Letters

On same-sex 'marriage'

When our prime minister's determined legislation comes about, as he says, because he "must protect a minority," in defence of democracy, one must surely see that the majority who hold to an opinion are often no more or less than a collection of minorities, each of which has every right to be protected by law.

When our prime minister and the Liberal party of Canada say they must change laws on marriage to protect a "minority," they are forgetting something'.

The most important, albeit, non-voting, minority in our country today is our children. Marriage needs to remain as it stands, and become even stronger and better for the sake of our children! The present-day thrust towards giving something to two homosexuals wanting "to live together forsaking all others" is entirely unrelated to the character and genesis of marriage.

Same-sex "marriage" and all that it entails is even threatening to women, as it is anti-mother as well as anti-child. Married women willing to be mothers (once again, a minority) in our society are in great need of whatever protection marriage affords.

Without question, marriage seems to have been, and is still, primarily something for women. It has functioned to assure economic and social protection for women, for themselves and their children. For centuries, marriage has meant that women have been willing to forsake their "maiden" names and align themselves with their husband's ancestry and his future progeny. (Even the Catholic church over the centuries actually formulated several laws regarding marriage, primarily to protect women.

Where is the evidence that any number of married women, especially those who are mothers (admittedly a minority of Canadians) favour this change?

Curiously, most of those arguing for this change are men. Yet obviously, married men and especially fathers - undoubtedly another minority - benefit a greatdeal from the married state. My heart is filled with gratitude for those courageous men - whatever their personal affections and affectations - who are willing to fight to preserve marriage for what God intended it should be as confirmed in natural law and through millennia of history.

Yvonne (Copps) Gusdal
Powell River, B.C.

The tip of the iceberg

Some aspects of the same- sex "marriage" debate have been overlooked or deliberately avoided. The federally appointed judges to the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that marriage must be "the union of two persons." This ruling is based on discriminatory clauses in the Charter of Rights, which is now in our Constitution and as such has priority over other legislation, such as laws against incest. Those two persons could be mother and son, father and daughter, any adult and child, or even (don't laugh) two corporate persons; that is, two corporate persons created by law.

The judges didn't even say "human" persons. It seems preposterous to suggest a "marriage" of two incorporated companies. However, if lawyers could discover a savings in taxes by arranging such a marriage, well, more outrageous things have happened.

Why is the gay lobby so concerned about re-defining marriage, when the primary cause of all this is sexual orientation? Sexual orientation has no legal definition; nor is there any scientific, medical or genetic evidence to indicate "they were bom that way." Let those who contend otherwise produce the evidence.

Let us push the question further back. Government and health authorities acted with some vigor in responding to SARS and West Nile virus. It was not so with AIDS. Today, over 17,000 Canadians have AIDS and 50,309 test HIV positive. Each case will cost our health care system over $200,000. Over two-thirds are homosexual-related. The latest figures I have seen indicate that about 2 per cent of our population consists of practising homosexuals. This means that a noisy 2 per cent of our population produce about 66 per cent of our AIDS cases.

This same-sex "marriage" issue is simply another step by the gay lobby to gain acceptance, respectability and eventually dominance of our society. Svend Robinson's proposed hate crimes bill would gag any criticism of deviant sex.

Basically, sexual orientation, without definition, has provided gays with the advances they have made in our society. Without a limiting definition, incestuous offenders, child abusers, and what have you, can/could legally argue for their sexual orientation and claim rights under the Charter. Our society is not ready for that yet, but give them time.

If this makes me a bigot, then I must accept the epithet. But I would suggest that in light of the above, it says more about the name-caller than it does about me.

Judeo-Christianity is under attack. The God of our fathers is recognized in the Charter of Rights, but totally ignored in practice. This Supreme Creative Deity, whom we call God, has revealed much of himself in a book we call the Bible. In this book, we distinguish between right and wrong; between sin and righteousness. We leam that some things are so wrong, including homosexuality, that they are abominable. Then we read, "The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ, our Lord." That is the bottom line.

Harold Ghent
Ayr, Ont.

A plea from an abortion survivor

As an abortion survivor (born in 1972), I salute your efforts. I read your newpaper most times. All I have to say is that if a woman is out there reading this newspaper, and considering an abortion, think about adoption. It will only take a few months out of your life to have your baby. Adopted children can have a really good life. And you'll be able to sleep at night. For those who have had an abortion, it's not too late to get help and to help others not make the same fatal mistake. My mother was 18 when I was born. I was unplanned. She gave up an opportunity to study at university in Spain to raise me instead. My parents saved me from the man wearing a white coat with a vaccum cleaner. What a crazy age we live in.

Daniel Morse
Toronto, Ont.

A right to kids?

There is an aspect of same-sex "marriage" that I have yet to see discussed. Up until now, most adoptions by same-sex couples have involved the adoption of the biological children from a previous relationship of one of the partners. Will gay "married" couples, in the future, argue that marriage entails a right to have "their own" biological children? The courts may very well agree. Will this "right" fuel the drive for human cloning? Or will the tried-and-true methods of in-vitro fertilization and surrogate motherhood be liberally applied to provide the parenting experience for same-sex couples? Parenting experience or parenting experiment?

Cathy Molto
Toronto, Ont.

Bookmark offence

I first want to say that I enjoy getting the paper every month. A lot of the stories are really gloomy, but it is heartwarming to read Letters to My Family by Christina Tuns. I also get a kick out of Frank Kennedy.

There is one thing that really bothered me, though, in the September issue. I picked up the paper and out fell the flyer from Lifecycle Books. I looked through it and saw a bookmark that had a picture of a six-week-old preborn baby boy in his amniotic sac. It literally turns my stomach to see this. Are we, as pro-lifers, using the same excuses as the pro-abortionists?

Was this child really nothing more than "just tissue," so that it's fine to mass produce its image and sell it so people can mark their place in a book in the name of educating people? I say no! Everything is not fine. This was a beautiful, living, breathing human being created by God. Yes, his life was taken to save the life of his mother, but it was a life taken nonetheless. In my opinion, that is a sad event.

Let's show some respect for the dead. If this had been an adult who had been euthanized, would we be doing the same thing? I hope not. It's all very macabre and bizarre to me.

I plead with both Pauls (Interim editor Paul Tuns and Lifecycle Books proprietor Paul Broughton) to do the right thing and stop the sale and advertising of these things. I want to add that I know some people will disagree with me on this (some may even be people I care about and for that I am sorry), but I felt I had to go with my heart and conscience on this one and say something.