Today, we are treated to the rantings of Gwen Landolt of Real Women Canada on Lifesite ranting about how the Evil Liberals(tm) have legitimized homosexuality.
She takes it all the way back to 1967 when Trudeau decriminalized sodomy, and proceeds to moan about every change in Canadian law made by a Liberal government that gave legal equality to the GLBT citizens of this country.
Her rantings achieve a unique grade of shrill insanity when she claims:
This amendment to the federal Human Rights Act had the effect of legalizing and protecting homosexual sex acts, notwithstanding their detrimental medical, psychological, and social ramifications.
Obviously, Ms. Landolt is so obsessed with what she supposes gay men do with each other sexually that she has become an expert on it - I'd have to guess that she spends more time obsessing about it than most gay men do. (and much less rationally, I would imagine)
Also, the military, which requires a united fighting unit to protect morale and the effectiveness and cohesion of the unit, was obliged to accept homosexuals.
Omigod - this old saw. It's so old and rusty I doubt it could be salvaged for anything except scrap metal value. Yes, Gwen, I'm sure that accepting gays and lesbians in the military has really hurt unit cohesiveness. Seems to me that any of the people I know in the military couldn't give a damn if the person next to them in the unit is gay or not - as long as they do their job. Unlike you, most of us don't obsess over the sexual inclinations of others.
Nor is homosexuality morally neutral, which is quite different from race, sex, and place of birth. Moreover, for the first time, “behaviour,” rather than unchangeable or immutable characteristics, was given special protection under the federal Human Rights Act.
Hold it a second. Check the evidence, Ms. Landolt. I think you will find that gays and lesbians are generally pretty consistent about their sexuality - oddly enough, just like most straight people. (We won't worry too much about complicating little cases like Rev. Ted Haggard too much, will we - it might cause your little bubble of stupidity to pop)
Justice Minister McLellan’s contribution to the homosexual agenda was to provide family benefits to same-sex partners on an equal basis to those given to heterosexual couples.
Why yes she did. Only after a long series of court battles finally forced the government to acknowledge that their own programs were discriminatory.
In contrast, the National Assembly in France, in its report in January 2006, rejected same-sex marriage, mainly because of its detrimental effects on children. The French report also seriously criticized the studies on same-sex parenting that claimed that such parenting carried no ill effects for children. The report noted the lack of scientific rigor, inadequate samplings and the flagrant lack of objectivity in these studies.
Yet, Mr. Cotler was prepared to throw Canadian children to the wolves in order to legalize same-sex marriage in Canada.
Yes, two men or two women getting married is going to cause children all kinds of harm - in her little fantasy world. The rational evidence is quite clear on the subject, with groups like the APA (that actually do real research) coming out quite squarely in favour of allowing gays and lesbians to continue to act as parents to their offspring:
Yes. Studies comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no developmental differences between the two groups of children in four critical areas: their intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, and popularity with friends. It is also important to realize that a parent's sexual orientation does not dictate his or her children's.
Another myth about homosexuality is the mistaken belief that gay men have more of a tendency than heterosexual men to sexually molest children. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to molest children.
I don't know what colour the sky is in Ms. Landolt's little world, but I suspect it's not the same colour I see every day when I look up. Whatever she gets paid for (whether it's political ranting or bad comedy, I'm not sure), it's clearly too much - she actually seems to take herself seriously.
...this has been another entry in the "Omigod, There's a Rights Crisis" campaign watch
No comments:
Post a Comment