XPost: tor.general, calgary.general, can.politics 
 XPost: edm.general 
 From: Defenderofenormousmanhood@rogers.com 
  
 "SunDance"  wrote in message 
 news:d9sbdn$l7u$3@utornnr1pp.grouptelecom.net... 
 Calgary Bishop Henry Argues Gay €Marriage€ Legislation is a €Betrayal of 
 Children€ 
  
 CALGARY, June 28, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) € Canadian bishop Fred Henry, 
 in a letter published in the Calgary Sun Sunday, argues that the 
 proposed same-sex €marriage€ law for Canada ignores what is in the best 
 interests of children. 
  
 For gay children or straight children. 
 The best interests of the child are to be with parent(s) that love them and 
 provide. 
 The courts are full of Heterosexual couples divorcing, and most put their 
 interests above the child. 
 That is why the court does everything in the best interests of the child, 
 often to the ire of the selfish parent. 
 I challenge the Bishop - I don't think he would know what the best interest 
 of a child was if it bit hiom on his ass. 
  
 €The most overlooked and disenfranchised group in the current debate 
 about marriage are children,€ Bishop Henry writes. He argues that the 
 proposed Bill C-38 is a measure that is in the best interest of adults, 
 not children. Parodying the €It's the Charter, stupid!€ logo coined by 
 the Young Liberals at the last national convention, Henry retorts, €It's 
 about children, stupid!€ 
  
 What is stupid is being driven by superstition. Marriage is not for 
 children. 
 A marriage is about property rights. It is a contract, a legal union. 
 Having the church bless a marriage is no different than having them bless a 
 boat, building, or government. 
 Besides, Children really don't have rights. But the court enforces the best 
 interests of the child, so adult rights don't mean much when it comes to the 
 best interest of the child. Not only is it law, but social policy. 
  
 €According to the government's agenda, Bill C-38, the social institution 
 that has always symbolized our society's commitment to the future -- our 
 children, will be transformed into an institution that symbolizes our 
 commitment to the present -- the needs and desires of adults,€ he 
 continues. €Marriage will have a new primary purpose, to validate and 
 protect sexually intimate adult relationships.€ 
  
 Children are not an institution. And it only symbolizes that which you 
 imagine it to symbolize. 
 Children will always be our future, and no retorhic, misguided or sound will 
 change that fact. 
 That has always been the purpose of marriage, to validate and protect sexual 
 intimate relationships. 
 This is why the celebrations are always public, so that everyone knows, and 
 the relationship is protected. 
 After all look what you guys do to adulteresses. Primary purpose, property, 
 chattle, protection from infidelity. 
 Children were popping out long before the concept of marriage, property, 
 religion, fire were facts of life. 
 I guess the Bishop, being non-sexual, doesn't have the survival instinct. 
 The survival instinct will always ensure children come into this world. 
 You can legislate that homosexuals can have sex in the streets, you can give 
 them elite status in society, you can give them power and control, and let 
 them govern. And you know what? Kids will still be popping out like there 
 never was such a thing as birth control. 
 Why Satan himself can't stop copulation. 
  
 The bishop points out the obvious €fundamental difference,€ between 
 traditional and same-sex €marriage€ € homosexual couples can never 
 procreate. €The proposed re-invention of the institution of marriage 
 means that marriage must be disconnected from procreation, and the 
 traditional family, the only institution that honours a child's natural 
 right to know and be cared for by his or her parents, must be 
 dismantled,€ he argues. 
  
 Marriage has always been disconencted from procreation. 
 Tell me when did not being married ever prevent procreation? 
 The traditional family is long gone. Hell the atomic family is broken, often 
 having one parent left to raise the child. 
 Marriage is a failure, because it is based on greed, property, chattel and 
 inheritance. It's a legal contract. 
 It is a transaction. And common people have only been doing it since the 
 1500's. 
 Since common people had no property, a contract was not necessary for a 
 union of a man and woman. 
 How did the church become involved, at the request of the Kings and Queens. 
 They were going broke. They couldn't support all the single mothers with 
 their 20-25 starving children. 
 Europe was mostly forested back then. People hunted for food, if they didn't 
 work the farms, that they didn't own. 
 Most remained single and free, but impregranted the women. The state was 
 going broke. 
 So they offered big bucks for men to enter into legal contracts of marriage. 
 They got the chuch to sactify it, so it became a requirement. 
 The church had tremendous power and influence back then. 
  
 Marriage has not stopped poverty. It has not prevented child hunger. 
 Nobody needs to be licensed to raise a child. We let inexperienced, young 
 adults, fuck up their kids and turn them into neurotic adults. 
 Some intelligent ones might take a course or two, maybe read a book. Most 
 just lay it by ear. 
  
  
 Bishop Henry dismisses the argument that good same-sex parents would be 
 better than poor heterosexual parents: €Given that stable and exclusive 
 homosexual coupling is the exception rather than the norm, to connect 
 homosexual coupling with children's welfare or with a stable environment 
 for children is nothing if not dishonest.€ 
  
 Stability is not all that important to a child. 
 All a child needs in their environment to be fine is love and security. 
 I think anyone is capable of providing that, but check this Bishop out. 
  
 He dismisses the fact that a good same-sex parents would be better than poor 
 opposite-sex parents. 
 The fact is their are millions, perhaps billions of poor heterosexual 
 parents. I would say that errodes all his claims that he wants what is in 
 the best interest of the child. It's lip service. It's a deliberate ploy to 
 condemn for the sake of condemnation. Nothing more. The children, well the 
 church sure knows how to treat the innocent. Sodomy is a sin you know? 
  
  
  
 €Families with both mothers and fathers are generally better for 
 children than those with only mothers or only fathers,€ he adds. 
  
 [continued in next message] 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)