Talk:Giuseppe Gori

Untitled

ON the record e-mail with Giuseppe Gori- Michael Spensieri wrote to confirm certain aspects of the Family Coalition Party of Ontario of (which Mr. Gori is the leader) website and wiki article of JC Currie. "Since you are becoming the expert at this,you go to my name:Giuseppe Gori [referring to wiki article under his name]"

"There I am described as anti-abortion (it would be better pro-life) and anti gay rights."

"This is wrong. I am for equal rights for gays (eg the right to marry a person of the opposite sex)."

"Without going into it too much I think it should say: supports traditional marriage".

"If I see anything else (in both the Giuseppe Gori and the FCP wikipedia articles) I will let you know.

I think this statement has to be seen in context : the FCP supports traditional marriage. There is no party that does not support traditional marriage.

Mr. Gori is not being coy or too clever by half when he says that he supports the right of a gay person to marry a person of the opposite sex. I suppose this would be a traditional marriage, a gay male married to a lesbian woman and viceversa, and a gay male married to a straight female and viceversa. These are the only possible permutations of a "traditional marriage" stretched to the limit.

So that leaves the "same sex civilly binding union". This is still problematic.The image of the party will continue to be negative with the young electorate that is spiritually and by practice faith based (parishes, mosques and synagogues). The better approach is to have the "sacramental and traditional marriage" reserved for hetherosexual couples who have the committment on the day of celebration of the sacrament to a life long monogamous relationship one of whose principal functions is procreation to keep the buildin block (the family) in ample supply.

The second situation, where one or more of the parties is homosexual or lesbian, and even more so where the contracting parties are of the same sex there should be a Register of the union and,mutatis mutandis, the same benefits/obligations would arise, as if the "non marriage civil union" were indeed a traditional marriage.

Further discussions will take place.......YHS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Spensieri (talk • contribs)