‘Anti-gay’… I mean, ‘pro-family’

Why are mainstream media adopting Rick Santorum’s hideous euphemisms?


Everybody’s talking about Rick Santorum, a.k.a. the previously ignored Republican primary candidate from Pennsylvania (also Jerry Seinfeld’s unfunny, Roman Catholic doppelganger) who couldn’t get a word in edgewise at any of the GOP debates. Until this week, he was far better known for his “Google Problem” than his warmongering, privacy quashing political aspirations. Today Santorum is a rising star, setting his socially conservative sights on the state of New Hampshire, after placing an extremely close second to Romney in the Iowa caucuses this week. He seems to think his near-victory in Iowa is proof that you don’t have to be a moderate to win a general election.

Iowa, however, isn’t America, something the former senator was rudely reminded of at a New Hampshire university last night, when his gay-marriage-will-lead-to-polygamy argument was met with unanimous boos:

That Santorum will flounder is almost certain (it’s only a matter of time before talking heads and comedians start lambasting him as fiercely as they did Bachmann and Perry) but mainstream and liberal media could quicken the process if only they’d avoid using the manipulative terminology Santorum and friends use to espouse their anti-gay rights, and anti-privacy beliefs. For too long, grossly dishonest phrases like “pro-family” and “family values” (phrases invented by and for America’s religious right) have been used by mainstream publications to describe the political profiles of Republican candidates. Take this example (one of many) from the Boston Globe:

Santorum, a Catholic, has campaigned on a strong family values platform.

The above is simply not true. Santorum may say he is campaigning on a “strong family values platform,” but it doesn’t take a Ph.D. in ethics to understand that revoking adoption and marriage rights for gay people (something Santorum has expressed keen interest in doing) is not in the best interest of families. Then again, Santorum’s definition of what constitutes a family is decidedly limited (let’s just say he doesn’t see eye to eye with Mrs. Doubtfire).

Anyway, enough with this doublespeak. It’s lazy journalism for reputable publications to use terms like “pro-family” and “family values” out of context in reference to a political candidate. Just because Santorum and company cloak their bigotry in euphemisms, doesn’t mean we have to follow suit and use their language. Rick Santorum is not running on a “pro family platform.” He is running on a pro-heterosexual-family-and-no-contraceptives-please!-platform. Just as “pro-life” is a gross euphemism for “anti-abortion,” “pro-family” is a gross euphemism for “anti-gay.”


‘Anti-gay’… I mean, ‘pro-family’

  1. Santorum’s turn as ‘flavour of the week’ came along at the same time as the Iowa primary. We’ve likely, and hopefully, seen the last of him.

  2. And even worse,  the Bachmann and Santorum type of candidates are described simply as the ‘values’ candidates, implying they are the only ones that have them.  Of course these are the ones who have a habit of getting caught in airport washrooms or inappropriately emailing interns. How long is it going to take to view these bigots as suspect from the getgo.  

    • They’re “values” candidates because they aren’t “policy” candidates.

      • no he  has policy he wants us to invade Iraq and loose thousands more young men it is sad how out of touch these republican candidates are

      • Damn, I wish I could vot thumbs up 200 times on your comment because it sums up the Repubs completely…

        • Yes, I find some people on here are far more adept at clicking thumb up on a post than they are contributing to it with any well-constructed thoughts of their own.

  3. I believe we are all God’s children and should have same rights and duties as each other but that’s about as utopian idea as it gets because humans are lovers/haters. I think gay marriage is more of a generational issue than left/right. People under 40 are more tolerant of differences than older people are. Is President Obama still anti-gay marriage or has he changed his mind yet? 

    I also think Maclean’s left wing journos should start a group blog called “Bill O’Reilly lives under my bed” where they could write all about their neurosis that right wing Americans stir in them.

    I don’t agree with Santorum but I wish we had free talking culture like Americans do – we can only identify the nutters and try to change their minds if they identify themselves with speech. Here in Canada we pretend that we one big happy clappy hippy family but it just ain’t so – just as many bigots in Canada as there are in America, the only difference is here we don’t know who they are because of our speech codes.

    • Were you in Korea during our gay marriage debate? 

    • Fair enough, we do have some disgusting infringements on speech but I don’t really think they stiffle the debate too much. It doesn’t make those infringements right but it also doesn’t mean we can’t have a free debate.

      • Frederick Douglass ~ A Plea For Free Speech:

        There can be no right of speech where any man, however lifted up, or however humble, however young, or however old, is overawed by force, and compelled to suppress his honest sentiments.  

        Equally clear is the right to hear.  To suppress free speech is a double wrong.  It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.  It is just as criminal to rob a man of his right to speak and hear as it would be to rob him of his money.

        • Here here! I was commenting on the impact that suppression of speech had on this debate, which I thought wasn’t huge. That doesn’t make it right. I agree wholeheartedly in this statement.

        • We don’t have any suppression of free speech….for gawd’s sake read the charter.

          The only thing you can’t do is stand on a street corner and demand a massacre of some group you don’t like.

          • “We don’t have any suppression of free speech … ”

            The votes are in for the Writers’ Trust of Canada and Samara’s Best Canadian Political Books of the Last 25 Years project and the winner by popular choice is Ezra Levant’s Shakedown: How Our Government is Undermining Democracy in the Name of Human Rights, published in 2009.

            “The only thing you can’t do is stand on a street corner …. ”

            Scott Reid ~ Globe/Mail:
            “First things first: take him out. After all, Stephen Harper is the most dangerous animal lurking in the jungles of Parliament …. Their imperative could not be more clear: kill him. Kill him dead.”

            Orwell ~ All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others

          • See…that’s what you get for listening to Ezra Levant….confused.

            It’s clearly spelled out in the Criminal Code Tony….you should read more.

          • *We don’t have any suppression of free speech….for gawd’s sake read the charter.*
            The Charter, which can suppress free speech on `reasonable grounds.’?

            For someone’s sake, Emily, read the Charter before you open your ignorant mouth.

            Then, once that’s completed, please read on about all the chilling and censorship of speech that has been undertaken in the name of `human rights’ in this country.

            It might sober you up a bit.

          • Hate speech is defined in the criminal code….read it, before you bug me about it.

          • *Hate speech is defined in the criminal code….read it, before you bug me about it.*
            Right, cause you wouldn’t want to be bothered or bugged by actually thinking about or being aware of things.


          • I don’t like Ezra Levant very much either but I think he was bang on in the free speech issue. 

            Human Rights Tribunals do much more than stop the preaching of genocide or violence against identifiable groups. You should check it out, there are some pretty silly cases out there if you don’t believe the government has the right to censor speech except in the most egregious of circumstances.

          • Ezra just wants the right to be pig-ignorant to everyone he disagrees with.

            And being Jewish, he should know better.

          • So you launched an ad hominem at him… 

            I want, no I demand the right to be pig-ignorant to people I disagree with if I choose to be. Pig-ignorance 250 years ago was demanding that blacks have equal rights and woman were equal to men.He was censored by our government, not for what he did but for what he thought and said. What he said shouldn’t matter if you believe in the principal of free speech.

  4. As to reporting in general, I’d LIKE to think American journos would laugh a candidate off the stage if he came out as believing in a flat earth, or a moon made of green cheese….but I dunno.

    The journos listen to all this stuff about creationism and global warming denial, and report it with a straight face… instead of guffawing in their coverage.

    ‘Pro-life’ is also ‘pro-forced pregnancy’, but nobody points that out either.

    Americans don’t have ‘free speech’, they have ‘framed speech’, and the media apparently accepts the framing without a qualm.

    • *Americans don’t have ‘free speech’, they have ‘framed speech’, and the media apparently accepts the framing without a qualm.*
      But wait, wasn’t the problem with the Americans, is their having `too much free speech.’?

      As for the `framing’ business from Lakoff – this is a sound thesis but unfortunately, it is misused by a politically-biassed University of Cali Berkeley prof.

      Contrary to Lakoff, though, the left in the U.S., as in much of the rest of the Western world, has been just as successful – much more successful – than the right in framing political speech.

      Thus: `employment equity’ or `affirmative action’ instead of `discrimination’ (the word `equity’ itself framed to not be mean `equal’ but `some more equal than others’)

      And, as below, `pro-choice’ instead of what it really is, pro-abortion.

      Or more recently, `undocumented workers’ instead of `illegal aliens’ or `illegal migrants’ – of course many of the latter are not `undocumented’ at all, they possess documents that are forged.  And are all illegal immigrants really `workers’?

      So `Emily’ (to use your favourite lame-o Internet phrase) LOL

      • No, nobody said anything about Americans having ‘too much free speech’…..actually it helps us greatly in picking out the idiots.

        ‘Framing’ political speech has been a rightwing tactic for years.

        ‘Equity’ means ‘equity’….it doesn’t mean ‘more equal’

        Pro-choice means pro-choice….no one is campaigning on having more abortions.

        Illegal Mexican immigrants are your problem, not mine.

        LOL….means something you don’t understand.

      • It’s as if they’ve had their ears sealed over…

  5. Then, using your logic, pro-choice is a gross euphemism for pro-abortion, right?

    • I’ve never met or heard of anyone that’s ‘pro-abortion’.  Think about it.

      • I’m pro-abortion. 13-year-old girls shouldn’t bear children.

        • No, they shouldn’t…..but it should be between them and their doctor, not mandated by the state that they must have the child.

      • You haven’t heard about it so it doesn’t exist is that it? Good grief.

        • If there are people who want more abortions performed, who are they? In an ideal pro-choice world there would be no need for abortions. 

          • Why would people like you care about how many abortions are  performed?

          • Because I favour preventing unwanted pregnancies. Now we’re going to get the celibacy lecture, aren’t we?  We’ve had this conversation what – 50 times – on Bourque?

          • I guess someone like you, so filled with ignorance and anger for enemies, can’t muster the brainpower to realize that, if an abortion has to be performed, the unwanted pregnancy has already occurred.

            Now, you want to try again without the idiocy? Didn’t think so. That’s because your abortion and social agendas are indefensible, especially by a clueless lightweight like you.

            Wow, that one was a bit too easy and fun. lol. Next.

          • Well, baby Einstein, believing in a women’s right to choose relies on the availability of abortions. In the real world unwanted and dangerous to the health of mothers pregnancies will always exist.

          • I’ve now given you two chances to explain why you’d be against more abortions, and you only keeping acting like the clueless clown you are. Why can’t you answer even the simplest questions in defence of your agenda? Oh yeah, because you’re defending the indefensible, and you’re doing it in your usual moronic manner.

            Oh, and I believe in choice, too. What does that have to do with killing the kid after it’s already been made? And how isn’t killing the kid a danger to its health? My God, what an ugly agenda, and an ugly way of defending it.

        • I said think about the phrase, but apparently you didn’t.

          • The word choice seems to confuse them.

          • LOL as far as I can tell EVERY word seems to confuse them

      • Sure there are – people apparently like `OriginalEmily’ who think there should be absolutely no restrictions on abortion.  So yeah, think about it why don’t you?  It might make a refreshing change, thinking that is.

        • Another person so eager to post that they never gave any thought to the phrase. LOL

          Abortion is a medical decision made by a woman and her doctor.

          Nobody else’s business.

          • Abortion is a medical decision made by a woman and her doctor
            And yes, that makes you pro-abortion.
            No need for euphemisms then.

          • Mmmm no, that makes me pro-choice

            The choice is the womans….not yours.

          • LOL!!!! ROFL!!! Hi I’m pro-abortion Emily and I can’t even think any more except in inane Internet phrases.


    • Pro-choice folks don’t have a problem with people who want kids and have them.

      If a person was “Pro-Abortion” they’d have to be against contraception so as to maximize the frequency of that specific invasive procedure.

      I’m not a big fan of demonizing either side, but I’m not a big fan of forcing people to bear children who don’t want to, especially when women are exclusively burdened by such legislation.

      • Then instead of pro-abortion, maybe they could say pro-death?

      • Pro-choice folks don’t have a problem with people who want kids and have them
        And so what?

        You’re pro-abortion if you think it should be unrestricted regardless of what stage of pregnancy.

        No need for euphemisms, you’re pro-abortion.

    • Well yes depending how you interpret the prefix ‘pro’.

      I consider myself ‘pro’ assisted suicide. It doesn’t mean I want people to be lining up at their MD’s to beg for an OD of morphine.

      If someone is dying of a debilitating, painful disease I feel they have the right to choose their own life or death. If someone chooses to have an abortion they also have that choice.

    • Not many places have ‘pro-abortionists’. One-child policy China, perhaps. ‘Pro-choice’ are not advocating for pregnant women to abort their fetuses–that is absurd.

      • North Korea does, “Aquarium’s of Pyongyang” has a bit about labor camp abortions, and ordinary North Korean women are forced to abort if the father is of a different ethnicity (usually Chinese).
        India did for a bit too in the 70’s, but they were more into forced vasectomies and tubal ligations for the plebians.

      • *’Pro-choice’ are not advocating for pregnant women to abort their fetuses–that is absurd.*
        And no one’s saying that they are.

        You believe that abortion is an acceptable medical procedure to end the life of a fetus – oftentimes, a fetus viable to live outside the womb.

        That’s pro-abortion, there’s no need to wrap it up in euphemisms about `choice.’

        That’s the absurdity here.

        • Believing in a woman’s right to make the choice, doesn’t mean that having an abortion is necessarily the right choice.  Wrap your head around that. 

          • And wrap your head around the fact that you’re pro-abortion.

            Alas, it’s easier just to cry `choice’ and not have to think about the whole messy thing.

          • I would respond to that sincerely but the Macleans code of conduct forbids it. Why don’t you worry about your own soul and stop playing the second coming on a chat site.

  6. Good article.  Very much to the point and no doubt one of the reasons that motivated Savage to goon Santorum with his definition of “santorum”.

    Pro-family, my ass.  I’d bet Santorum’s followers divorce frequently, have kids out of wedlock and generally are too uneducated to figure out the pinhead logic that prevails with “pro-family” and “family values”.  Probably another Frank Luntz spin.  Only problem is that Frank Luntz is as queer as a $3 bill, as gay as a pink balloon.

  7. Parts of the media and most comedians have been having at him for years.
    I suspect it only increases his stature in the eyes of the Know-Nothings …
    which includes most of the corporate media.

  8. Santorum’s a worse candidate now than he was when the people of Pennsylvania rejected him. The defining characteristic of his politics is sincere, earnest bigotry.  

    • For this go round he’s added a sweater vest and a pick up truck.  This is supposed to make all the difference. 

  9. The modern liberals are brainwashing children now in the failed California modern liberal public indoctrination system, which fell from first in the nation to almost last place in a few decades, to worship homosexual “heroes” while filtering out the Christianity of America’s real heroes. Producing entitled anti-American anti-White pro-homosexual graduates that can’t work a slide ruler anymore and test really low isn’t preparing them for anything but failure as persons and failures in the U.S. economy.
    Pro-family? Pro-traditional values? Pro-America Education System that used to exist and led to the great rise of the U.S.? YOU BET!

    • It’s called a slide rule, not ruler, isn’t it?  My dad was an engineer. 

      • Slide rules are now antiques in any case….so why anybody would still be using one….LOL

        • My father was born in 1915…

          • Exactly.

            California dude there…the badly misnamed ‘age of knowledge’  must have been as well.

    • Agreed!

      Now lets get together with our pro-Christian heritage and celebrate.

      Everyone grab a rock and stone the first homosexual that walks by to death! As long as you aren’t female, then you shut up and listen to your husband or father.

      This is the Christian heritage right? It is in the Bible, old testament (Leviticus) and new testament (Timothy).

      • And what do you make of the women in leadership positions in the Bible?  Or are you selectively regurgitating pabulum?  

        And how can you talk about Christian heritage while ignoring Christ?  How many sinners did Christ stone?  

        Perhaps you ought to educate yourself on the Bible before you pretend to be an authority on it.

        • Where did the Catholic church get the idea that women shouldn’t be priests?

        • I never claimed the bible wasn’t hypocritical. But if you think female equality is a main theme of the Bible you are lying. I don’t hold it against them, it was written 2000 years ago when society was largely patriarchal and misogynist.

          Jesus of the bible was certainly a much better fellow than his digusting genocidal, sadist of a father, no question there. Jesus also repeatedly spoke to the veracity of the old testament (John 10:35, Matthew 22:31).

          So basically good on Jesus for saying “Let he is without sin cast the first stone” while endorsing the slaughter of the innocent committed in the old testament. That’s like saying, now don’t go killing Jews/Tutsis/Cambodian intelligentsia but Hitler/Hutu Power/Pol Pot had it right.

          But to say you need to be know the bible well to criticize it (I have read most of it) is like saying you have to read Mein Keimpf to criticize Hitler.

          • You didn’t claim the bible was hypocritical because you’d be wrong and only magnify the ignorance of it you’ve already demonstrated.  You’re unable to differentiate the roles of women in biblical society between those that were cultural and those that were not.  While the society was patriarchal, there was no diminishing of the dignity and personhood of women.  

            By your example of literary criticism, I can make wholesale condemnation of homosexuals because in Massachusetts years ago, the homosexual community published a booklet and then passed out to schoolchildren (at a public school) a how-to graphic manual of how to keep “stinky off your dinky.”

          • You aren’t very familiar with the bible if you think it wasn’t sexist from start to finish.

          • I am curious to know how you and other Americans found your way to this site?

          • Well I disagree that it was equally dignified but I guess that is a value judgement.

            I disagree with your analogy though for the following reasons. Christians claim to worship an infallible, omnipotent and just God. Gay people do not claim to worship the unnamed group in Massachusetts that allegedly (taking you at your word) distributed guides about how to have anal sex to school children.

            There is a difference. Gay people are born gay and simply want love another human being. What another person who is also born gay does is irrelevant.
            Those who worship a god are making a conscious choice understanding what the value system they are subscribing to is.

            You could argue that not all Christians believe everything in the Bible. Which is true! But then you are probably claiming that humanism guides their interpretation of it. (Don’t murder bad children, don’t own slaves (even Canadians!)).

            If you want to make the argument that Jesus (if he existed, and he probably did) had some decent ideas (and some very bad ones) that belong in the history books as “good things” I’d probably agree with you. To say we should use them as a moral compass I find abhorent.

          • The Bible is riddled with internal contradictions, so it is by definition hypocritical.

          • Jan, why do you care how an American like me found my way here?  Should I care as to why some of you Canadians have such strong feelings about American politicians?
            Or in good Canadian speech code tradition, would you like to ban me?

            Scott, your statement that gay people are born gay is a statement of faith on your part.  Science has rendered no decision as to whether homosexuality is innate, is caused by environmental factors, or is a combination of the two.  

            Andrew, if you think the bible is riddled with contradictions, perhaps you should try something other than a cursory reading.

          • Just curious, no need to be defensive.  I have been following American politics since the 60’s.  My best friend is an American who is a political junkie, I’m guessing you wouldn’t like his politics though. He was here at Christmas, this primary was a major topic of conversation.  Got to hand it to you guys, you definitely have more interesting politics than we do. 

          • As if that has anything to do with what he just said. Every response you have seems to ignore what the other person said entirely.  You’re defiantly a religious zealot republican.  No doubt about that.

          • hht…….wait a minute….you are not just against gay marriage but also anal sex!  Do you realize that many heterosexual couples engage in anal sex?  Do you guys preach and put out pamphlets on how that is not allowed?

          • HcI, I think all schoolchildren should be educated on anal sex.  What’s wrong with you?  This is as important as learning the ABCs and is one of the fundamentals of education.  

          • Homophobes always like to talk about anal sex for some reason.

          • Yes, because a person has to be a “homophobe” to believe that homosexuals engage in anal sex. lol. Man, you sexual liberals are funny. I’ll give you that.

          • Bingo! 

          • OK, so the latest doozie coming from you sexual liberals on here is that homosexuals don’t engage in anal sex, or that anal sex isn’t integral to being gay. Wow. Orwell would be proud!

          • And they make stuff up just so they can keep talking about it.  I wonder what Freud would say about that?

    • Where is your prove of this?
      This is just mindless drivel that was spoon fed to you from talk radio.
      You sound like a drama queen, are you sure that you are straight?

    • your America is ~gone~, Gramps.  evolve or fossilize – your choice.

    • As someone with three kids in the California school system, I have not one friggin clue what on earth you are talking about. The school system down here is pretty good. Very much focused on university (or “college” as they insist on calling it), almost to the point of obsession. In many ways it’s better than the one we left in Ontario, and in some ways it’s not. As for heros and profiles in study, it runs the usual gamut of Americans. Washington, Lewis and Clark, Roosevelt(s), King, and yeah they do throw in Harvey Milk.

      I could go on, but I suspect your goal here was to lob a grenade into the room as opposed to debating and learning. I hope I’m wrong. I need to go cook dinner now.

    • I always thought Superman and Batman might be gay…nobody looks that good in tights.

  10. I realize your listening ability is likely hampered, but Santorum did not say gay marriage will lead to polygamy.  He asked the mentally-challenged female in the audience if polygamous marriage was also OK.  

    What he was getting at is what are the limits of marriage.  Are there any?  What are they?  Why? Gays don’t want to answer those questions because when you begin to define marriage beyond the husband-wife norm, you open it to all other arrangements as well.  You can’t logically say same-sex marriage is OK while prohibiting polygamous or other marriage relationships.  That’s why the female told Santorum the question was irrelevant.  She couldn’t provide a logical answer.

    Marriage isn’t a question of equality in the homosexual community.  It’s about ramrodding and mandating a deviant form of marriage on the rest of society.  If it was only about equality, gays would have stopped at civil unions where in California they’ve, for some time, allowed all the benefits of traditional marriage.

    No, gays now require those relationships to be called “marriage” not because they want equality but because they want to mandate acceptance.

    As an aside, I find it humorous that a Canadian fishwrap outlet is lecturing Americans on issues of liberty when your speech censorship is as draconian as the Middle Ages.  

    Are your goosesteppers still after Mark Steyn?

    • Maybe Santorum should offer his marriage wisdom to Newt Gingrich.  He’s somebody that doesn’t seem to understand fidelity. 

    • Lol at your goossteppers comment as you goose step toward intolerance of anyone who doesn’t follow your religious view.

      The limits of marriage should be decided by the church where they are getting married NOT the state. Of course they need to be 18 years or older. You hawks are always railing against the nanny state, prove it and stay out of peoples bedrooms!

      What is wrong with gays wanting acceptance? Just because they are different from you and are a minority doesn’t mean they can’t have equal rights. 
      A Civil Union is NOT equal. What if this were mandated for Protestants or Catholics?
      How long would that last?

      • Nothing has prevented gays from getting married by a church willing to do it.  But you know that and that isn’t the issue of note, simply a tangent to the argument.

        It’s about how the government looks at and classifies marriage.At the state level, civil unions can be equal and in California they were.  There were no benefits granted to married couples in California that were not also granted to those in civil unions in California.  But that was not good enough for gays in California and they went to mandate a “marriage” denotation through the courts.  So lets get over the nonsense that this is about equality.  Put that old, tired horse to rest.  It’s about forced approval.Everyone wants acceptance for whatever it is they’re doing.  Thieves would like acceptance of thievery so that they might live in peace.  Again, you’re bringing up a tangent.  The onus is on gays to deliver on why a same-sex relationship should be given the govt. stamp of approval by calling it marriage when the relationship is unable to duplicate marriage.

        • Two adults want to get married….and according to the US constitution everyone is equal….so they can.

          There is no copyright on the word ‘marriage’

          • Homeowners get a mortgage interest deduction.  If you rent an apartment, you get none.

            According to the US constitution, everyone is equal.  Therefore, everyone must get the deduction.  

            There is no copyright on the word “home.”

            See, I can make ignorant arguments too.

          • Oh you’ve made plenty of ignorant comments already.

            All men are created equal. Period.

            All Americans have equal rights. Period.

            Therefore all Americans can get married. Period.

            They may choose not to…they may choose just to ‘rent’….but they are able to marry if they wish.

          • The entirely of your summation here is ignorant.  Not only of life but of society as a whole.

        • Marriage has been so debased in your country by hetersexuals, don’t you think it’s a bit rich to be demanding anything from gays? 

          • True that.

        • Again Civil Union is not equal to marriage, you sound like the people defending the old Jim Crow laws.
          Equal is the same title and rights, is that so hard to understand?Why is the onus on gays? To prove what, that they are people just like you and me?Stop cloaking your bigotry with right wing double speak.

          • On the state level, as was the case in California, civil unions were ONLY unequal in title and there is no guarantee of equal titles in the constitution, states or federal.  

            I suggest you familiarize yourself with the California civil unions legislation.

            The onus is on gays because they’re trying to redefine an institution that for centuries has been defined as a man and woman and that govt. has looked upon favorably as the best relationship for fostering a family and reproducing the species.  

            Gay unions have not demonstrated that same proficiency and are incapable of recapitulating some aspects of marriage.

            Thus, the onus is on gays.  You don’t simply get something by default just because you want it.  That’s the liberal way, but sorry, pal.

          • BS we have the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, those guarantee our freedom by default.
            The liberal way? What is that supposed to mean?
            Minorities with liberals help have fought tooth and nail against right wing oppression for over a hundred years.
            Nothing was given to us, so bug off.

          • California Civil Unions are NOT completely equal to civil marriage in all but name.  A) None of the Federal benefits of marriage are conferred upon them (and there are over a thousand of those), and B) Just as of January 1st, a set up updates to the California law went into effect that made the State benefits closer to state benefits for marriage than they were previously, meaning that they weren’t equal before, were they? 

          • Since the moderator is now limiting my response and I can’t respond to the posts below, I’ll do so here.

            Martin, the Constitution does not guarantee a freedom to marry anyone you want.  Sorry you missed that.  Would you like to state the clause in which you find that freedom?  You cannot marry individuals who are not “of age” as defined by the states and you cannot marry next of kin in many of the states.  You also cannot marry multiple spouses.  Where do you find this wholesale freedom other than concocted in your own mind?

            Saph, if you can read again, I said at the STATE level those unions were identical in benefits.  At the federal level, it is true that tax benefits do not confer to civil unions.  As to those over thousand of federal benefits, only very few of them like the tax ones I note are prevented.  The rest gay unions can enter into but it is not by default as is done through marriage.  So don’t throw out that “over a thousand” number when those benefits prevented at the federal level are very few.

          • Women were told the same thing when we demanded equal rights and we know how that ended.  The patriarchy is on it’s last breath – get used to it.

          • Well guess what?  Regardless of the moronic hate you spout here, gays are being married by the THOUSANDS.  Guess you’ll have to get used to it.

    • Santorum was engaging in the slippery slope fallacy. She knew where he was going, and decided not to indulge him. His goal was to say: if you allow two men to marry, you must allow three men to marry. If you allow that, you must allow a man to marry his dog or a lamp-post. It’s a specious argument. You can use the same argument to say if you let a man and woman marry, you must allow two men to marry. Therefore we should ban heterosexual marriage. It’s is pure nonsense.

      • She didn’t indulge him because she didn’t have a logical answer.  

        When one of the unique capacities of a heterosexual union is reproduction, how is that a slippery slope to homosexual marriage.

        One could more logically argue a reason for polygamy than one could for a homosexual union.  

        The dense  bulbs in the audience decided not to engage.  

        • So, heterosexual marriages without children are…?

          • Let me see if I can help you out.  

            That would be called a childless marriage?

            As I stated above, ONE of the unique capacities of marriage is reproduction.  It is not an obligation of marriage.  

            What would you call a Muslim man in America who wants freedom of his religion and to take up to five wives as allowed for in the Koran?

            What would you call a gay man who has enjoyed several of his partners and would like govt. to unionize his menage a trois?  Would you deny him his freedom?

            When Santorum asked the audience about polygamy, many of the responses were “go for it.”

            So the question becomes, again, what are the limitations on marriage.  If polygamy is also OK under the auspices of some ill-defined constitutional freedoms and the relationships being consensual, tell me what marriages do you say no to and why without taking these sacred freedoms away from consenting adults?

            When you remove the boundaries of marriage it ceases to become such……..the old “when it’s everything, it’s nothing at all.”

          • Why is this so important to you?

          • Doug, is it more important to me than it is to you?  How do you know?

            Did you choose a simpleton response because you chose not to or couldn’t answer the questions above?

          • Look more idiotic responses by people who can’t comprehend simple semantics of this debate. 

            Hey genius. Can you add? Do you understand that the law states two people be married not three or four or five? Having trouble with arithmetic? I think we have another closet homosexual here.

          • Judging from 

            1) the number and length of your responses to this topic, and 

            2) as they’re coming from someone who seems to have a brand new account (as evidence: who does not understand the comment system is not moderated) – indicating that you’ve come out of the blue for this post alone…

            3) and who is posting Slippery Slope Fallacies typical of those opposed, I’d say that yes, you are far more fascinated by this topic than I am.

          • Ironically, this: “.the old “when it’s everything, it’s nothing at all.”,  Zen Buddhist koan is the wisest thing you’ve said.

          • Doug, I’m sorry my lengthy responses have stoked your concern.  Perhaps you should take it as evidence I’ve educated myself on the matter.  Unlike some who like to jab with little insults while contributing nothing to the argument.  That wouldn’t describe you, would it?

            Why are you concerned that I seem concerned?

            As for the slippery slope fallacy, that is of your own imagination.  You were simply asked a question of why polygamists, or those in other arrangements, can’t marry if gays can marry.  You chose to pass because you couldn’t provide a reasoned argument.

            That was your choice.  You either have no reasons or choose to not put them up for discussion because of their inanity.   

          • “I’m sorry my lengthy responses have stoked your concern.  Perhaps you should take it as evidence I’ve educated myself on the matter.  Unlike some who like to jab with little insults while contributing nothing to the argument.  That wouldn’t describe you, would it?”

            Well, the lengthy answers on your behalf are your answers, and I only pointed them out as evidence that this seems to be a particular topic of concern to you. You asked. 

            Because someone can write great lengthy answers to things is not evidence that they have become educated. That of course depends on what you mean by educated. Filling your head with stories and bad logic isn’t necessarily educated, thought the process of filling your head with such things resembles ‘education’.

            And how is asking questions ‘insults while contributing nothing to the argument.” ?

             And Ad Hominem….

        • Marriage has nothing to do with reproduction. Witness the plethora of husbandless baby mamas. You seem to disagree, so I would assume you’re advocating the banning of sex outside marriage, since the purpose of marriage is human reproduction?

          • Let me help you out, Andrew.  That there are many babies conceived without marriage does not demonstrate that marriage has nothing to do with reproduction.  Try an elementary logic class for statements that follow from one another.  

            And since like some of the others your reading comprehension suffers, I’ll say again that ONE of the purposes of marriage is reproduction.  

            Your example of husbandless baby mamas and the ugly stats that follow with those babies as far as crime, education, poverty, and otherwise well-being should be evidence enough to you that not all baby-rearing arrangements are equal.

          • What is the difference between a sterile heterosexual couple and a homosexual couple? Neither are capable of reproduction in the absence of outside intervention, so why should one be permitted to marry while the other is not? If reproduction is a sufficient but not necessary objective of marriage, why should it matter whether the couple is physiologically capable of reproduction? 

            You’re engaging in the ad hominem fallacy. I really should have said that marriage and reproduction are orthogonal to each other, but I didn’t want to get too jargony.

          • The difference would be that one couple is heterosexual and the other homosexual.    Sterility is an accident of nature.  It’s not a consequence of the relationship.

            Reproduction is not a sufficient case for marriage.  Who said it was?  It’s a capacity of relationship between a man and woman.  Marriage happens to be the best relationship for carrying it out.

            I’d suggest a review of ad hominem fallacy.  This has nothing to do with personalities.  It has everything to do with fundamental facts of biology.

          • Marriage has nothing to do with reproduction is exactly the correct response.  It’s a union between two people.  The more people classify it as simply  procreation the more they show how inadequate there ability is to debate the issue. What you are explaining continues to purge the debate of substance by adjoining more nonsense about it.

          • The problem you’re running into here is when you use the word “purpose”.

            That’s a subjective viewpoint of yours.  Many people get into marriages these days with absolutely no intent at having children. Many people deliberately have children with absolutely no intent of getting married.  Reproduction is orthogonal to marriage. They do intersect, but there is no direct causal relationship there — thus, your use of the word “purpose” is in error, even if you are specifying that there are others. For many marriages, having children isn’t the purpose of it at all.  It’s also to signal to society that you’re in a committed relationship, hopefully for the remainder of your life.

        • Hardly.  Your assuming that polygamy has a merit to be considered in the first place.  It’s your close mind that keeps you from having simple third grade reading comprehension.

    • So you continue the same mentally inept conversation about adding more partners when the law clearly states that is not to be.  There already are laws on the books for gay marriage.  You hinder an intellectual debate with your crass and obviously homophobic view of the issue.  Just about everything I’ve read here is nothing but you shooting off at the mouth about things you have trouble even describing.

  11. My land, aren’t we just oh so modern and with it, going about our business of proving there is a generation gap about gay, etc.  Pity Ms Emily is a hanger on, rather spoiling the “they’ll grow out of it” commonplace.

    • I have no idea what that means, and you don’t either.

  12. Yeah, and ‘pro-choice’ is a gross euphemism for ‘pro-brutally ripping apart a living human being.’

    • Stop watching rightwing propaganda…that is hokum.

      •  ‘Pro-choice’ is a euphemism for ‘pro baby-killing,’ or ‘pro-abortion’.

        • Nobody is pro-baby killing or pro-abortion.

          What they are ‘pro’ is choice.

          The woman gets to make the choice, not the state.

          • I’m pro-choice, too. There are all kinds of choices involved in reproduction for both a man and a woman. What does that have to do with killing the baby? How can that be a choice? And of course you support it. You believe a woman has the right to have her baby killed, usually by a man.

            You won’t have an answer to  these truths, which is why you’ll lash out the way you always do. You have to.

          • You’ve fallen for the idea that a pregnant woman suddenly chooses not to be pregnant, for whatever reason…and aborts what would have been a cute healthy gurgling baby.

            However most abortions are perfomed because the foetus has deformities we can’t cure…..the brain outside the body for example….or no brain at all. Or the heart outside the body, or it’s a large mass of skin and hair with no actual head and body at all.  There are many kinds of deformities we can’t cure…genetic defects… which mean the foetus isn’t viable.

            Sometimes ‘nature’ solves the problem with a miscarriage….a ‘spontaneous abortion’ ….thousands, millions of them happen. When it doesn’t happen spontaneously, we do a deliberate abortion

            In other cases, having the baby would kill the mother….and she may have other children to raise, or she’s too young. The earliest know pregnancy is in a 5 year old. Then a choice has to be made…..it’s not an easy choice, but it has to be made…..and it should be made by the female, not the state. Never the state.

            A state that can force you to have a baby, can also force you not to….China for example

            In the west, your body is your own….not run by the state. Your body, your choice.

          • I think you’re making this completely up. Of course, you’re more than welcome to document your bizarre claim that most abortions are to get rid of deformed kids. By all means.

            And this isn’t just about a woman’s body. It’s about someone else’s life.

            Again, all choices by men and woman should be made before the baby gets made, not after. How we got to think otherwise is beyond me.

          • That’s because you have an agenda, and you’ll only believe things that further your agenda.

            I guess that pregnant 5 year old should have thought first before she got pregnant eh?

            Pity her stepfather didn’t feel the same way.

          • In other words, you can’t document your bizarre claims, or explain your characterization of abortion as being about choice, or your defence of killing life in the womb. It’s just like I said. And it’s because you’re defending the indefensible. Thank you.

          • You are the one who wants a law where none exists, so the burden of proof is yours, not mine.

            I know it’s Sunday Dennis, and you want to preach, but I’m in no mood to listen to a litany of ignorance and abuse.

            Mrs Santorum had a second-trimester abortion…for the very reason I told you about.

            The Santorums don’t like to call it that of course, but then they aren’t well people.


            Now kindly take your religious rant to church, because I don’t intend to listen to any more of your nonsense. Ciao.

          • It’s my burden to prove your ridiculous claims about deformed fetuses and pregnant five-year-olds?

            My God. You can’t defend any of the assertions you’ve made so far. You’re now going on about  this nonsense story attacking the Santorums. Oh, and you’re also back to form attacking me personally, too.

            These are the things that you and other abortion supporters on here have to do because, again, you’re defending the indefensible. And judging by your actions, you know it, too.

          • Emily writes:

            “However most abortions are perfomed because the foetus has deformities we can’t cure”

            That is the most ignorant and incredibly dense statement you’ve made yet.  And that’s saying something.

          • You should be careful. I’m very familiar with this person now calling herself Emily. She’s not interested in debating you. She’s interesting in nullifying your attempts at debating. Trust me.

  13. Ok, I just wish there was someone in the crowd who could truely debate him.  He keeps saying 3 or 4 men…blah blah blah….Why didn’t anyone say, Listen Buddy, Im asking you a specific question, about two people…two people!!” and kept on him till he answered it….they say ‘it’s irrelevent’ but americans need to tell him WHY its irrelvent and not be afraid to say it.  In a few sentences or less so people can understand it…..

    • Not really.  Pretty much all the homophobic responses are nothing but them using idiotic metaphors and hyperbolic idiot-isms that pretty much explain nothing.  They don’t further the conversation one bit.

      • Much like your own.

  14. What a laughable blog post by Ms. Emma Teitel. Or can I even assume these days that she’s a “Ms.,” or even a “she?”

    Yes, we have to start changing the entire English language and journalistic style practices because she has to lash out at anyone who dares disagree with her sexual liberalism. The witch hunt never ends, does it.

    • No, it doesn’t.

      And liberals weren’t the ones hunting witches. That was your church.

    • Dennis F is in the house – we are about to be lectured on the virtues of celibacy. 

      • Really? Where? What are you so terrified of? lol. Next.

        • Nothing…we are all for you being celibate.

          • But I’m certainly not for you being a vicious pedophile. (Note to moderator, I’m not the one who started this personal and inane spitting match, but I’ll finish it if I have to).

          • So far not a single thing you’ve “spat” has made a bit of sense.  But please.  Continue.  Public record of homophobia is where it gets recognized for what it is.

          • Oh, please. All you do is hate people who dare disagree with your sexual agenda. The horror!

          • Oh no someone that thinks differently than you. THE HORROR!

          • First, why am I not allowed to disagree with your sexual agenda? Second, it should be “than,” not “then.”

          • That kind of comment is precisely why we’d prefer you to be celibate.

          • Does it also prove that you’re a vicious pedophile? lol. Next.

          • Did you just accuse a 65 year old grandma of being a pedophile because she doesn’t have a “hang-up” about gay marriage?   I would ask you to provide your research source regarding pedophilia and support for gay marriage but I understand your disdain for scientific research so I will not bother.  I am quite sure that your Christian church has encouraged some sort of tolerance or at least kindness.  Maybe you could exercise a bit of that now.

          • No, I replied in kind to someone acting like an idiot, just like you’ve been doing. You can’t defend abortion or the gay agenda, so you resort to this nonsense. Thanks for only proving that you’re defending the indefensible. Next.

        • No one is terrified of you.  If anything your homophobic views and continual posting here shows how much of a bigot you are.

          • Yes, you and others on here are terrified of people who stand up for truth and stand up to knee-jerk bullies like you.

      • Well Jan, if Dennis F. is having sex I do have to send my condolences to his partner.

  15. In fact, I’ve got a suggestion for Ms. or Mr. Teitel, since she or he didn’t seem forthcoming with a sane alternative to the language currently used by journalists. What about “traditional” family values? Seems pretty accurate to me without being biased one way or another. Or is she/he bent on shouting out “anti-gay” at every available opportunity?

    • So, you’re pro-polygamy?

      Like Abraham and all the other patriarchs of the bible?

      Very traditional of you

      • And here I thought some people knew the difference between the words “traditional” and “ancient.” Silly me. Next.

        • What time span does ‘traditional’ refer to then?

          • And here I thought I was providing a common sense alternative. How about some time after the Old Testament, or when you were born? Whichever came first.

          • How about religion has no place in deciding the civil rights of human beings?  But since you don’t consider it a civil rights issue let’s just assume you’re going to down play every attempt someone has with rationalizing this with you.

          • You are almost literally talking out of your butt. And you dared accuse me of not making any sense? lol

          • So marriage is the same as it was in the New Testament, is that what you’re saying?

          • I don’t get what you’re saying. I never do. In fact, I don’t know why you’re on here other than to agitate against people you know are right.

        • Ancient IS traditional.

          Polygamy was common in the time of Jesus too.

    • So let’s hear it, old boy. Let’s hear a rational, logical argument for denying civil rights to this particular group of people.

      I’ve been waiting years for one. All I get is vitriol, anger, and irrational, emotional arguments. None have merit. And frankly, after 20 odd years, I’m getting kind of tired of it.

      Two people are in love and want to commit to a stable, loving relationship in front of their friends, family, and peers. Tell me why that’s wrong.

      • Oh, I don’t think you’ve dared to listen to anyone else for the last 20 years. You can define “civil rights” any way you want, and be alright with any “two people” being “in love.” It certainly doesn’t mean that I have to, or that society does, either.

        • You haven’t answered Dave’s question. 

          • He won’t either because he’s an idiot and can’t.

          • I did. Why are you so ignorant and full of hate? God. What an agenda.

          • Hypocrite much? Oh hateful one.

          • Boy, you’re just flailing all over the place, aren’t you.

            You hate me and people who dare disagree with your sexual agenda. That much is obvious, which is why you come on here and call me an idiot and don’t provide even a lick of reason in your posts. Your hatred obviously clouds any reasoning abilities you might otherwise have.

            On the other hand, whom do I hate again?


          • You hate gays. You can try and hide from it but everything you posted here points to that. Why do I have to be gay to support gay rights? BTW I’m married with kids.

            Next. lol

          • No, you see, this is the kind of tactic haters like you use against people who dare disagree with your sexual agenda. I never accused you of being gay. So, you can’t think straight, you can’t reason, and you hate anyone who dares oppose you. That ain’t any way to go through life, dude. No way.

          • ONCE AGAIN! You didn’t read what the other person posted. I’M A STRAIGHT PERSON WHO IS MARRIED WITH KIDS.


            I’m a woman. Fail again!

            Next. HAhahahaHa

          • Then why is your picture that of a male? You never said you weren’t a male, either.

            You can’t defend your sexual agenda, so you engage in this nonsense. And stop using my nexts. It only proves you have no imagination; no ability to see beyond your own limited self!

          • If my picture was of Elmo do I need to be Elmo to post? I’m a woman and a straight one at that. Been married going on 8 years now. You on the other hand are tiny little troll that spends all their time whining about other people’s sexual agenda while maintaining your bigotry. Enjoy that tiny little box you call “a life.”

          • Who cares about your personal life? Who cares about mine? All you do is lash out with hatred against anyone who dares disagree with your sexual agenda. Why aren’t people allowed to disagree with you without you hating them? What an ugly agenda you have, which you support in this typically ugly way of yours.

          • Yawn. Same garbage. Different post.

          • Of course I have. You just hate the answer because you have no reply to it. lol

        • “Oh, I don’t think you’ve dared to listen to anyone else for the last 20 years.”

          AHHAHAHA.  Ohh the irony.

          • Please explain.

        • As Kay said, you haven’t answered the question. I’m still looking for a logical, rational reason for denying CIVIL rights, not religious rights mind you, but CIVIL rights to these folks who want to get married. I’m sorry my friend, but, respectfully, “it’s just wrong”, or “it will undermine MY marriage”, or “it’s about procreation” just don’t cut it.

          • Just like I said, you don’t want to listen to anybody but yourself. And apparently you’ve been doing this for at least 20 years now.

            You define it as a civil right. I don’t. You define it as a relationship of “love” to be formally given extra rights in society. I don’t.

            You and people like you are the ones that bring religion into it. I don’t. I bring truth and reason. You?

          • AWESOME! Then would you please PLEASE answer my question?

          • How haven’t I answered it? You’re still not listening. You don’t care about the truth. You only care about your agenda.

          • I’m listening brother, and waiting. 

            You know where to find me. 

          • I answered it twice. You obviously don’t have a response, so you engage in this juvenile nonsense. That’s your agenda. That’s what you have to do.

            To repeat, for the third time, I don’t agree with what you consider a civil right, which involves the state recognizing any two people “in love”, or whatever their sex lives or inclinations should be. Got it? Didn’t think so. Next.

          • I’m sorry Dennis. I just do not understand your posts/answers (though I’m honoured that you sit by your computer waiting for my responses ;) )

            Your last sentence makes sense to me. Marriage absolutely COULD be considered a sacrament between two people, and to hell with what the state says. Sadly (I guess?) the State HAS decided it DOES have a say in what a marriage is, and thus I feel if that’s the case, then same-sex couples should be treated equally as opposite-sex couples.

            Ultimately, if I’m getting you correctly, you’re saying the State should have NO say in what a marriage is? It should be the exclusive domain of the Churches/Religions?

            I can understand that point of view, but then what about the tax code? I guess we’d all file as individuals? What about divorce, how would we handle that? Tricky questions no? Your thoughts?

          • Why do you have to make up stuff about what I wrote? I never said anything about sacraments or the state getting involved in marriage or not. Where do you get this stuff?

            You’re completely incapable of reading what I’ve actually written, and sticking to it, because you only care about your agenda, and nothing else.

            For the fourth time: you think being gay should be a protected civil right, I don’t. You think people have to live certain sexual lifestyles, and that those lifestyles should receive extra recognition under the law, I don’t.

          • You’re a very angry man, Dennis.

          • Just because I dare to disagree with your sexual agenda? It’s you and people like you, especially on here, who get angry at dissenters. Nobody else.

          • Oh, and I’ll add — with some sense of delightful irony — that it’s you who ended up having no answers to the points I raised, not the other way around. Ain’t that a kick? lol. But not a surprise.

          • I’m sorry Dennis. I reread all your posts on this topic and I really don’t understand the points your trying to make. In fact, I can’t even tell what your position is on same-sex marriage or rights (civil, equal, or otherwise) for homosexuals. Your position is not at all clear to me. Our styles must be incompatible.

            I apologize for the ‘angry man’ remark. It was unnecessary.

          • It’s just like I said. You said you have spent 20 years listening to other arguments, but you only listen to yourself. I repeat the same precise point four times, and you still can’t accept it. Just like so many on your side, you only care about your own arguments and your own agenda. And you get frustrated, even furious, when someone dares to offer another view. You’re obviously afraid of the truth.

          • Can I ask a favour- can you repeat it a fifth time? Again, I apologise, I really have tried to understand your point. I’m sorry I am DEFINITELY not hearing you properly. You seem like a man of reason (and certainly of passion).

          • I don’t believe any person has to be gay, lesbian, a cross-dresser, or whatever you want to call it. I don’t believe the state has any business giving people rights based on being gay or any of those other things. And I think the ramifications of enshrining into law the proposition that people are bound by their sexual urges is a disaster waiting to happen. Better?

      • Dave, that was a quick dinner you whipped up.  Did your husband enjoy it?

        You can commit to any relationship you want in front of as many friends and family you want….even in front of your great priestess with her blessings.

        What you can’t do is have a temper tantrum because you want to force society to give that relationship a stamp of approval and call it “marriage.”

        • Several states already acknowledge it as marriage.  They get married in a church of God.  How do you like them apples?

        • Well I cannot force you to accept it, but I can work to force my government to accept it.

          And I did.

          We won.


        • hht…I would suggest that you recognize that Canadians are okay with same-sex marriage.  We gave it our stamp of approval. 
          That approval will only rise among the young in our country as they embrace their friends who have the courage to “come out” in high school and university.  Our youth recognize that homosexuality is not a lifestyle choice but a biological fact.
          Your comment to Dave about dinner just shows how ridiculous you are…you really believe heterosexual men out there are not cooking dinner for their wives and children…sheesh.

          • HcI, what do Canadians have to do with this?  This article was about the supposedly anti-gay views of an American politician.  And San Diego Dave, who I responded to, lives in the U.S.  His state of California and a few others have legalized gay marriage but the U.S. govt. does not recognize those marriages. 

            Youth are not born recognizing that homosexuality is a biological fact.  It’s something taught them in the schools and is why homosexuals are so aggressive with their agenda with school children.  

            As I told one other poster, your statement that it is a biological fact is an article of faith.  Science has not rendered a conclusion as to the origins of homosexuality.  To use an analogy, the data show that pedophiles are nearly incurable.  By using logic similar to yours, I could state that pedophilia is not a choice but a biological fact.  And if I did so, I’d be like you and would be making a statement of belief as science has also rendered no conclusion on the origins of pedophilia. Don’t pass off as scientific fact what science has not said is fact.

            And on a related note, when are you defenders of gay marriage going to define marriage.  I got no takers when I asked earlier.  Your group seems quite certain of what marriage is not limited to, so tell me what it is limited to.  Why? 

            This is essentially the question Santorum was getting at when he asked about polygamy.  That escaped the attention of the unwitting Ms. Teitel who could couldn’t get past her conditioned response.


          • Pardon me, I am on a Canadian online magazine site.  Dave is an ex-pat Canadian.  I naively thought most of the bloggers were Canadians. 
            First, I would be very interested in your research sources that suggest homosexuality is not biologically and environmentally  determined.  It exists widespread in nature among animals and therefore it is unlikely a social construct…..if members of the opposite sex are available and procreation is desirable, why would animals engage in homosexual behavior?
            From a societal and personal viewpoint, I am not sure what teenager would choose to be gay given the horrific treatment they undergo from people like you.  It would be like converting to Judaism in Nazi Germany…what thinking rational person would ever to it.
            Secondly, I am not sure why you would bring up pedophilia, however…okay…I’ll bite.  Pedophilia is a mental disorder because it is harmful.  Scientists don’t exactly know what causes the dysfunctional sexual attraction toward prepubescent children but it definitely becomes child abuse when the person acts on it.  Now, pedophilia is definitely not curable but chemical and or physical castration works well if the attraction is about libidio and not anger issues.  I wonder if your retired Republican congressman Mark Foley got a handle on his issue…of course he was attract to pubescent boys so it really wasn’t pedophilia.
            As for your definition of marriage…gee, I have been married 26 years…my parents 63 years…Marriage is a legal partnership between two people who want to share a home, a life and all the good and bad that comes with that.  I am always interested in why people want to deny the state of marital bliss to others.  It is highly unlikely that a gay person would want to marry you so why would you be bothered by them getting married?

          • Just as an aside, you do know about Prop 8?

      • ‘I’ve been waiting years for one. All I get is vitriol, anger, and irrational, emotional arguments. None have merit. And frankly, after 20 odd years, I’m getting kind of tired of it.’

        -I strongly doubt that is the case at all. Also I’m willing to bet if there was a law introducing adult incentuous marriage you would be all against it.

      • “Two people are in love and want to commit to a stable, loving relationship in front of their friends, family, and peers. Tell me why that’s wrong.”

        That is exactly what they have been doing all along.  There is absolutely nothing to stop them.  A solemn commitment comes from the heart, not a scrap of paper issued by the state/province, whatever.  The problem eventually becomes, churches being compelled by the state to provide sanction for something they morally disagree with, a stance for which they have every right to adhere, as stated in the Charter of Rights And Freedoms.

        Marriage is not a Charter right, by the way, for anyone.

        • Who is forcing the churches in Canada to perform marriages between same-sex couples?

        • Ah- interesting twist on the argument- the concept that marriage should not be a state-sanctioned event, but rather a contract before God. I DO have some sympathy for that argument. 

          However, that is a completely separate discussion. Currently, we live in a society where marriage IS sanctioned by the state and the argument is whether or not states should sanction same-sex couples. I feel they should. I feel they must. Now, your point about churches being compelled to marry? There is no evidence anywhere that that is the case so far, so that holds no water in my eyes. Currently, the argument is about the statDon’t worry, your church will still be able to hate anyone it wants. 

    • Societies melt and form a bond within itself adjusting to the populous’ acceptance of one another.  That’s how they keep from killing each other.  But since you’re too idiotic to comprehend what society is outside of your narrow minded view we can all get the summation that you’re a giant homophobic moron.

      • Where do you get this stuff? The washroom stalls of social science graduate schools?

        • Life experience from someone that doesn’t hide in the washrooms to avoid people. You know? Like you do.

          • Please don’t force your own obviously skewed and narrow experiences on others. Thanks.

          • Man, there’s a lot of this; people take offense just at an opposing viewpoint.  Relax, it’s just a blog site; there’s no “forcing” going on.  The original post had a valid point.

          • Really. What was that valid point? Please do tell.

  16. I agree with much of this article. I am a supporter of gay rights and gay marriage but I am also a supporter of open debate. I think both sides of the gay marriage issue have the right not to be portrayed using bias terminology by the media.

    I’m wondering if the use of the prefix, “anti” is too negative to be used objectively. 

  17. “That Santorum will flounder is almost certain (it’s only a matter of time before talking heads and comedians start lambasting him as fiercely as they did Bachmann and Perry)…”

    That’s probably the truest statement in this piece.  It is always just a matter of time before social conservatives get attacked by the overwhelmingly left-leaning pundit/news/entertainment industry.  Gone are the days when journalists set out to provide objective information and comedians set out to be funny.

    …”but mainstream and liberal media could quicken the process…”

    Yah, I mean, whose team are they on anyway??
    You know, one spends a lot of time around here arguing with leftists who insist that the mainstream media is not actually left-leaning.    It’s nice to see a columnist admit that the media takes a side, although it’s a bit bizarre to see said columnist berating the media for not taking that side as vociferously as usual. 

    “… if only they’d avoid using the manipulative terminology Santorum and friends use to espouse their anti-gay rights, and anti-privacy beliefs.”

    While we’re decrying euphemisms, let’s call out “anti-privacy”.  I think by “privacy”, Ms. Teitel means “abortion”, which itself used to be a euphemism for “killing the child you don’t want while she’s still inside you” until its real meaning rendered it just as ugly.

    Let’s also call out “anti-gay” while we’re at it, since “opposed to gay marriage” does not mean “opposed to gays” any more than “opposed to journalistic bias” means “opposed to journalists”.

  18. This article upset me, then I remembered that those who share the sterile, devoid-of-life views as the author have a fertility rate of virtually nil.  They’ll be replaced with immigrants untainted with such corrosive dystopian dysentery.

    Your kind will go the way of the dodo soon enough, and with the help of our socially conservative immigrant brand new BFFs, the grownups can resume having grownup political conversations about grownup topics like taxes and roads and sewers and pogey, rather than buggery, buggery, buggery, and more buggery.  What a colossal bore the gay obsessed are, and a colossal drag too, scolding the assless chapless like uptight schoolmarms who haven’t been laid in decades.  BOOOORRRING.

    • Ah – it’s Santorum who is bringing it up. Tje election is supposed to be about the economy.  Did you get your rocks off saying buggery four times, God knows there aren’t many places you can do that without people thinking you’re off your nut,  are there? 

      • No, Santorum didn’t bring it up.  That wasn’t what he wanted to talk about.  The college student audience brought it up.  He wanted to move on.  They didn’t.

        As to buggery, that’s what Thomas Jefferson called it.  You probably also wouldn’t like what else he had to say about it.

        To the feeble-minded adolescent, cobra kid, being against gay marriage or homosexuality, in general, need not have anything religious about it.  Read Harry Jaffa’s “Homosexuality and the Natural Law.”  You can find it online. 

    • We do not have a zero fertility rate.  We breed using the womb-shells of heterosexuals.

  19. The voters will decide. Laws writen by men can state whatever. God created and blessed a man and a woman, everything against it fall under God’s judgement. Sodoma and Gomorra were destructed by their sins and this world is following their path.

  20. Emma Teitel is one angry columnist.  Families are parents and their children related by blood, marriage or adoption.  Why is she so upset?

  21. What a fascinating gong-show this comment thread has turned out to be. I’d just like for once to see a self-styled “Family Values” candidate discuss (rather than mention in passing) the positive and rewarding elements to family life. Instead, they seem to prefer to focus on aspects that don’t have much to do with the sort of family construct they seem to prefer in the first place.

    I suppose I could openly question as to just why they seem to care so deeply about who others love and wish to marry, but from what I see below, it’s a complete waste of time and energy. [Insert frequently misattributed quote about reason here]

    • Yup, complete waste of time and energy trying to talk to them….they are immersed in their bible,  and try to insist that others are as well.
      No understanding of what a democracy is.

    • Apparently, the whole purpose of Santorum’s talk flew right over your head.  He didn’t go there to talk about family values or gay marriage.  That was what the audience was fixated on.  They know Santorum’s position on the issue and THEY chose to fixate on that rather than talk about the economy.  Santorum didn’t bring it up, the audience did.

      Who has the fixation here?  Homosexuals and their sympathizers are so obsessed with anyone who challenges their lifestyle or so-called “right” to marriage that they can’t move on.  They get even more flabbergasted when they can’t justify why they should be allowed to marry but not polygamists.

      I doubt Santorum or anyone else gives a rip who you or any homosexual love.  Love who or what you want all you wish.  But you miss the point that there is no entitlement of society having to approve of who you love and who you wish to marry.

      • That’s because nobody is interested in Santorum’s position on the economy.  Anyone who is anti-science has nothing useful to say about the economy anyway. LOL 

        The audience was there to expose the kind of man Santorum is…..an ignorant bigot….and they did that.

        When I was growing up society didn’t ‘approve’ of a lot of things…..inter-racial marriage, women working, people ‘living together’ and a whole raft of other things. Now they are a commonplace whether your religious nuttery likes it or not.

        Times change. Get used to it….because there’s a lot more change coming.

        • “When I was growing up…..”

          It appears you are still growing up.  Teenager?

          You’re simply demonstrating your own bigotry.  Because Santorum questions a model of origins that says life sprang forth from nothingness and slowly evolved by an unguided and random process to all the life forms we know, he must be anti-science.  And anyone who is skeptical of anthropogenic global warming, despite the fact that earth has gone through these cycles numerous times before the dawn of man, they also must be anti-science.  If you want to see a close-minded bigot, go look in the mirror. 

          One need not propose a religious argument to address any of these issues.  Religion is simply what you choose to swat around and to invoke in any argument for which you can’t otherwise provide reason.  

          As one noted columnist said, you would be the “pyromaniac in your field of straw men.”  

          • I’m 65, dude.

            Anyone anti-evolution is anti-science.

            Anyone in denial about climate change is anti-science.

            Because that’s what science says on those topics.

            Since you haven’t provided ‘reason’ here, just nonsensical beliefs….I’ll simply repeat that you’re going to be horrified over the 21st century, as the world continues to upend your Bronze age goat-herder stories.

          • It may be anti-science to be anti-evolution, but that doesn’t mean science is right. My Oxford professor friend tells me he has a number of atheist friends who strongly question evolution. Not to mention thousands of other qualified people who have honestly examined the evidence and have come to the conclusion that evolution is impossible.
            This whole gay question boils down to if you accept or deny the reality of God. Those who deny the knowledge of God have been allowed by God to do whatever they want that they may find their choices lead to corruption. His hope is that when they reach bottom, they will finally turn to Him deliverance, which He will gladly give. I think Christians should follow God’s example, let those who refuse to listen go their own way, and be ready to help when people hit rock bottom.

          • You have a friend who is an Oxford professor – I assume he doesn’t teach logic.

          • @023818f52e38cc6c587a6cf3c011a70b:disqus 

            Science is knowledge….all the knowledge we’ve gathered in the world.  Evolution has been around since 1859, when Darwin first wrote about it.

            If anyone can disprove it, they’ve had plenty of time to try.

            No one has done so.

            The ‘gay question’ has nothing to do with ‘God’…we’ve had gay people since day one, and there are gay animals as well.

            I’m glad you are on such close terms with your invisible friend that you even know what he ‘hopes’.

          • Emily, evolution did not begin with Darwin.  It’s been going on since organisms first appeared.  Evolution occurs.  

            To what extent is not known.  You can’t go into the laboratory and empirically observe a bacterium changing into a lizard over time because the span of time can’t be recapitulated in the lab.  So inferences are made based on fossils, sequence similarities, etc.  

            Those inferences don’t prove that all organisms result from a slow, gradual continuum of mutations over the ages.  That has plausibility but it isn’t anti-science to question that plausibility.  

            Organisms can also change by other means, including endosymbiosis which is very unlike the process described by Darwinian evolution.  Your type makes it sound as though the process is signed, sealed, and delivered without blemish.  You sound like the religious zealot you so much like to criticize in that you criticize skepticism and open debate.

            And although it’s not technically part of biological evolution, your type also seems to ignore the problem of the generation of matter needed, prior to life, at the genesis of the universe.  Matter just seemingly created itself.  Do you know anything about the laws of thermodynamics?

            Finally, what do gay animals have to do with anything?  Many animals also eat their young.  Because something occurs in the rest of the animal world, it should be welcomed amongst humans as well?  That’s a grand illustration you make.  Thanks for sharing.  LOL

          • Sigh….Darwin’s book ‘Origin of Species’ was published in 1859

            150 years to prove him wrong, and no one has done so

            I don’t have a ‘type’….I have an education

            If you want to argue about the Big Bang theory, go talk to Stephen Hawking.

            Gays occur in the natural world everywhere, in every species and through all of history.  It’s quite normal.

          • Emily,  I made no wholesale denial of Darwinian evolution.  In fact, I said evolution occurs, but no one knows to what extent and whether the Darwinian model can account for all forms of life.  You assume that it does.  You throw out your religious straw man at those that are skeptical.

            I also believe in the Big Bang.  In fact, the Nobel Prize winning physicist, Arno Penzias, who proposed the best evidence for it also said it’s the best evidence we have of a “creation” event.  And Penzias was no religious person.

            That must really sting at bigots such as yourself.  An “educated” person as you claims to believe there’s a natural process that can create matter while the laws of thermodynamics say that’s impossible and a Nobel Prize winning physicist calls the Big Bang and the resulting formation of matter a “creation” event.

            Read it and weep.

            Mothers eating their young occur throughout the natural world.  It’s quite normal.

          • I would suggest you learn about evolution before you try criticizing it.

            Same goes for the big bang theory….you are trying to discuss things you know nothing about

            And human mothers kill their kids every day….it’s something that occurs in nature.

          • ‘Since you haven’t provided ‘reason’ here, just nonsensical beliefs….I’ll simply repeat that you’re going to be horrified over the 21st century, as the world continues to upend your Bronze age goat-herder stories. ‘

            –Indeed. Stalin and Lenin would be proud of you.

          • Wow  – bringing in  the heavy artillery are we?  We usually start out slow with a Hitler reference.

          • Well I doubt that…since neither of them were 21st century types.

          • Emily, I’ve forgotten more about evolution and the Big Bang than you’ve ever learned.  

            There is no natural explanation for the creation of matter at the Big Bang.  None.  That’s why Penzias said it was the best evidence of a creation event.  Perhaps you should write Penzias and swat him with your religious straw man.  He’d be amused.

            Pray tell, Emily, how do you account for the origin of matter?  This should be good.

            I LOL at you dolts who think you know how nature works and want to twist to do things it cannot so it fits with your very narrow world view.  The laws of nature are not mutable at your very wish.

            Keep on hoping.

          • Emily my dear, why should I check with Hawking?  Hawking is a theoretician.  That’s all well and good.  Theoreticians theorize.  Penzias is a physicist who actually conducted experiments to obtain empirical evidence for a given hypothesis.  That’s why he has a Nobel Prize and Hawking does not.  

            What don’t I know about Penzias?  I said Penzias is not religious and I also said Penzias stated the Big Bang was the best evidence for a creation event.  Are you saying either of those conclusions I’ve made is untrue?  What should I know about Penzias that would refute those claims, oh enlightened one?  As you seem adept at googling, use your googler to find verification that both of the above are true of Penzias.

            And thank you, Emily, that in response to my asking you to reconcile your belief of a naturalistic creation of matter from nothing at the Big Bang with the laws of thermodynamics, you say to consult with Hawking.  

            That’s rich.  

            I can see the university physics professor, after teaching his students the laws of thermodynamics, he gets a question from a student regarding the Big Bang and the creation of matter.  The student asks how that might be possible in light of those laws.

            The physics prof. scratches his head and says, consult with Hawking.


            Emily, you’re a barrel of chuckles.  You might be educated, but if I were you, I’d be asking for a refund.  It’s never too late.

          • @f1958384772fa8bfadb7687e3d47b03d:disqus 

            Hawking is an astrophysicist and cosmologist…see, I knew you were ignorant about the subject.

            Go back to Lifesite dude….you don’t belong here.

          • Emily dear, yes, Hawking could be considered an astrophysicist and certainly a cosmologist.  Principally, he is a theoretical physicist who has interest in theoretical astronomy and theoretical cosmology.  Are you seeing the trend here?  Hawking is not an experimenter.  He’s a theoretician.  There’s nothing wrong with that field.  But I’ll say it again, there’s a reason Penzias has the Nobel Prize and Hawking does not.  

            And thank you for quite ably, once again, ignoring the points about Penzias you were going to enlighten me on before you weren’t.  

            And thank you for enlightening me on how one reconciles the laws of thermodynamics with a natural explanation of creation of matter.

            In argument, Dear Emily, just stick to your google links.

          • People can very well have a contrary opinion from yours, with out the insults and name calling.

            The fact is science and religion aren’t necessarily in conflict.  There is much that science can not explain, and that leaves open a matter of faith.

          • You’re allowed to have your own opinions. You’re not allowed to have your own facts.

            The difference between science and faith, is that science continues to search for explanations….faith presents fairy tales as the whole story.

          • @f1958384772fa8bfadb7687e3d47b03d:disqus 

            I have 2 degrees in science….it’s painfully obvious you have none. In fact I doubt you finished high school.

            Find something else to do, and stop embarrassng yourself in public.

          • Emily, you don’t know what I have.  You also should ask for a refund on whatever you paid for an education.  If you do have two degrees in science, you’re an insult to the scientific establishment.  When questioned, scientists give direct answers.  They don’t do the Texas Two-step and resort to google links…..”consult Hawking.”  LOL

            You’re unable to reconcile the laws of nature with what your world view directs you to believe about the origin of matter.  The reason you cannot do that is self-evident.

            That is what is truly embarrassing for someone claiming to be versed in science.

            You’re a carbon copy of the narrow-minded bigots you criticize.  You start out with your world view and you shoehorn science to fit with it.


          • Points for bluster, old boy.  I don’t have a hard science background so I am having trouble following you.  In laymen’s terms what does this scientists work do to prove God created the universe?

          • Jan ,tuck away your snotty bluster remark.   I’m providing answers.  Emily, the trained scientist, is resorting to google links.  You should be able to distinguish between the two.

            in laymen’s terms, one of the laws of thermodynamics says matter can neither be created nor destroyed.  

            Science also shows that the universe had a beginning.  It was not self-existent.  That beginning is known as the Big Bang.  At that instance of the Big Bang, matter came into being from nothingness.  

            So when there had been nothing and there was now something, the question arises as to how that matter at the Big Bang originally came into being when one of the laws of thermodynamics says that’s impossible.   

            There’s no natural explanation for matter arising from nothing.  That’s why Penzias calls the Big Bang evidence of a creation event.  He doesn’t comment on who or what might be the creator.  Yes, most would call the creator of this event, “God.” In the most simple  sense, a God of first causes. 

          • I thought he said ‘best’ evidence which is different than saying evidence. That some of you have invented the white haired ‘God’ up in the sky as the creator is really neither here or there.  And you might want to lighten up a touch.

          • @f1958384772fa8bfadb7687e3d47b03d:disqus 

            I think we’ve heard more than enough from the bat-shit crazy.


  22. Pro-life is a euphemism for anti-abortion. Does that mean that Pro-Choice is a euphemism for pro-abortion?

    • Yes.

      • This means, of course that typing is a euphemism for thinking.

  23. Canada and Cuba are the only two countries in the western hemisphere that allow publicly funded abortion unrestricted for all 9 months of pregnancy. We are in the same league as a murdering Communist dictatorship on this issue! Oh how proud we should be! Decide at week 35 that you don’t want the kid, hey don’t worry! Canadian law says that you can still knock the kid off so what if it has a heartbeat and functioning brain(by week 7), that by week 18 or 20 there is evidence to suggest that the child’s nervous system is developed enough to feel pain, or that after week 30 it would have a greater than 90% chance of surviving outside the womb. Forget that whole thought of adoption. No way. Its too inconvenient so just kill it. Its not a real human, right. Gee, don’t our history books say something about how blacks were counted as only 3/5ths of a person in the part of the U.S. Constitution dealing with determining representation. Amazing how we can always find another group to dehumanize. First, people were dehumanized on race but that can fell into disfavor. Then, dehumanizing people based on sexual orientation began to fall out of favor. When does our dehumanizing of unborn babies start to fall out of favor. Abortion is not simply a womens’ issue. A woman may get an abortion but half the kids being killed are women. You may think that you helping a woman with an abortion but often times you are simply saying that one woman(the mother)  has more rights and is thereby superior to another(the baby).Take the religion out of the issue and look at it both logically and morally. This is a serious issue. Our unrestricted right to abort doe not make us a kinder, gentler nation. It just takes us further from the path that our founders would want us to follow.

    • Do stop with the nonsense.

      • Do speak for yourself.

        Do acquire some facts for your arguments, the way the original poster did.

        Let him have his opinion, even one you disagree with. He makes some interesting points.

        • The poster has no facts.  Just an agenda.

    • Excuse me Jacob but where in Canada are physicians performing abortions for people who “decide at 35 weeks that you don’t want the kid and hey don’t worry…you can still knock the kid off”.  You find us a physician in Canada who is doing third trimester abortions for any reason other than threats to the life of the mother and I’ll eat my socks.

  24. He’s anti-gay and pro-family, of course. It’s foolish to think one can be one and not the other.

    Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

    • It all depends on what you call a family. It also means that you need to equivocate anti-gay-marriage with anti-gay, which is like equivocating anti-child-abuse with anti-child.

  25. This video doesn’t support the authors argument. First of all nothing in the video refers to Teitel’s points. Nowhere in the video does he say that same sex marriage will lead to polygamy. He is just responding to the argument by some of the audience members.

    Presumably the woman in the audience is arguing that we should be able to have whatever kind of union that we want. But when Santorum responds with okay then, if then why not three men etc. Then they start to balk and back pedal. Clearly demonstrating that they don’t really believe in the notion that we should be able to do whatever we please as long as we aren’t hurting anyone else.

    To answer Teitel’s question, the reason that the media isn’t calling him anti-gay. Is that 1.Santorum isn’t if they start to do that. They will just be putting words in his mouth. And giving his supporters and the conservative media a liscence to say that the mainstream media is beating up on him. And thereby giving Santorum more support. Which I am sure that they don’t want to do.

    • It’s not clear that the author of this article even watched the video she linked.  If in reality she did, there’s a very low barrier to writing for Macleans.  

  26. ‘Well I doubt that…since neither of them were 21st century types.’
    –Actually it’s the reverse. Since what you’re espousing against Christians is no really no different than what Stalin and Lenin during the Russian revolution. And in France during the French revolution. The fact that you think that what you’re espousing is revolutionary and new, just shows how sad you really are. Scary really.

    • You have no idea what Stalin and Lenin said…Lenin was a Jew and Stalin was a seminary student.

      I said nothing about atheism being revolutionary and new….atheists have always been around….many even got burned at the stake by crackpot religionists.


  27. I am truly tired of the left wing continually bashing anyone who has any convictions about traditional values and morals.  The vocal minority continually forces their will on the silent majority.  I don’t attest to know all the beliefs of Mr. Santorum, but this world could use a little more “pro-family”. I hardly believe that the little girls of today dream of growing up and shacking up.  Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege.  You make commitments and you need to stand by the commitments.  It takes work and dedication to be a “family”.   

    • And everyone is truly tired of Bronze age beliefs being foisted on  to 21st century people.

      Marriage is not a ‘privilege’….it’s a standard property contract.

      • Tell me what has changed so drastically since the Bronze age (Marriage is actually a much older concept) that requires us as a society to change?  Is our society so much better for the personal liberties that are now considered rights?
        Marriage is a privilege…(the property contract is merely a portion of the Marriage covenant.  You can go to a lawyer and form a property contract without the implication of marriage.) simply ask some of the single people out there that want to be married and have no one to marry.  Ask the thousands of women who are shacked up with the hope that it will one day lead to marriage that never does…. 

        • There are all kinds of marriage, and always have been. The Celts recognized 12 different kinds alone.

          Yes, our society is very much better than what existed in the Bronze age.

          Marriage is neither a duty nor a privilege….it’s simply a property contract….whatever lace and bows you want to dress it up in afterwards in a church is extra. It’s the legal requirement that must be met. Our society has given special benefits to married people over the years that can’t be accomplished in any other legal way.

          I’m sure there are single people out there who’d like to be married…..and a lot of married people who’d like to be single….altho you seem to have an antiquated view of women’s roles.

          However….no one has the right to force their personal beliefs on other people, or on society….and that’s what the rightwing evangelicals are trying to do.

          • Marriage is not something that can be redefined by one judge alone, especially one who is no expert on what a family is.

            If we are going to redefine what marriage means, that is a decision for the majority of Canadians to decide.

          • Marriage is a property contract already defined in law.

            What you’re quibbling about is who is named in the contract.

          • Marriage predates law. Besides, property contracts are already available to everyone.

            And if it is simply a property contract, I’m sure you will have no problem if 5 or 6 people are named in a marriage.

    • If marriage is the only way to be a family, then very few children get to belong to a real family because almost 1/2 of all of those marriages that little girls dream of end in divorce.  I am not saying it would not be better if people didn’t work harder at keeping their families intact but I am saying is it is ridiculous to define a family in one way when clearly 1/2 of the people don’t fit the criteria.

  28. There is a borderline white supremacist quality to this article.  

    The current POTUS opposes gay marriage, but gets a free pass because he is black.  The same media that is love with Obama bashes white GOP politicians who hold identical views.

    In the Canadian context the Liberal party has long had a sizeable contingent of socially conservative ethnic MPs who also get a free pass.

    Actually the entire black community, and virtually every ethnic community you can name, gets a free pass.  The Dalai Lama considers homosexuality to be sexual misconduct, he gets a free pass.

    Nobody will, or should, take supposed gay militants seriously when they so obviously direct their venom solely at non-ethnic people while blatantly ignoring ethnics with identical views.  It’s a marginally funny joke.

    In a global context, the author would be considered a freak, frankly, for her extreme gay views and it highlights a gap in gay policy between predominantly white countries and the rest of the world.  Would the author suggest the vast majority of the world is “wrong” and that her white values are “right”, or “supreme”?

    The obvious implication is that some in the media think of ethnics as “lesser” peoples who shouldn’t be held to the lofty standards that white politicians like Santorum are held to, and that is the very essence of white supremacy as well as a fair conclusion supported by evidence.

  29. Emma,

    Perhaps you could weigh in for us on the difference between Santorum’s views on gay marriage and Obama’s.

    So basically you’re ready to bash Santorum’s bigotry but willing to ignore the bigotry in Obama’s & Biden’s position?

    I respectfully suggest that you have no business criticizing anybody for “lazy journalism”.

  30. Please explain , how two sodomites and an unfortunate child or children having been adopted by them is a family and not an abomination???

  31. I might be on a tangent here, but it seems like the article and the firestorm of comments that followed add up to nothing. Chances are, whether a candidate is ‘family values’ or ‘anti-gay’, they will do nothing to further that agenda if they were elected. Nothing. When have we seen a real victory for social conservatives recently? George W. Bush was in there for eight years. Did the socon agenda make any meaningful headway? Nope. Let’s look at Canada. Harper was re-elected while explicitly promising not to do anything with respect to abortion or gay rights. No socon progress there. Is it because socon politicians lack the political will to act once power is theirs? Is it because society is fundamentally socially liberal? I’m not sure. But the socon track record is undeniably TERRIBLE.
    In other words… this is amusing and all, but wake me up when the debate actually amounts to something. Anything.

  32. Lots of people are pointing out the fact that “pro-choice” means “anti-living-babies” or “pro-dead-babies”.

    Not only that, nobody has mentioned one of the other ridiculous word-abuses: “affirmative action”.  It’s obvious to anyone that affirmative action is an another phrase for “race-based admissions” or more specifically “anti-white”.

    Emma Teitel appears to be a partisan shill masquerading as a journalist, since she appears to be appealing for lazy journalism to stop, when in fact she herself is nothing more than an opinion writer who is obviously a shill for one side of the debate.

  33. Newspapers use similarly sanitized language for left-wing positions. For instance, they write pro-choice instead of pro-abortion (oh but you quibble, pro-choice people aren’t necessarily FOR abortion, just as fundies will say “we love the sinner, hate the sin”). Alternately the American left has been working to claim the word “progressive”, although most of its political activity involves fighting counter-revolutionary actions to defend the New Deal/Great Society. 

    The benefit of this practice – using the preferred language of either side – is that it doesn’t immediately turn off one side or another. If your goal is to be something more than an echo chamber, this makes sense. Since I suspect the author has little to say to opponents of gay marriage, she can go ahead and use the term anti-gay. But if she is interested in transcending the toxic polarization that permeates most political dialog, there are other worthwhile terms.

  34. I think there is a point to be said that perhaps heterosexual relations should be valued more in the eyes of the government on account of their unique ability to reproduce. I don’t think that should be attacked as anti-gay. In a time of high divorce rates and such, the relationship between men and women are deteriorating significantly, if not at an all time low. It’s ironic the media promotes this whole we need to sympathise for homosexuals, but yet only show heterosexual relations as something striclty cynical and detached. All I’m asking is, should the relationship between men and women be seen as the same as a man and a man, or a woman and a woman? They are fundamentally different relationship, one is a hybrid of the two different genders, on is the same genders, it’s not the same, so why should it have the same title?? It degenerates the name of marriage, this isn’t an issue about faith, this is an issue about tarnishing the relationship between men and women and saying it’s the same as people in relationship of the same gender. Well you don’t need to have a phd to figure out that two men can’t have a kid. Now if they can’t have a kid, why should the government get involved. If two men want to sleep together, what is it anyone’s business? It’s no one’s business. Isn’t it Pierre Trudeau who said the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation, well it works both ways. And I want to say this too of the relationship between men and women as well- the state has no purpose in getting involved unless there are children, and hence it should not be called a marriage. A marriage is not between two people, it is between 3, you your spouse and the state, the state’s only legitimacy as a moderator in this relationship is on account of the children. Homosexuals cannot have children. Now I know i will be attacked as being a bigoted person for the comment, but my argument is not to be offensive in anyway to homosexuals. Im simply asking the question, are heterosexual relations fundamentally the same as homosexual relations, and if so what business does that state have in monitoring this relationship? 

  35. Santorum supports the traditional definition of family. Nothing unusual about that, so do most Canadians.

  36. Marriage is not something that can be redefined by one judge alone, especially one who is no expert on what a family is.

    If we are going to redefine what marriage means, that is a decision for the majority of Canadians to decide.

  37. I think so..!
    I also think Maclean’s left wing journos should start a group blog called “Bill O’Reilly lives under my bed” where they could write all about their neurosis that right wing Americans stir in them.I don’t agree with Santorum but I wish we had free talking culture like Americans do – we can only identify the nutters and try to change their minds if they identify themselves with speech. Here in Canada we pretend that we one big happy clappy hippy family but it just ain’t so – just as many bigots in Canada as there are in America, the only difference is here we don’t know who they are because of our speech codes.


  38. Why is “pro-life” gross?  I am equally proud to be known as pro-life, or anti-abortion.  Both are accurate.  “Pro-Choice” is the lie.  “Pro-abortion” would be more accurate!

  39. @ EMMA TEITEL:  Right on — and while you’re at it, can you please pass on to editors, including those at Maclean’s, to stop using the term “SOCIALLY CONSERVATIVE” when they really mean “RELIGIOUS EXTREMIST”?

    I mean Santorum has expressly said that his version of God’s law overrides the Supreme Court, that he wants to dismantle the US Constitution, and remove the separation of Church and State to make the U.S. a theocracy!  It’s like the Taliban with less suicide bombers and more sweater vests.

  40. Emma Teitel has
    accomplished quite a feat. Normally, to read a column with this
    level of idiocy, you need to get the Toronto Star. What a pile of PC drivel.
    There are a lot of people who support the concept of gay marriage, but who are
    concerned about unelected judges suddenly changing the definition of a
    fundamental idea like marriage. A change of that magnitude requires a national
    conversation where every citizen is free to express his/her opinion and this is
    something that we have never had in Canada or the U.S.     In 1999, our then-Liberal Parliament voted almost
    universally in favour of a motion defining marriage as only being between one
    man and one woman. Leading Liberals like Paul Martin and Jean Chretien voted in
    favour of it. Should they know be prosecuted for hate crimes or something?
    Reading the comments on this thread will convince anyone that the main threat to
    freedom and democracy in the West obviously does not come from religious
    Conservatives, it comes from the Socialist/Marxist set that is always anxious to
    shut people up, like it did when it was enslaving half the world behind the iron
    curtain. If you want to lose all your basic freedoms, just go along and
    support the Socialist/Marxist/Politically Correct crowd. Be fashionable now, be
    sorry later.

    I read Maclean’s to read
    well thought out points of view, from all perspectives, not to be bombarded with 
    idiotic, half-baked lefty propaganda.

    Note to Strepsi: the U.S.
    has always been predominantly Christian and has never come close to
    being a theocracy or any
    other kind of dictatorship which is more than can be said for the many failed
    Communist states  that were founded by radical atheists. The fact that religious
    Conservatives in the U.S. might openly disagree with this or that item from the
    leftist agenda makes the U.S. a theocracy? If people who disagree with the
    gov’t of the day or the supreme court were rounded up into prison camps,
    Communist-style, we’d be better off? I suspect more and more that this has been
    the politically correct agenda all along.

Sign in to comment.