Ryerson Students Against Margaret Somerville

Hmmmm. If she's not officially disinvited, this could make for an interesting awards ceremony. If she is disinvited, I say they give the degree to the first person to come forth that can burp the alphabet in one burp;)

Rob thinks that alcohol and cigarettes do more to compromise the right for all children to be raised by both genders and to know their biological parents. Not only are they legal, but sanctioned and profited on by the government.

But in terms of this Somerville issue, I feel that Ryerson made a mistake. An honourary degree should be given to someone who has both accomplishments and character. Ones character and beliefs are not mutually exclusive.

Canada, as a country, believes in equal marriage as fundamental to the institution. Further, not having equal-marriage is discrimination and illegal. If she believes in this discrimination, then that is evident of part of her character. Holding these beliefs is fine (..."free speech" even though we have reasonable limits on free speech in Canada) but she should not be accepting a degree from Ryerson or another Canadian University.. Let Texas A&M honour her.

I am a donor conceived person who has an anonymous biological father. I am fully opposed to anonymous gamete donation. It is a violation of our human rights to be INTENTIONALLY denied this basic human connection in order to 'belong' to a family. I am unable to fully know and understand my intimately personal sense of identity. Not only is it a violation of my rights but it is a violation of my children's as well. Same sex marriage advocates and single parents by choice are making this form of conception more common than ever before. I cannot support a marriage amendment before the rights of the child to know and be known by their biological/genetic parents and extended biological/genetic family is recognized.

To suggest that Canadians overwhelmingly favour same-sex families is incorrect. Same sex unions are less of an issue. But what about the issue of a boy between 5 and 14 tormented by being fatherless. It's a heavier weight to carry than the Gay community care to admit.

I don't think many people understand how intimately connected biological/genetic identity is with marriage between a man (bio-father) and woman (bio-mother). Preventing same-sex marriage isn't about homophobia, it is about preserving parenthood and children's rights.

I fully support Margaret Somerville's child right's perspective.

You must realize, Robert, that your point of view is just as black & white.

If "every bit of research" is true, then gee, we should be making it a punishable offense for a man to leave the mother of his children. Every lawyer on earth would be busy.

Allowing people who WANT to start a family, that right, is not likely to have such a wild negative effect on a child (which is loved and wanted) like being born into one that doesn't want it, or one where a parent is deadbeat... but we 'let' that happen every day.

<p>Perhaps we can compromise: Give gays marriage and parental rights AND give children the right to know about their sperm donors/surrogate mothers/etc. Why must it be one or the other?<p>

But for those who say, as Oits does in an above post, that fatherless children are "tortured," I say: what a lot of rot. I've known many fatherless children in my day, and none of them have expressed that they have been tortured by their situation. Nor have they told me during our conversations that they were missing out on something. Likewise, I've known many children with horrible, abusive fathers who wish that they had never even met such men. Let's just wish good parents on every child, whatever the sex of those parents may be.

Oops, I am American but I ment to say "These issues need to be addressed by the Canadian public before we can assume that love is all that is needed to start a family...."

If Sommerville were against interracial marriage, would she be called a racist? Most likely, and with good reason. In fact, many of the arguments used by the anti equal marriage crowd are remarkably similar to those used by the opponents of interracial marriage (let us recall that interracial marriage was also illegal in some parts of the United States in the not-so-distant past). Opponents of interracial marriage argued, among other things, that such unions would be damaging for children, would lead to the deterioration of society, etc. The parallels are quite striking.

Again, we see the double standard that exists in our society. Unlike other forms of bigotry, homophobia is still socially acceptable, and people (such as those who posted above) will use various arguments to excuse their own homophobia. Again, would Sommerville be denounced as a racist if she opposed interracial marriage (and there are still people out there who do)? Yes. Would so many people be eager to jump to her defence? Probably not. Yet when she is denounced for opposing same-sex marriage, it is those who argue with her who are dismissed as intolerant. Obviously, society still has a long way to go in terms of dealing with homophobia.

Most Canadians are against polygamy. That does not mean that they personally dislike, mistrust, or hate those individuals who wish to be involved in such arrangements. The same holds for Somerville. She is against same-sex marriages, not gays and lesbians per se.

I've been giving this (rather confusing) subject a lot of thought over the past 10 months and felt that I should clarify some of the comments I made earlier. I believe anyone can be a wonderful parent regardless of biological relation or family structure. I was donor conceived but my non-biological father was a wonderful parent and irreplaceable. Assisted reproduction is used primarily by heterosexuals and more often than not, is kept a family secret. Homosexuals and single parents by choice seem to be more open and honest with their children about their method of conception. They might even be more willing to use open donors and surrogates, which (in my opinion) is a significant improvement over the anonymous, secret conceptions of the past. Donors and surrogates are NOT the only way same-sex couples can have a family (adoption, co-parenting with other bio-parent, step parenting, foster parenting etc) and I do believe that all of these different family structures should be given equal support and rights. When I mentioned "preserving parenthood" I meant encouraging men and women to take responsibility for their own sperm and eggs when they are combined to create a new life (traditionally encouraged by society through marriage). Although family is a social construct regardless of biology, I do believe that biological, genetic connections and family do matter for many people, including adoptees and the donor/surrogate conceived (identity, heritage, roots/genealogy, belonging, dignity etc). I'm not really sure where I stand on the issue of "marriage" but I do feel very strongly that more attention needs to be turned towards discouraging anonymous donor conception and the commodification of donor gametes and surrogates.

If they had invited a racist or a sexist and the students were protesting that, there would be no controversy, the simple and only answer would be to un-invite this person. So why is there such a big controversy over un-inviting a homophobic?