blogTO Recent Comments: Ryerson Students Against Margaret Somerville

michael pieczonka

Wed, 18 Mar 2009 04:06:39 PDT

Say what you like, I completely agree with Somerville's argument as it pertains to the rights of an unborn child. It seems an ethical crime that two people of similar sex can collude to deny a child either it's true biological creators at the cost of their own need/desire for a child. Citing adoptees as a generalized group, they don't seem very happy to have not known their creators.

CHS

Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:24:51 PDT

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?

anon

Thu, 24 Jan 2008 15:54:45 PST

Karen, if you check this post again, could you please email me at openpjar@gmail.com. Thanks.

Karen

Mon, 12 Mar 2007 11:31:06 PDT

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.

cliff oswald

Sun, 25 Jun 2006 02:58:09 PDT

It is disappointing to see that most of the students who have accused Ms. Somerville of homophobia here have not taken the patience to read those articles by Ms. Somerville that are easily found on the web. In each and every one of those articles, she has prefaced her arguments with a clear statement on her acceptance of the rights of gays or lesbians. Her only disagreement is with the need by same sex partners to use a term that has been used by our and most of the world's societies, that of marriage. As my opinions are much the same as those postulated by Ms. Somerville, I will not explain them here. I would suggest, however, that those who have made such hysterical protestations, they should take the time, now that the heat of passion has cooled somewhat, to read her arguments. I challenge you to show me anything other than a difference of opinion on a particular matter, and to find me any instance of homophobic actions by Ms. Somerville. It is ironic that on the one hand, gays want to be recognized as a distinct entity, but yet demand to be blended in with everyone else. I believe that the term civil union should be recognized by Canadian Parliament with the same weight as that of marriage, and that others who live together (e.g.Mother and son, siblings, heterosexuals sharing a residence, and gays and lesbians) should enjoy equal standing before it. To claim that I am hobophobic because of my opinion is to do a disservice to me and all others who speak in a democratic society

Sam

Fri, 23 Jun 2006 16:59:24 PDT

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.

Karen

Wed, 21 Jun 2006 23:20:43 PDT

There are social implications to same sex marriage that need to be discussed. Margaret Somerville is bringing afew of these issues into the public debate. It is NOT about "homophobia". As a previous post suggested, address her arguements not her character. Throwing around the word "homophobia" and suggesting that her point of view is synonymous with "racism" and "bigotry" just sounds ignorant.

morganbeaudet

Wed, 21 Jun 2006 16:56:42 PDT

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.

Stephen

Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:23:59 PDT

Denouncing Margaret Sommerville, and anyone who agrees with her, as a homophobe is a McCarthyist tactic designed to stifle free speech. Gays who oppose same-sex marriage can't be tarred with that brush, so why should anyone else be?

Karen

Mon, 19 Jun 2006 18:55:01 PDT

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...."

Karen

Mon, 19 Jun 2006 18:12:26 PDT

Loved and wanted is NOT enough. Knowing our bio-fathers/mothers without a relationship, recognition or acknowledgment of emotional connection and meaning is NOT enough. The word "donor" or "surrogate" is insulting. We, the children, should not be pawns to meet our parents needs. We need more than to just know the identity of our bio/genetic parents. There is a deep sense of loss that is disenfranchised by our society when third party "donor" gametes are used to create a child for a family. This is not something that comes up in casual conversation. You may say that you know people who are perfectly fine with being adopted or fatherless (through abandonment) but you really don't KNOW how close and personal that loss may be. Third party conception is a form of adoption (half adopted) and has been recognized by the American Adoption Congress. This is the only way that same sex partners can have a family. The 7 core issues of adoption apply to "donor" conception as well. They are Loss, Rejection, Guilt and Shame, Grief, Identity, Intimacy, Mastery/control. These issues need to be addressed by the American public before we can assume that love is all that is needed to start a family. Biological, genetic connections and family truly matter.

JD

Mon, 19 Jun 2006 16:38:12 PDT

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?

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.

Mark

Mon, 19 Jun 2006 14:53:23 PDT

The issue here is not gay marriage itself, but rather whether one should be free to argue their stance on the matter, irrespective of the side taken. While one may or may not agree with the position taken by Prof. Sommerville, one cannot deny that she expresses her views in an argued, respectful and non-inflammatory way. The issue of gay marriage is one that may have far reaching consequences for our society, whatever the final outcome of it may be. As such, it should be debated in the public forum. Labelling the professor a bigot and hate-monger because the views that she argues for happen to be politically incorrect is wrong, particularly in an academic setting. The proper way to proceed would be to attack her arguments, not her person.

Tanja

Mon, 19 Jun 2006 14:35:56 PDT

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.

Robert

Mon, 19 Jun 2006 14:17:40 PDT

I'm sick of people throwing the word "homophobe" around at anyone who dares to have the cojones to disagree with them. Every bit of research on social outcomes for children shows that not having a father is by far the most critical determining factor in terms of the child's odds of being poor, getting into drugs, getting into criminal trouble, doing poorly in school, etc. etc. Children have a right to at least know, if not actually live with, a loving mother and father. Gay activists putting their precious sexuality rights ahead of basic rights of people who have no voice and can't defend themselves (children), and then whining and calling names (i.e. acting like children) when anyone dares criticise them, make me sick.

Karen Clark

Fri, 16 Jun 2006 19:05:41 PDT

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.

Morgan Beaudet

Fri, 16 Jun 2006 18:19:34 PDT

It is unfortunate that so many people, as evidenced by some of the comments below, still view homophobia as an acceptable “point of view” and the spreading of homophobic rhetoric as expressing “free thought”. Apparently, anyone who objects to blatant homophobia is dismissed as being “anti-free thought” or intolerant of those who exercise their right to openly discriminate against gays and lesbians. Clearly, the assertion that homophobia is the last socially acceptable prejudice is true, and Sommerville’s honourary degree reflects this unfortunate reality. If Sommerville were known for racist views, rather than homophobic views, I wonder whether she would be receiving a honourary degree from Ryerson (and whether people would be so quick to defend her views as “free thought”.) It is appalling that a university in a city as diverse as Toronto would award this honour to a prominent bigot. Who’s next, Fred Phelps (the “God Hates Fags” minister?) After all, he’s just expressing an opinion, right? The lasting impact of this travesty will be on Ryerson’s already less-than-stellar reputation.

Oits

Thu, 15 Jun 2006 09:55:17 PDT

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.

Brian Cameron

Wed, 14 Jun 2006 12:23:44 PDT

I am appalled at the decision to honour Somerville and I think she should be disinvited. Please note: you have two factual errors in your post 1) The president of the Ryerson Student Union is Muhammad Ali Jabbar. Sheldon Levy in the President of Ryerson, and the one who technically invited her on behalf of Ryerson. 2) You have attibuted comments to Levy that are not his. The quotation above is not Levy's. That communication comes from Mandy Ridley (RyePRIDE) and Denise Hammond (Ryerson Students' Union).

Karen

Tue, 13 Jun 2006 07:43:55 PDT

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.