<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Gay marriage back in the news</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.sindark.com/2006/06/03/gay-marriage-back-in-the-news/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.sindark.com/2006/06/03/gay-marriage-back-in-the-news/</link>
	<description>Temporarily Torontonian</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 08:01:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: George Aiken</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2006/06/03/gay-marriage-back-in-the-news/#comment-2443</link>
		<dc:creator>George Aiken</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jun 2006 18:03:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/2006/06/03/gay-marriage-back-in-the-news/#comment-2443</guid>
		<description>&quot;If we were to wake up some morning and find that everyone was the same race, creed and color, we would find some other cause for prejudice by noon.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;If we were to wake up some morning and find that everyone was the same race, creed and color, we would find some other cause for prejudice by noon.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Milan</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2006/06/03/gay-marriage-back-in-the-news/#comment-2413</link>
		<dc:creator>Milan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Jun 2006 22:23:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/2006/06/03/gay-marriage-back-in-the-news/#comment-2413</guid>
		<description>Actually, it seems to be taken word for word from &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/15104.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;this conservative blog&lt;/a&gt;. That is the author&#039;s real name, but I doubt he posted it himself.

The full version is even less effectively argued.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually, it seems to be taken word for word from <a href="http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/15104.html" rel="nofollow">this conservative blog</a>. That is the author&#8217;s real name, but I doubt he posted it himself.</p>
<p>The full version is even less effectively argued.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Milan</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2006/06/03/gay-marriage-back-in-the-news/#comment-2412</link>
		<dc:creator>Milan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Jun 2006 22:19:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/2006/06/03/gay-marriage-back-in-the-news/#comment-2412</guid>
		<description>I can&#039;t tell if that comment is meant to be satirical or not...

It&#039;s quite absurd, but not really funny.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I can&#8217;t tell if that comment is meant to be satirical or not&#8230;</p>
<p>It&#8217;s quite absurd, but not really funny.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael J. Gaynor</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2006/06/03/gay-marriage-back-in-the-news/#comment-2408</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael J. Gaynor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Jun 2006 20:13:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/2006/06/03/gay-marriage-back-in-the-news/#comment-2408</guid>
		<description>The Clinton years involved a tragic downward spiral on the morality front. Polling on the question of whether homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle in 1992, when Clinton was elected President, and now, shows that acceptance has increased substantially. In part because President Clinton supported ONLY a federal law to protect marriage, not a constitutional amendment.

Webster&#039;s Ninth New Collegiate dictionary defines marriage as &quot;the mutual relation of husband and wife&quot; and &quot;the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family.&quot;

Of course, homosexual, lesbian or same-sex unions are not marriages Because marriage requires one man and one woman. But, Humpty Dumpty told Alice, in Wonderland: &quot;A word means precisely what I want it to mean, neither more nor less.&quot; So many homosexuals and lesbians are demanding that marriage be redefined to include their unions. They cleverly claim to be arbitrarily excluded. But it is they who are being arbitrary. They have found some success with some activist judges, but not with most voters.

President Bush, human and therefore imperfect, remains much better than his predecessor or the alternatives offered by the Democrats in 2000 and 2004. Especially on fundamental moral issues.

The message for all good people: support candidates who support marriage instead of mock it.

A constitutional amendment will stop homosexual marriage from becoming the law of the land, reaffirm the fundamental values on which America was founded, and protect America&#039;s youth and posterity.

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would be for it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Clinton years involved a tragic downward spiral on the morality front. Polling on the question of whether homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle in 1992, when Clinton was elected President, and now, shows that acceptance has increased substantially. In part because President Clinton supported ONLY a federal law to protect marriage, not a constitutional amendment.</p>
<p>Webster&#8217;s Ninth New Collegiate dictionary defines marriage as &#8220;the mutual relation of husband and wife&#8221; and &#8220;the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family.&#8221;</p>
<p>Of course, homosexual, lesbian or same-sex unions are not marriages Because marriage requires one man and one woman. But, Humpty Dumpty told Alice, in Wonderland: &#8220;A word means precisely what I want it to mean, neither more nor less.&#8221; So many homosexuals and lesbians are demanding that marriage be redefined to include their unions. They cleverly claim to be arbitrarily excluded. But it is they who are being arbitrary. They have found some success with some activist judges, but not with most voters.</p>
<p>President Bush, human and therefore imperfect, remains much better than his predecessor or the alternatives offered by the Democrats in 2000 and 2004. Especially on fundamental moral issues.</p>
<p>The message for all good people: support candidates who support marriage instead of mock it.</p>
<p>A constitutional amendment will stop homosexual marriage from becoming the law of the land, reaffirm the fundamental values on which America was founded, and protect America&#8217;s youth and posterity.</p>
<p>George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would be for it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: R.K.</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2006/06/03/gay-marriage-back-in-the-news/#comment-2351</link>
		<dc:creator>R.K.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Jun 2006 18:22:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/2006/06/03/gay-marriage-back-in-the-news/#comment-2351</guid>
		<description>I agree that this is a matter where the world will probably come around. The above arguments only work if you accept the (reasonable) premiss that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and that those who are gay don&#039;t deserve to be condemned by society for it. Those who dispute that will never accept an argument on the above grounds. That said, a general &#039;minority rights&#039; argument can be effective against anyone concerned about discrimination. That&#039;s what is being somewhat ineffectively demonstrated by the Mormon campaign mentioned in a comment.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree that this is a matter where the world will probably come around. The above arguments only work if you accept the (reasonable) premiss that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality and that those who are gay don&#8217;t deserve to be condemned by society for it. Those who dispute that will never accept an argument on the above grounds. That said, a general &#8216;minority rights&#8217; argument can be effective against anyone concerned about discrimination. That&#8217;s what is being somewhat ineffectively demonstrated by the Mormon campaign mentioned in a comment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anon</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2006/06/03/gay-marriage-back-in-the-news/#comment-2355</link>
		<dc:creator>Anon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Jun 2006 16:04:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/2006/06/03/gay-marriage-back-in-the-news/#comment-2355</guid>
		<description>&quot;Now, we just need the Liberals to clean themselves up quite a bit, get a strong new leader, and turn themselves back into the best option Canadians can hope for at the federal level. &quot;

This kind of appeal would probably more effective if it least pretended to be non-partisan.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Now, we just need the Liberals to clean themselves up quite a bit, get a strong new leader, and turn themselves back into the best option Canadians can hope for at the federal level. &#8221;</p>
<p>This kind of appeal would probably more effective if it least pretended to be non-partisan.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Milan</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2006/06/03/gay-marriage-back-in-the-news/#comment-2350</link>
		<dc:creator>Milan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Jun 2006 01:36:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/2006/06/03/gay-marriage-back-in-the-news/#comment-2350</guid>
		<description>Stenar,

That strikes me as about the worst way ever of arguing for minority rights. While it might draw attention, on the part of Mormons, to when they were discriminated against, it is hard to understand how this kind of provocation would generate a good outcome, all in all.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Stenar,</p>
<p>That strikes me as about the worst way ever of arguing for minority rights. While it might draw attention, on the part of Mormons, to when they were discriminated against, it is hard to understand how this kind of provocation would generate a good outcome, all in all.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stenar</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2006/06/03/gay-marriage-back-in-the-news/#comment-2349</link>
		<dc:creator>Stenar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Jun 2006 01:20:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/2006/06/03/gay-marriage-back-in-the-news/#comment-2349</guid>
		<description>PLEASE FORWARD:

In light of the Mormon church lobbying Congress to ban gay marriage, I
encourage everyone to contact their senators and rep. to let  them
know that you think Mormon Temple marriages ought to be banned
constitutionally because those secret rituals are kind of creepy and
not very much in keeping with traditional marriage.

(This is a rhetorical argument to make a point, people. Don&#039;t get too
worked up about it.)

For more info about this lobbying effort to ban Mormon Temple
marriage (and to find your reps&#039; email address), go to
http://www.sissel.cc/blog/2006/05/lobby-congress-against-mormon-marriage.html

&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sissel.cc/smarmy/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>PLEASE FORWARD:</p>
<p>In light of the Mormon church lobbying Congress to ban gay marriage, I<br />
encourage everyone to contact their senators and rep. to let  them<br />
know that you think Mormon Temple marriages ought to be banned<br />
constitutionally because those secret rituals are kind of creepy and<br />
not very much in keeping with traditional marriage.</p>
<p>(This is a rhetorical argument to make a point, people. Don&#8217;t get too<br />
worked up about it.)</p>
<p>For more info about this lobbying effort to ban Mormon Temple<br />
marriage (and to find your reps&#8217; email address), go to<br />
<a href="http://www.sissel.cc/blog/2006/05/lobby-congress-against-mormon-marriage.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.sissel.cc/blog/2006/05/lobby-congress-agains t-mormon-marriage.html</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.sissel.cc/smarmy/" rel="nofollow"></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Milan</title>
		<link>http://www.sindark.com/2006/06/03/gay-marriage-back-in-the-news/#comment-2348</link>
		<dc:creator>Milan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 03 Jun 2006 00:58:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sindark.com/2006/06/03/gay-marriage-back-in-the-news/#comment-2348</guid>
		<description>One of Paul Martin’s best moments as PM was defending same-sex rights as an equality matter under the Charter:

&lt;i&gt;The Charter was enshrined to ensure that the rights of minorities are not subjected, are never subjected, to the will of the majority. The rights of Canadians who belong to a minority group must always be protected by virtue of their status as citizens, regardless of their numbers. These rights must never be left vulnerable to the impulses of the majority.&lt;/i&gt;

(&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sindark.com/2006/01/20/canadians-go-to-the-polls-on-monday/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Source&lt;/a&gt;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One of Paul Martin’s best moments as PM was defending same-sex rights as an equality matter under the Charter:</p>
<p><i>The Charter was enshrined to ensure that the rights of minorities are not subjected, are never subjected, to the will of the majority. The rights of Canadians who belong to a minority group must always be protected by virtue of their status as citizens, regardless of their numbers. These rights must never be left vulnerable to the impulses of the majority.</i></p>
<p>(<a href="http://www.sindark.com/2006/01/20/canadians-go-to-the-polls-on-monday/" rel="nofollow">Source</a>)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

