The editor of MercatorNet explains what happened:
MercatorNet has a "creative commons" republication policy - nearly all of our articles may be reproduced so long as the original source is acknowledged. This is what Rebekah Hebbert, the managing editor of a Canadian site based at McGill University, the Prince Arthur Herald, did with a recent article on same-sex adoption by Rick Fitzgibbons. (She is also an occasional contributor.)
The outcome was explosive. At least four editors and ten writers resigned from the staff and Rebekah appeared on national television explaining her decision to run what was described by her critics as garbage and bigotry.
... Rebekah's impression was that her colleagues had resigned because of fears that their careers would be tainted by homophobia.
The local McGill Daily adds more to the story.
30 Comments
Apparently, "fair and balanced" is an unknown in the Canadian Press. But then, "freedom of the press" seems to be an unknown, as well as freedom of speech and of religion. Sadly, Canada has only the trappings of liberty, but none of the substance.
I applaud Canada's intolerance of intolerance. Hate-based thinking has no place in a civilized society. I wish the US would catch up to Canada in this regard!
Rob, in this country we all have equal status. Which of us has the authority to decide what is "intolerant" by way of viewpoints? Would you advocate the binding of conscience, or squelch healthy debate? What if your pov was deemed intolerant, and you were silenced?
You had better be careful what you ask for--you might get it.
Rob,characterizing the condemnation of the unspeakable practice of same-sex sexual relationships as motivated by hatred of persons has no place in a civilized society (nor do such relationships).
Furthermore, many, many people in same-sex relationships aren't gay; many of them who are raising children are already related to each other by blood--grandmothers helping single mothers, for example; for Rob or anyone else to make this an issue about homosexual intolerance, when the issue is about sex, and not sexual orientation, is simply a diversionary tactic which suppresses thoughtful dialogue, and does not reflect the myriad of social science data which proclaims the ideal setting for the raising of a child to be with a married mother and father.
Eve, gay and lesbian Americans do not have the same rights that straight Americans enjoy. In most states, gays and lesbian couples may not marry, while straight couples may. And married gay and lesbian couples may not have the federal benefits married straight couples have.
In no way is that equal.
I will continue to wish for equal legal rights for gay people, even if the consequence is religionists and homophobes throw temper tantrums.
Many, many people in different-sex relationships aren't straight, such as a gay man and his sister; many of these are raising children are already related by blood, and so on.
Was there a point to be made?
"Was there a point to be made?"
There was a point made--use your superior intellect to puzzle it out.
"gays and lesbian couples may not marry, while straight couples may."
If you could please produce a copy of a piece of legislation which requires individuals or couples to state their sexual orientation, in order to qualify for a marriage license, your point would have some validity. If you can't deal with legal fact, to what end are you spending your time?
If a gay man and a gay woman want to commit to each other in marriage, they may certainly do so, with the licensing of the state. Their sexual orientation, whether as an individual or as a couple simply is a non-issue when it comes to who is allowed to get married and who isn't.
"I will continue to wish for equal legal rights for gay people"
I, too, will continue to demand the same. For instance, I will continue to insist that you, Rob, be treated exactly the same as any heterosexual, by expecting you to obey the same laws with regards to entering into marriage as heterosexuals, with absolutely zero regard for your stated sexual orientation. In other words, I support your marriage to a consenting woman, but I will resist the redefinition of marriage to that of a gender-segregated status; I will continue to assert that marriage is about the union of opposite sexes, regardless of their individual sexual orientations.
Rob,I remind you that the public interest requires a perpetual guarantee that certain benefits be reserved exclusively to opposite-sex couples,in recognition of the benefit deriving from their being opposite-sex and of such relationships being upheld as an exclusive norm to which homosexual orientation offers absolutely no excuse for failure to adhere.(Denial is not a counterargument)
Here's a challenge for Rob, et al, posed by Chairm (who made some comments earlier):
“SSM argumentation has cited no essential of the SSM idea that must be accorded same-sex twosomes but must be denied ‘same-sex’ moresomes.” or, in other words,
"Now, it sounds like that claim, in plain English, means that SSM advocates have never, ever, cited an essential feature of same-sex marriage that applies to couples but cannot be applied to groups of three or more."
Care to take it up Rob? Please provide a thorough answer.
Link here:
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2011/11/challenge-to-phil-and-other-ssmers.html
Hope all of you get a chance to read the excellent article. It is brillantly written by a child care advocate who makes irrefutable arguments against homosexual adoptions. This man truly puts the needs of children first.
Just read the comments section. Unable to refute any of his excellent points the homosexual activists as always go on a personal attack.
Also remember this is not an actual newspaper but one of those politically correct student newspapers on a liberal college campus.
26% of children in the US are currently being raised by single parents. If it is so critical that children have parents of both sexes to form a nurturing home, then presumably you would also support the removal of children from these obviously dangerous situations.
And the author of the article (Fitzgibbons) is hardly an unbiased source - he assumes up front (based on other writings) that homosexuality is bad and can be 'cured ' with counseling and spiritual support. Whether you agree with this or not, one cannot take him as neutral when comparing evidence.
The main editor of the newspaper based at McGill Univ. (Canada) calls the shots, and accepts both sides of an issue. Closed minded people who don't want the side they oppose to get any publicity or exposure, don't belong in that newspaper staff. So, they quit, got immediately replaced, and still hold a grudge. The re-printed article is authoritative, with credentials much higher than a newspaper editor. Thanks for pointing to the article - good, profound reading material
Rob: Do you realize you just contradicted yourself in: 'I applaud Canada's intolerance of intolerance' ? It makes us feel more assured your side doesn't know what they are talking about.
mikev6: Look closer at your logic. If a researcher thinks homosexuality is 'bad', he cannot publish findings about the results of adopted children, adopted by same-sex couples? Therefore, in your reasoning, a researcher has to believe homosexuality is not 'bad' to be able to give an opinion regarding the results of same-sex couple's adoptions? So, only if he is biased on your side of the debate is he allowed to express his professional opinion? Then, are you allowed to express your opinion, without credentials?
mikev6, this Country and it's children are a moral and social train wreck. I'm sure your statistic has everything to do with it. While it may not be practical to remove these childre from their current environment, the least we had better do is acknowledge the negative affects of the familial anarchy and encourage society to return to some form of concience and sanity. Parents have a responsibility to the children they bring into this world. The fact that so many of them are willing to walk away from that responsibility hardly makes it a good idea for us to adopt the practice as a social premise.
John Noe, your observation is absolutely right. I did read several of the comments and they are emotional, angry, personal attacks. The more I read of the "discussions" between proponents and opponents of the homosexual lifestyle, the more obvious your observation becomes. The emotional accusations have worked quite well for the homosexual community for quite some time. But now that their cries of bias and bigotry are actually being refuted by rational discourse which identify the dangers to society of neutralizing gender, I feel certain that society will begin to see the agenda for the self serving, reckless threat to our society that it is, and that the tide will turn toward righteousness and truth.
Keep up the great work John, DOE, Little Man, Louise, Marty, et al!
Adoption by same-sex couples is social experimentation. What's most troubling about that is the fact that the children are the guinea pigs in these experiments. And to what end? So that people with distorted perceptions of sex and gender can feel normal?
Only a very small percentage of the population identifies as homosexual and all of them have equal rights as everyone else to get married and have kids. Yet rather than encourage them to participate in our existing social institutions, we're bending over backwards to create imitation "marriages" and "families" for them. And we not only subject innocent children to participate in this bizarre experiment, but we actually allow children to be created with the express purpose of placing them in these counter-social constructs.
Generally, when a small group of people are faced with a difference from the vast majority of the population that makes their lives more difficult, we investigate ways to help those people become like everyone else. Think obsessive-compulsive disorders, shyness, various phobias, pedophilia, addiction, autism. And yet, whenever someone mentions prevention or cure of same-sex attraction, we hear cries of BIGOTRY! and HOMOPHOBIA!. How bizarre is it that those with the affliction have turned the tables on us and WE are the ones with the afflictions? That WE are the ones who should change to accommodate them? And what's more, we spend billions of our taxpayer dollars to cure the ailments caused by their behaviors (HIV/AIDS), whereas, those billions could have been used to erase their same-sex attraction.
Imagine, e.g., that instead of curing tuberculosis, we decided to create plastic bubbles for everyone to walk around in so that those with TB would not be inconvenienced. Then giving healthy children to them. Sounds crazy, and yet that is what we are doing with homosexuality. Bizarre.
The article was well written and based on solid research into the harmful effect of same sex adoptions. This should serve as a basis for state law that prohibits homosexual access to other peoples children.
Little Man:
Fitzgibbons is writing as an expert, not a layman like you or I. Note that he is not publishing his own findings - he is reporting the findings of others and drawing conclusions from that. Either way, my first requirement is that such a report demonstrate neutrality. If I get a sense (as in this case) that an supposed expert is biased towards one side or another, then I have to question his conclusions and start looking at the research directly. What research is he possibly not mentioning, for example? Has he taken the age and small sample sizes of the studies into account? And so on.
Even the concept of the article raises a flag. The whole "fitness to raise children" is a red herring. We don't prevent other segments of the population from marrying because we think they may be unfit parents. Known pedophiles have the right to marry and have children, but presumably you're OK with that so long as the marriage is with someone of the opposite sex.
Ask yourself - do you think all of the hetero parents you know could pass the same level of scrutiny into parental fitness that you're aiming at gay couples? Why don't we prevent known alchoholics from marrying and having children?
"I will resist the redefinition of marriage to that of a gender-segregated status"
Oh good, so you're fighting for marriage equality regardless of the genders of the persons involved?
Or are you using words without knowing what they mean?
"I will continue to assert that marriage is about the union of opposite sexes"
Ludicrous. Marriage is about the unions of complimentary PERSONS, not sexes.
Unless you think everybody is married to each other...
Anne:
I see. So you think we should go back to outlawing divorce? Presumably then we should enforce the existing laws that punish people for adultery? Adultery is illegal in roughly half the states in the US. You feel it's better for the kids to maintain an abusive marriage, for example?
I also expect parents to have a responsibility to their children, which also involves avoiding having children as appropriate - so you would join with me in promoting contraception, effective sex-ed for teenagers, and abortion choice?
And wouldn't promoting gay marriage help reduce that 26% single parent family statistic?
A very perceptive analogy.
ResistSSA:
"Think obsessive-compulsive disorders, shyness, various phobias, pedophilia, addiction, autism."
Yes. Because these are all *exactly* like homosexuality. [/sarcasm] Ignoring the pedophilia one since that involves other issues like consent, the rest often involve treatment because they can impact a person's ability to function in society. I'll bet there are gay people around you who function quite well and you don't even know it. (I have a feeling they're not likely to share their orientation with you directly...)
"And yet, whenever someone mentions prevention or cure of same-sex attraction, we hear cries of BIGOTRY! and HOMOPHOBIA!. How bizarre is it that those with the affliction have turned the tables on us and WE are the ones with the afflictions?"
Yes, because maybe they don't see the need to be prevented or cured.
"That WE are the ones who should change to accommodate them?"
How exactly are you changing? I've been married to the same women for 27 years - how does my marriage change if two women I don't know get married in another town?
Pat,"gender-segregated" means that a marriage can be males-only or females-only,just like whites-only clubs,etc.The whole point of marriage is to join males to females...integrating rather than segregating.
Mikev6,same-sex sexual relationships are a problem,upgrading their legal status is the very opposite of a solution.
mikev6, there are a whole host of possibilities between "gay marriage" with other people's children as pets and making divorce illegal. Life is tough. Too many of the divorces over "abusive" relationships are nothing more than people who are just too selfish and lazy to tough it out. Marriage is HARD. But it's worth the effort.
The very rationale of the gay lifestyle is that people should be allowed to do what they "feel like" doing. That's hardly the mentality or philosophy that keeps marriages together.
"And wouldn't promoting gay marriage help reduce that 26% single parent family statistic?" -
Hardly. Every same sex couple raising a child is a single parent household with a gay sex partner.
Pat, I can see you really struggle with the meaning behind my words. Allow me to make it really simple for ya:
person = man or woman
marriage = man + woman
man + woman = gender (sex) complementarity
woman + woman = sex segregation
man + man = sex segregation
And now, for the rest of those promoting SSM, I offer the following quote (warning: big words with multiple syllables):
"Across society the social institution works its influence: it makes normative the marital basis for sexual relations and for generating the next generation. This is a public relationship that arises from the two-sexed nature of humankind, the opposite-sexed nature of human procreation, and the both-sexed nature of human community. The human institution of marriage bonds them and holds them together as much as, if not more than, their private sexual commitment one to the other."
For more on complementarity, go here:
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/search/label/complementarity
mikev6: Do you really want me to tackle your questions? You say: 'Fitzgibbons is writing as an expert, not a layman like you or I.' - that's exactly my point.
You go on similarly: 'We don't prevent other segments of the population from marrying because we think they may be unfit parents.' Yes we do, by law. For instance a father cannot marry his genetic daughter.
You go on: 'Known pedophiles have the right to marry and have children,..' Yes, but you forget those pedophiles are generally in jail, or are registered as pedophiles. Many pedophiles also practice homosexuality, so is that what you are getting at?
Then you presume what you don't know: 'but presumably you're OK with that so long as the marriage is with someone of the opposite sex.'
Then: 'do you think all of the hetero parents...' I don't believe in "heterosexuality", so the question is pointless, from my perspective.
And continuing with reasoning by analogy (not logic): 'Why don't we prevent known alchoholics from marrying and having children?' What's an alchoholic? Someone who drinks too much chocolate?
How would you go about preventing alchoholics from civil marriage? People generally become alcoholics - a f t e r - they get married, so preventing alcoholics from marrying wouldn't do any good, since they are already married by the time they become alcoholics, and already have kids.
You wore me out with your kindergarten rationalizations. You win.