|
I
respect your point of view completely. I share your concern
that all Canadians be treated fairly, and with respect,
and be given dignity and a sense of value.
If
the Bill C-4l5 is talking about protecting homosexuals
from genocide, such as has been attempted on the Jewish
people in the holocaust, of course this is unconscionable.
There
might be people in Canada who would wish all homosexuals
to be eliminated through genocide in their heart. I don't
know. I have not heard anybody advocate it openly. This
is an attitude of the heart, an attitude that is thoroughly
wrong.
We
need to realize the limitations of written legislation
in discerning heart attitudes. It is prejudice and misunderstanding
that we want to eliminate from our society, but these
are matters of the heart.
My
concern is that on this heart level, there are active
lobbists within the gay community who become extremely
emotional and fanatical when somebody expresses a dissenting
point of view, without an attitude towards homosexuals
as persons.
My
concern is if we make a homosexual lifestyle as equally
legitimate to a heterosexual lifestyle, then we are well
on the road to pansexuality, where any sexual orientation
is as valid as any other. Incest and bestiality are also
sexual orientations that could be the next category for
whom protection against "genocide" will be sought
under the guise of preventing any dissent to that particular
lifestyle, making it a "hate crime" to even
oppose it on a personal level.
One
can believe in the human rights of every individual to
respect and dignity without having to agree that relationally,
the male-male bond, or the female-female bond is the equivalant
of the male-female bond. Biology and nature has determined
that they never can be equivalent.
So
to suggest that they are equivalent is not the automatic
extension in the belief that every individual as a human
being has equal worth, value and dignity.
It
is also sociologically demonstrable that the interests
of the child are best served when they are raised by the
natural father and mother. I realize full well that in
an imperfect world, this is often not possible.
But
if we are concerned about our children (who are the future),
we should be concerned that they be raised in stable families,
and encourage that they be raised by their natural parents
if possible. Putting unnatural parents at a par with natural
parents (all other things being equal) does not, in my
view, serve the longterm best interests of the child or
of society.
This
is not to say that homosexuals do not have the right to
pursue their own lifestle as they see fit. Society as
a whole, however, is under no obligation to legitimize
male-male relationships, and female-female relationships
to be at a par, or equal with male-female relationships.
When
we think of the producing and raising of children, biology
has determined that they never can be equal. And by that,
I don't mean that the only purpose of marriage is to be
a breeding factory.
Just
for holding this honest and sincere conviction, the gay
rights lobbyist leaders become extremely emotional, and
will scream "bigot" or "homophobe"
in the ears of anybody who even holds such a view.
Coming
into agreement with Svend Robinson's vision for Canada
will not, in my view, make for a more tolerant Canada.
He sees only one side of the issue, as he did with the
Palistinian issue in Israel, and fails to see the whole
picture, and what the implications of his viewpoint mean
to a society as a whole.
Thank
you for considering this perspective, and thank you again
for your respectful response.
Yours
respectfully,
Roger
Armbruster
|
