Archive for November, 2006

Same Sex Marriage Debate Again

So at last Stephen Harper is going to honour Canada by actually following through on a campaign promise. No it isn’t the one about having a transparent government, nor is it the one about insuring Cabinet is filled from elected members of Parliament even. And nope it isn’t about debating our role in Afghanistan or insuring that Canadians will have clean air to breathe in 10 or 20 years. Instead he is finally going to have his free vote on same sex marriage. I suppose it is a moral victory though, I mean at least he can claim to have honoured his campaign pledge but let us consider this not lightly.

To begin with, why does Stephen Harper think we even need to once more revisit a court mandated piece of legislation? The whole issue of same sex marriage shouldn’t even require a Court Order nor should it even require a separate law to have allowed it. Simply fact is that any minority should automatically be entitled to the same rights and benefits that the majority can obtain. It should never be something reserved soley for the majority. That is what a Democracy is supposed to be about.

Then too I have to wonder what is it about homosexuality that has Stephen Harper hating us? I can understand that some have deep religious convictions. I know I do. Still even if my interpretation of who and what GOD is, is wrong and Stephen Harper’s is right, does that give him the right to force his view on me? See this is where I differ and where I believe Canada differs from nations like the United States. I honestly believe that we take democracy far more seriously up here than say the States. I suppose that is one reason why we do have the right marry, even if I am a homosexual. And no, its not the result of some secret Homosexual Agenda that Bush and his puppetts keep claiming we have.

Fact of the matter is that I would yell as loudly for them to have their opinion as much as I do for myself. I have no problem with Harper hating me. I have no problem with Harper thinking I am evil. I have no problem with bigots like Harper and his neanderthal underlings like Vic Toews saying I will go to Hell for being Gay. While I stand tall in opposition I will stand shoulder to shoulder with them to defend their right to have that opinion. I think, personally, that they do a great diservice to the one they call GOD by having such horrid thoughts, and by making such spiteful and nasty comments as they do, but it is their right to do so.

Just as it is my right to disagree.

The issue isn’t whether GOD believes in me and my lifestyle or not. It isn’t an issue of whether or not Marriage under some religious pretext is weakened or not under the eyes of those religious leaders and their flocks. The simple fact is that even GOD gave mankind Freedom to decide what is and what isn’t for them to do. It isn’t for Stephen Harper and his chorus of Klansmen to force me to think differently than I do, and that is why in Canada, at least, the courts and Government have stood tall for same sex marriage rights.

It is the right of all to be treated the same. No special laws and rights and benefits for one group, simply because they CHOOSE to believe in a GOD that isn’t what the minority believe in. This is a country not run by Pope Intolerance or any other Church Leader. The spiritual well being of Canada is up to its people, not to the Immans of Mecca, the Rabbi’s of Jeruseleum or the ArchBishop of Canterbury. It is my choice to believe what I believe, and Stephen Harper has no authority or right to force me to believe otherwise.

Parliament has an obligation not to the Pope, not to George Bush and the United States, not to the Immans of Mecca or the Rabbinical Council in Tel Aviv. It has an obligation to me and to every citizen here to treat us all equally. That if Joe Average has the right to marry, then so too must Gay James have that right.

For me, to do otherwise is to simply not just wrong, but we might as well surrender now and pledge our allegiance to the United States. Because that is how I see it. To deny any citizen the same rights, the same protection under our human made laws, is to be simply an American or some other dictatorship like Iran, Syria or China.

This whole debate again is important. A clear signal needs to be sent to all who would enslave us, who would take away our national character, who would make us Americans, that in Canada we not just say the words, but we practise what we preach. We don’t just say we are a Democracy, we prove it in deeds and laws.

Whether you believe I should be married to David is not the issue. The real issue is do you believe in equal rights for all or not? If you do, then you need to write your Member of Parliament and tell them so. Tell them they need to push the racist bigotry of Stephen Harper off the floor of Parliament by rejecting his motion on Dec 6 (see full story) and to insure that Canada remains a real Democracy, not a paper one like the United States.

There are countless reasons given by the religious fanatics on why people should oppose same sex marriage. They might be what you believe as well and that is fine. I can accept that and I think most Gays can accept that. What we can’t accept is that you have any right to force that view on us. For all the reasons why you should oppose Same Sex Marriage, I have only one simple reason why you should support my right to be married.

I am a Canadian Citizen.

Words Do Hurt

I can’t help it, all this fuss about Seinfeld’s character Kramer and his stupid outburst using racial slurs and all. Saw Jesse Jackson on Lou Dobbs and you know, the hypocrisy is amazing. Here is Rev Jackson wanting a boycott of Seinfeld because Kramer gets residuals from the show, but he doesn’t take into account that others from the show suffer as well, but hey that is okay because the show is ‘predominently’ white folk.

Personally I think Kramer was a moron and words do hurt. Course its interesting to note that in the United States the ‘N’ word is mostly used by african American rap artists and yet, here is Jesse Jackson wanting the word to be erased by artists and the media… though not even mentioning the rap artists. It is also a bit of a double standard in how he talks about this Richards character. I mean does he forget his ‘Hymie Town’ remarks? Seems most Jews were willing to give him a second chance, but strange how he can’t do the same thing when the shoe is on the other foot.

Words are powerful weapons but all this fuss and yet not a word about how Gays are hurt daily, by bullying at school. Not a single word about adding Gays to the Hate Crime protection but instead that the media needs to have more non white actors. To attack a show like Seinfeld because it is or was cast by white actors is simply another form of racism. Just as Kramer was wrong, this subtle attack on others is just as bad, if not more so. If he truly wants to end people using the “N” word, then he should start in his own backyard. The majority of the use comes from rappers and not sick white folk like Kramer.

I do have a problem though with blanket banning a word. I know that many are upset with Huck Finn because of the depiction of slaves and the language used. Thing is, it is a historical piece that depicts the time when slavery did exist. To ban words that were common then destroys the historical view or accuracy of any literature. To ban the book as well as the words used is not the answer. The answer lies in education, not removing education tools. Huck Finn is a book that shows what it was like, that depicts the time accurately and yet without the words it would be meaningless.

Jesse Jackson should concentrate on helping to foster positive role models, not boycott shows because one cast member was an ass. To hurt innocent bystanders to the whole mess is counter productive in my view, but hell being Jewish I suppose I have a bit of a bias when it comes to Jesse Jackson. For me, Racism is something that is gender neutral as well as colour blind. All sides have it, and for me I am willing to give some leeway, not to go out of the way to hurt others because of one. I recall the ‘Hymie Town’ incident well, so should I then boycott all African American businesses because of Jesse Jackson?

The issues shouldn’t be about one word. As despicable as that word is, the issue should be that society needs to address ALL RACISM, not just those who use the ‘N’ word. Boycott that! I think Jesse Jackson had an opportunity here that he missed. This was an excellent example of why there should be more education, not banning of naughty words. It is what has created this situation in the first place. Just like in writing this post, I no longer know what word to use to describe people of colour? Do I use African American? Black? What?

The problem isn’t just the word, it is how it being used. I firmly believe that this Kramer joker needed to be slapped down, as he was, but come on, banning a word? That isn’t going to make racism go away. Real education, real role models is what the world needs, not fake characters on stupid television shows. 

Talking About the Bedroom

Well I have started a brand new anthology series. This is going to be a bit different than my normal erotic stories. Instead of the more lengthier stories, I am going to do a collection of several super short pieces, all revolving around the bedrooms of various characters. By short I mean in length and they will all be available for online reading only.

These short stories will be available exclusively at Cruising Men 247. This series is being titled “Bedroom Chronicles” and the first story is now available online.

How he had ever slept in that mess still amazed him. The blanket was all twisted around and not in its normal nearly unruffled pattern that he was used to. The bed sheets look like they hadn’t been washed for years instead of having been fresh before he had brought Zac home. (excerpt fromCraig’s Bedroom‘)

So if you are looking for a quick read, check it out.

Okay so the motion passed overwhelmingly that Quebec is a nation within a nation that is united. Yeah, right. Yet most agree the motion means nothing, and Harper himself says it gives no special edge to Quebec.

Mr Harper himself has stressed as much, describing the move a gesture to recognise Quebec’s unique cultural heritage within Canada. (full story)

Now I don’t get it. I mean to begin with he may so it gives them no edge, even many experts can say it legally gives Quebec no added bargaining power, so why did it even come to the floor of Parliament? As a gesture? Hmm, so let me see, the simple fact that we are bilingual, that Quebec is allowed to call its pension plan separate from the rest, among other things isn’t a gesture that is more tangible than token? I mean seriously, I simply don’t get it one little bit nor do I understand the Bloc in wanting it and then voting for it. They aren’t stupid folks and I have to wonder how naive are we? And yes I include the Liberal politicians and NDP folks in that too.

If it means nothing, they wouldn’t have wanted such a resolution. If they didn’t expect to gain an edge why threaten to defeat the minority government if it didn’t come to a vote in Parliament? Seems to me there is damn site more to this than meets the eye or that some so called experts comprehend.

Constitutional experts say the motion carries no legal weight and would be unlikely to give Quebec separatists a lever to extract more political powers from Ottawa. (full story)

Seems to me its politics as usual. I somehow don’t believe that it doesn’t give an edge, because then it wouldn’t have mattered so much. While it might, operative word there being might, not carry any legal weight. It just could be possible that it would carry bargaining weight within future negotiations. Franky I hate all this because you know, it doesn’t matter to me what happened a hundred plus years ago. What matters is who we are today as a nation, as a people and I see the same divisive shit coming into play that has been going on in the United States since they became independent.

I don’t want that for Canada and I hope that most of don’t. With a motion like this though, I wonder if our leaders are on the same page? Somehow I don’t think so.

It constantly amazes me that no matter how serious and ludicrous things get, some politicians prefer to engage in talk rather than in actually solving the issues. They play stupid word games and jockey for power, claiming or attempting to claim, the high moral road when all around them is death and destruction.

You have political assassinations in Lebanon and so labor calls for a general strike. You have Hezbollah taking to the streets because the Government agrees to the United Nations investigating the assassination.

Now you have Bush, the cause of all this, heading to Jordan to meet with Iraqi leaders to try and resolve the growing civil war in that country. Yet the US still refers to the conflict as a sectarian issue, instead of accepting that the country is in a civil war. Yes, it is one sect against another, and while the bloodshed gushes across the streets, the leaders urge for talk. I mean come on here, people were burned alive while troops stood idly by. Talk? Isn’t it time for action?

(AP) Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish leaders called on Sunday for an end to Iraq’s sectarian conflict and vowed to track down those responsible for the war’s deadliest attack. (full story)

It doesn’t take rocket science to know that if you are deeply religious and have differences with another side, that violence can and will erupt. Throw into that mix the ancient hatreds and wrongs both sides have done to the other, and well you can see why the streets are knee deep in blood. What I do not get is this, that if people believe in GOD so much, how can they raise their hands in anger so easily? How can they kill so horribily so many, if they truly believe in GOD?

Yet that is for later, because when people are being killed simply because of their religious connotation, action must be taken. If that means more US Troops, then it must be. You can’t waffle here, simply because you started this bloodshed. There is no doubt that this violence is because America invaded Iraq and removed the hated enemy who while he was a tyrant, he did keep things from erupting into civil war. Now that doesn’t mean he should be glorified but if you are going to remove that presence, you damn well better have a plan to insure that what is happening, didn’t.

That is ancient history though, because the fact is, Iraq is in a civil war. When Bush heads off to Jordan, he needs to be willing to help solve this problem instead of making assinine statements and threats that he cannot or will not back up. He invaded, he damn well better get the right number of troops in there now before this war throws the world into conflict.

From Latvia, the president heads to Amman, Jordan, for two days of talks with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. Jordan was deemed a less dangerous setting for the meeting than Baghdad. (see story)

What is disheartening is that this meeting is in Jordan. I mean if Bush can’t even travel now to Iraq safely, or meet with Maliki in Iraq, what does that say about the troop levels? I mean you listen to the news about how the Generals and Bush all say they have the right numbers, that more troops aren’t needed. If true, how come Bush has to meet in Jordan?

There is a lot of talk about redeployment, which is in fact fancy words for withdrawal, for cut and run. Now I didn’t think the USA should have gone in on the intelligence it had, but it has. So you don’t turn a country into a bloodbath and then leave it. You finish what you start and perhaps Lou Dobbs has the right answer. No one it seems is talking about winning, but about curtailing or reducing the violence. When attacks happen right beside military encampments, isn’t it time to rethink how you attack, instead of thinking of how to quit?  Because in all honesty, that is what redeployment means, quitting the war and leaving the Iraqi’s to fend for themselves.

Sure, its a possible solution but when you clealry haven’t trained sufficient forces or even managed to get sufficient Iraqi forces willing to fight, what hope does any government stand? To pressure the current government is one thing, to make it public is just plain stupid. This is Iraq, not Georgia or Florida. Bush and his kind have to understand that they are invaders, not liberators. They then have to come to grips with hostile forces and sitting in your encampment is not going to do the job. You need troops out there, not being polite or nice, but in securing the region and ending the violence. I mean come on, not like anyone likes them now, so what the hell, why try and allow the violence to only grow?

Just seems to me that if you have such an advanced military machine as the United States claims, that such violence should be easier to control and prevent, than it is. However if you have too few troops it would make sense. The enemy is not going to give up till they win, and one wonders if Viet Nam taught the Military minds of the USA anything? You can’t fight a pitched battle for a hill, then after winning, pack up and go back to the base. You need to garison it, hold it, and keep it while moving forwards. It is simple military doctrine, and its worked for eons. So why does the US Military machine think it can win or hold on even, by simply hit and run tactics?

The war in Iraq it seems is not a war on terror, nor is it a war of Islam vs Christianity. It is simple cave man warfare. There are no rules and for the USA to continue to think it can impose rules, is simply crazy and dangerous. If they lose there, where will it be next? Iran? North Korea? or Mainstreet USA? This is what Bush’s actions have cost us. They have raised the stakes to where we are all in danger now. This isn’t working and someone in authority in the States has to deal honestly with this. Right now it seems John McCain is the closest to it.

Instead of talk, the troops should be heading over now. The Air Force should be bombing and the Navy strangling supplies to the insurgents. Monitor the border not with stupid cameras, but put troops there. Have them stop the incoming insurgents and supplies from Syria and Iran. I mean get real here. The Iraqi border is not the obligation of Syria or Iran to guard and protect, but the Iraqis. So put troops there, stop the inflow and then start dismantling the insurgents by attacking them, not waiting for them to come to you. Sweeps are nice, but garison the damn places afterwards. Hold onto it and impose your will, not cut and run

Wish someone would wake up Bush as I really don’t want to spend my twilight years living in a nucleur winter.