Monday, December 26, 2005

"We're not homophobic. We just don't like fags, OK?"

An impassioned plea from the letters section of this morning's National Post (no link yet -- is apparently sleeping off last night's revelry):

William Mitchell writes, "A very immoral and insidious force in our society is the continuing hatred and persecution of homosexual people."

It would help the public debate considerably if Mr. Mitchell and those who share his opinion would look in a dictionary for the proper meaning of those words. Reasoned debate around the homosexual marriage question isn't even possible if its proponents resort to hysterical accusations every time they don't get their way. Most Canadians are tired of their Orwellian attempts to redefine words such as "hatred," "persecution" and "marriage."

S. R. Hamilton, Calgary.

Hamilton is, of course, correct. How on earth can we expect to have a productive dialogue on whether a segment of Canadian society should be treated as second-class citizens if we can't do it calmly and unemotionally -- presenting both sides of the evidence and weighing the pros and cons, as it were?

I'm thinking the same dispassionate eye should be cast on my proposal to deny the vote in the upcoming national election to all fundamentalist Christians because, well, they're pretty clearly too fucking stupid to know what they're doing and shouldn't be allowed within a hundred miles of the democratic process.

Now, I realize this suggestion might come off as narrow-minded, intolerant religion bashing, but we're not going to make much progress with the discussion if folks just get all bent out of shape about it. I mean, think about it -- if you take seriously an ancient superstitution involving talking snakes and burning bushes and whether an omnipotent, omniscient Creator cares if your team wins the Grey Cup or not, well, are you really intelligent enough to help choose who's going to govern the country? [Ed: Um ... no?]

Anyway, I realize this proposal might rub some people the wrong way but, if we're going to have a "reasoned debate," it's important to approach the subject calmly, unemotionally and with an open mind.

Oh, and all members of the Conservative Party of Canada should be rounded up and put into camps. But I'm willing to listen to dissenting opinions on that subject, too.


Anonymous said...

Thank you for your expression of sanity. Such as this are becoming rare indeed.

Mark Richard Francis said...

Be careful, CC: You almost sound sarcastic.

Idealistic Pragmatist said...

I think I may just love you.

Politicagrll said...

Wonderful set of comparisons...beware of hate comments [make that negative comments] you might receive if fundamentalist Christians get a wiff of the post

Ferdzy said...

Sarcastic? I hope not. I think he's on to something here.

Missy B said...

lol... this made my day!

Anonymous said...

I'm from a fundamentalist background and I don't have a problem with a proposal to be denied the vote. People are entitled to propose anything. I am confident that in this day and age a majority would not support the proposal. But I don't have any illusions that people will take such a proposal seriously 50 years from now, given the increasing degree people associate religious faith with hate speech, ignorance, intolerance, bigotry, etc etc etc

Anonymous said...

Please excuse the negative / "hate comment" by the anonymous poster above.
Those fundamentalists are real whiners. Check out all their whining about the secularization of their sacred days in this news story: