XPost: tor.general, calgary.general, can.politics 
 XPost: edm.general 
 From: lgp@rogers.com 
  
 Why are you continually reposting this drivel? 
  
 Defender of Enormous Manhood   wrote 
 in 
 message: news:<0_6dnQfaR56JKl_fRVn-uw@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. 
 > ?Biological parents usually protect and provide for their children more 
 > effectively than non-biological ones.? 
 > 
 > No, Bioplogy has nothing to do with it. It is true. Two parents are better 
 > than one. Three are better than 2, 4 are better than 3, 12 are better than 
  
 [continued in next message] 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)