Faith is now quite uncertain. I'm no longer acting-as-if.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Dennis Sets Them Straight
Dennis at Psychology, Dogs, Politics and Wine, sets us and them straight about the post at Stand Firm on the state of gay marriage in Canada. You'll find the link to SF at Dennis' place.
I posted this on Dennis' site and will post it here too :-)
If "conservatives" think the point was to get all gays married in Canada, they have got it wrong AGAIN (Quelle surprise!). It was never a numbers game. It has always been an equality and fairness argument.
The point of the law is to give full and equal protection to the couples who choose it. Even if only 1 gay couple chose to get married, it was worth it because their rights and responsibilities are fully secured.
Secondly, legal marriage throughout Canada and in much of the West, including the US is on the decline. The 2006 Census stats show that heterosexuals are increasingly turning to common law marriages (aka "shacking up") rather than legal ones. (Why? Good question. Maybe the cost and effort of legal marriage isn't worth the bother. Women's equality? Urbanization? I don't know.) Fully 34% of Quebec couples are in common law rather than legal marriages; a majority of those under 40 years old choose common-law. And in English speaking Canada, the numbers are lower but on the rise. The number of common law marriages has doubled in 20 years and the number of "traditional" nuclear families has decreased from 80% to 68%. Gays are going to be as affected by these social trends as everyone else.
Finally, their own argument is going to bite them in the butt. Should we get rid of heterosexual marriage because THEY are taking advantage of it in decreasing numbers??? Is there some cut off where we can say legal marriage for straights should be abolished? Over 1/2 the Canadian population isn't married (first time majority), is that reason enough?
Even if only 1 gay couple chose to get married, it was worth it because their rights and responsibilities are fully secured.
Dan, exactly.
One has only to look around at the state of marriages among straight couples and see much that is not sacred - especially the divorce rate and the many instances of infidelity.
The posts and comments on that site often seem utterly stupid to me, so I usually stay away. Going there raises my blood pressure and depresses me at the same time.
Now you might find this interesting. Two sites have linked to my comments, yours and a certain person in another country that begins with an E (and he goes by M.P.)
I counted how many visitors I had come from his site and from your site, and it now seems that a recommendation on your front page generates more referrals than his, by a factor of 5:4.
Not that I mind being linked from him or you! It is nice to have visitors on that site. I think I'll start stirring the pot more often!
(oh, news on our gathering: our hotel in nyc is booked. PJ is thinking up a place for us to meet and for the dinner. And I'm looking forward to our promised visit to MOMA on Tuesday!)
Dennis, I'm going alone, and I feel safe and comfortable in that hotel.
With Expedia and Travelocity, if something goes wrong, each entity tries to put responsibility on the other, and it's a major hassle to get someone to take responsibility. I don't use them any longer. I book direct with online websites for airlines and hotels.
I'll keep trying and book anyway in the end. I'm getting old, and I can't take it with me.
I have checked around in the same vicinity, and none of the hotels are much cheaper, and many are more expensive.
Grandmère, I've not yet been banned from SF and if I were "Sarah", I'd hope I'd be a lot more funny. She's funny, but not in a humorous way. I'm "KJthurible" over there, but have only checked in briefly recently, and without comment. I've just not been able to stomach the SF spirit and lack of Spirit. I suppose it's time to get back to being a sunbeam for Jesus.
No Dennis, no NYC trip for me. Life has clipped my wings a bit which means for now, a simple life, and little travel, and that's not all bad. However, the gathering should be a hoot!
KJ, we'd better be drinking some damned good wine, which we will let Dennis choose. If it's not good, I will smear his wine tastes all over the intertubes.
Dan, I hope you can join us. Oooh, that mustache. I can't wait.
I posted this on Dennis' site and will post it here too :-)
ReplyDeleteIf "conservatives" think the point was to get all gays married in Canada, they have got it wrong AGAIN (Quelle surprise!). It was never a numbers game. It has always been an equality and fairness argument.
The point of the law is to give full and equal protection to the couples who choose it. Even if only 1 gay couple chose to get married, it was worth it because their rights and responsibilities are fully secured.
Secondly, legal marriage throughout Canada and in much of the West, including the US is on the decline. The 2006 Census stats show that heterosexuals are increasingly turning to common law marriages (aka "shacking up") rather than legal ones. (Why? Good question. Maybe the cost and effort of legal marriage isn't worth the bother. Women's equality? Urbanization? I don't know.) Fully 34% of Quebec couples are in common law rather than legal marriages; a majority of those under 40 years old choose common-law. And in English speaking Canada, the numbers are lower but on the rise. The number of common law marriages has doubled in 20 years and the number of "traditional" nuclear families has decreased from 80% to 68%. Gays are going to be as affected by these social trends as everyone else.
Finally, their own argument is going to bite them in the butt. Should we get rid of heterosexual marriage because THEY are taking advantage of it in decreasing numbers??? Is there some cut off where we can say legal marriage for straights should be abolished? Over 1/2 the Canadian population isn't married (first time majority), is that reason enough?
These people just don't think.
Even if only 1 gay couple chose to get married, it was worth it because their rights and responsibilities are fully secured.
ReplyDeleteDan, exactly.
One has only to look around at the state of marriages among straight couples and see much that is not sacred - especially the divorce rate and the many instances of infidelity.
The posts and comments on that site often seem utterly stupid to me, so I usually stay away. Going there raises my blood pressure and depresses me at the same time.
Now you might find this interesting. Two sites have linked to my comments, yours and a certain person in another country that begins with an E (and he goes by M.P.)
ReplyDeleteI counted how many visitors I had come from his site and from your site, and it now seems that a recommendation on your front page generates more referrals than his, by a factor of 5:4.
Not that I mind being linked from him or you! It is nice to have visitors on that site. I think I'll start stirring the pot more often!
(oh, news on our gathering: our hotel in nyc is booked. PJ is thinking up a place for us to meet and for the dinner. And I'm looking forward to our promised visit to MOMA on Tuesday!)
Dennis, that's gratifying. 5:4, huh?
ReplyDeleteDo not succumb to pride. Do not succumb to pride.
I keep looking at prices at my hotel and they keep going up. I wonder if there is a better time of the day to check, perhaps 2 a.m.?
have you considered other hotels?
ReplyDeleteOr priceline or travelocity or expedia?
just wondering
I've had to take a SF break. They are so ungracious, it's wearing.
ReplyDeleteDennis, I'm going alone, and I feel safe and comfortable in that hotel.
ReplyDeleteWith Expedia and Travelocity, if something goes wrong, each entity tries to put responsibility on the other, and it's a major hassle to get someone to take responsibility. I don't use them any longer. I book direct with online websites for airlines and hotels.
I'll keep trying and book anyway in the end. I'm getting old, and I can't take it with me.
I have checked around in the same vicinity, and none of the hotels are much cheaper, and many are more expensive.
KJ, do they let you comment at SF? Do you use a different name?
ReplyDeleteI am quite sure that they will never link to me again, if they saw my post about how they had driven up my numbers.
Actually KJ posts under the name "Sarah Hey" over at StandLimp.
ReplyDeleteKJ: any chance that we can tempt you to join us in nyc that week?
Grandmère, I've not yet been banned from SF and if I were "Sarah", I'd hope I'd be a lot more funny. She's funny, but not in a humorous way. I'm "KJthurible" over there, but have only checked in briefly recently, and without comment. I've just not been able to stomach the SF spirit and lack of Spirit. I suppose it's time to get back to being a sunbeam for Jesus.
ReplyDeleteNo Dennis, no NYC trip for me. Life has clipped my wings a bit which means for now, a simple life, and little travel, and that's not all bad. However, the gathering should be a hoot!
KJ: perhaps we should see if there is some interest in a Pacific Northwest gathering of OCICBW readers at some point in the future.
ReplyDeleteThe SF crew are depressing, all right. I seldom go there. Some of the comments are unbelievably stupid.
ReplyDeleteI would love to see you guys in NYC. Hope I can join you.
ReplyDeleteToujoursdan: it will be a blast. Hope to see you there.
ReplyDeleteDennis, would we be drinking coffee or wine?
ReplyDeleteKJ, we'd better be drinking some damned good wine, which we will let Dennis choose. If it's not good, I will smear his wine tastes all over the intertubes.
ReplyDeleteDan, I hope you can join us. Oooh, that mustache. I can't wait.
both.
ReplyDelete