WingNutDaily: Canadians apologize for all 'gay' marriages
Thu, 2007-04-12 22:11
#1
WingNutDaily: Canadians apologize for all 'gay' marriages
Thu, 2007-04-12 22:11
#2
quote:
Posted: April 13, 2007
1:00 a.m. EasternBy Bob Unruh
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.comDon Imus has apologized for dissing a women's basketball team, Mike Nifong is sorry "to the extent" he was wrong, and now Canadians are apologizing to the world for all "gay" marriages.
See, it's not the fault of Californians, who voted nearly 2-1 that marriage would be only one man and one woman, then watched as lawmakers turned against them and started planning to put same-sex couples into state law.
Family-friendly organizations and individuals from Canada, including Conservative Party leader Grant Hill, have joined in a campaign to apologize to the world for allowing homosexual marriage to gain a foothold on society.
In a letter released to "the world's leaders and people," the initiative is described as the work of United Families Canada, but many other individuals and groups also are joining, with developing plans to publicize the apology at the World Congress of Families IV in Warsaw, Poland, in May.
[i]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.[/i]
Other groups joining so far include the Canada Family Action Coalition, REAL Women of Canada, British Columbia Parents and Teachers for Life, Alberta REAL Women, Christian Heritage Party of Canada, Third Watch Ministries, MY Canada Association.
Read it [url=http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55165]here.[/url]
When did Grant Hill become leader of the Conservative Party? [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 12 April 2007: Message edited by: Snuckles ]
Fri, 2007-04-13 05:40
#3
quote:
Originally posted by Snuckles:
[b]Read it [url=http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55165]here.[/url]
When did Grant Hill become leader of the Conservative Party? [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 12 April 2007: Message edited by: Snuckles ][/b]
He was interim Leader of the Opposition (ie: leader of the Conservative Caucus in the House, but technically not the party - Senator John Lynch-Staunton was party leader) from January to March 2004.
Fri, 2007-04-13 06:25
#4
Scott Piatkowski
quote:
Originally posted by the grey:
[b]He was interim Leader of the Opposition (ie: leader of the Conservative Caucus in the House, but technically not the party - Senator John Lynch-Staunton was party leader) from January to March 2004.[/b]
And, Americans apply titles for life, so it follows that they'd refer to Hill as "Conservative Party Leader". To paraphrase Stephen Lewis:
"When I'm speaking in the United States, I'm always correcting people who refer to me as Ambassador Lewis. It's only in the United States that titles follow people for life: once a President always a President, once an Ambassador. The whole country has been overtaken by a kind of titular self-agrandizement, the likes of which you cannot imagine."
Fri, 2007-04-13 08:40
#5
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:
[b]And, Americans apply titles for life, so it follows that they'd refer to Hill as "Conservative Party Leader". To paraphrase Stephen Lewis:
"When I'm speaking in the United States, I'm always correcting people who refer to me as Ambassador Lewis. It's only in the United States that titles follow people for life: once a President always a President, once an Ambassador. The whole country has been overtaken by a kind of titular self-agrandizement, the likes of which you cannot imagine."[/b]
To indulge in a bit more thread drift, this reminds me of a column by [url=http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=189597]Miss Manners[/url] that explained why former presidents should not be, but generally are, referred to as "President."
quote:
Our Founding Fathers, including the ones to whom this question applied, established American protocol to be simple and unpretentious - and thus antithetical to the modern taste. Nevertheless, the rule is that titles pertaining to an office that only one person occupies at a time are not used after retirement.
On the topic at hand, I have to say my distaste turned to amusement before I reached the end.
Really, it's been such a non-issue for the most part since it was passed, I'm not sure how they can go on with the Chicken Little routine with a straight face. I suppose the arrogance needed to [i]apologize[/i] for the democratic recognition of equality rights is about the same as the arrogance needed to call oneself a family advocate and then focus on attacking the families one dislikes.
Fri, 2007-04-13 08:52
#6
Scott Piatkowski
If you click on the link now, you'll see that they've now corrected the reference to Hill by adding the word "former".
Now, if you'll excuse me, I think I'll go start a campaign apologizing to all the people of the world for Grant Hill, REAL Women and the other signatories to this letter.
Fri, 2007-04-13 10:35
#7
I'd be pretty embarrassed if my name were also Grant Hill, like say, [url=http://www.granthill.com/]this guy[/url].
But, still, these people are onto something:
quote:
CFAC President Charles McVety asserted redefining marriage has "devalued" marriages that were in place before Canada's legislation took effect.
You see, think of it as being a shareholder in the institution of marriage. Now that gay people are getting legally married, there are more shares out there in circulation, which brings down the value of each share. Frankly, I'm pissed, and it it looks like same-sex marriage is here to stay. So I'm spending every spare moment trying to encourage people to stay single and couples to get divorced, so that the value of my own marriage will rebound.
Fri, 2007-04-13 13:14
#8
quote:
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
I became confused witht he above quote. I had to reread some of the article to understand that we were talking about gay marriage and not teh devorce rate...
So here I am thinking... since about 50% of all married couples stay together, gay marriages are having anegitive impact on these ???
wait, imstill all confused...
ooohh never mind..... I don't think I'll ever understand all this math stuff.....
Fri, 2007-04-13 13:20
#9
wait I think i got it...
let me do the math here.... gay marriage and non-gay marriage are incongruent...
and non-gay and non-gay marriages that end up in devorce are congruent with a positive impact on marriage minus the inclusion of gay marriages...
So are we supoose to call non-gay marriages as the old way people got married or as the normal marriage ... or can we just call them non-gay marriages..
kind like this.... "Congradulation Helen and Peter on your non-gay marriage".
Fri, 2007-04-13 13:43
#10
Scott, I may be Liberal scum but I would support you 100% on that campaign [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Fri, 2007-04-13 13:53
#11
I especially enjoyed the implication that Canada is so incredibly influential that other countries are copying us. So it is somehow our "fault" that gay marriage is spreading around the world. How do we know that everybody isn't just copying Spain? They're way cooler than us.
Just for the hell of it we should eradicate poverty, or start wearing feather boas, just to see if other countries would start copying us.
[ 13 April 2007: Message edited by: Albireo ]
Fri, 2007-04-13 19:33
#12
Scott Piatkowski
quote:
Originally posted by Albireo:
[b]But, still, these people are onto something: You see, think of it as being a shareholder in the institution of marriage. Now that gay people are getting legally married, there are more shares out there in circulation, which brings down the value of each share. Frankly, I'm pissed, and it it looks like same-sex marriage is here to stay. So I'm spending every spare moment trying to encourage people to stay single and couples to get divorced, so that the value of my own marriage will rebound.[/b]
No no no... the value of your marriage goes up as there is more demand for marriage. And, best of all, the supply is limited only by the number of unmarried people in the world.
Thu, 2007-04-19 19:06
#13
Hey, don't underrate the country, Albireo. 'Round here -- the South Pacific -- where same-sex marriage is a very hot issue (because it represents the whole foreign human-rights movement I reckon), the reform of Canadian law was huge news.
I think we should reassure the Grant Hills with big publicity for every gay divorce; the net effect must be the same as a straight marriage, right?
Fri, 2007-04-20 03:16
#14
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:
[b]
Now, if you'll excuse me, I think I'll go start a campaign apologizing to all the people of the world for Grant Hill, REAL Women and the other signatories to this letter.[/b]
Seriously, where do I sign up?