to call it that) as opposed to RENTING/SELLING reproductive organs(ovary & uterus) for hatching a stranger's baby.

Selling reporoductive organs in this manner is demeaning and all should be concerned indifferent to gender.

I have no problem with those who do it out of the goodness of their heart. They are also few and far between.

Spinks said...

"Fortunately, it also makes you powerless."

I'll agree my friend, I and millions others are powerless because what is good is now called evil and evil is good. I try to leave the religious connontations out of this because there is a huge hate for God in secular society these days but I encourage you to read the book of Revelation in the Bible. We're living the beginning of it today.

Anonymous said...

If gay people getting married is the beginning of revelations, then I'll breathe a huge sigh of relief. Now we know what exactly the above comments are about: homosexuality is EVIL, according to you. Likewise abortion is evil, but the massive slaughter of god's creatures and raping of the world created by god is NOT. In fact it is completely different, no wonder people don't take you seriously. Keep on predicting the end of the world, when it comes it's far more likely to be from a nuclear missile than gay marriage.

There is no 'hatred' of God in secular society, people who adhere to archaic beliefs ALWAYS say that. Likewise when people first started dancing it was considered completely immoral and society was hellbound. In fact, a hilarious anecdote comes from 19th century England where 'tea parties' were said to be 'the devil's work'.

If anything, secular society simply ignores god. Newspapers rarely mention him, ditto for television and radio, although there are religious radio stations and religious television stations which obviously do not 'hate' god.

Since there are so many gods, in fact soon there will be more hindus and buddhists in Canada than there are christians, then 'choosing one' becomes absurd. EVERY person says that their belief and their god is correct, and that their interpretation of religious texts is correct. This is where relativism comes from, in the past the church could FORCE people what to believe, now they can't so people believe what seems to fit the circumstances.
As I said, nobody thinks abortion is 'good', it is merely the best of a bad situation. For those of us involved in societal changes there are FAR greater evils being perpetrated by our society daily. If gay marriage and adoption are in fact 'revelations', then I say BRING IT ON!