Re the muslim cabbies: There are still a segment of passengers who do not want to ride with a muslim cabbie, and some been accused of bigotry, etc. Now, all they do is tell the muslim cabbie that they have alchol in their baggage, and are refused transportation. Win Win as far as they are concerned. If all passengers say they have booze, and the cabbies get no fares, the problem will be solved, they either drive all fares or go somewhere else to earn a living. Let the muslims go out of business all by themselves for their ROP. Time for the muslims to start bending over backwards instead of us.
Since the word seems so popular now – per the number of posts now who use it above with immunity – this FAGGOT wants to clear something up. No, I wasn’t talking out of my ass, Karl, so you can forget your blabbering about “moral equivalency” (whatever tha hell that is – your term, not mine).
Actually, this FAGGOT is just sick of all the jabbering from people who have never experienced one iota of discrimination based upon their race, religion, sex, or any other personal attribute.
As a FAGGOT who served in the military in silence while everyone babbled on about the harm to unit cohesion and other gobbly-gook, as a Catholic FAGGOT who was told by the Pope that I was “ok” but that homosexuality is “intrinsically evil” and that having a soul-mate was completely off-limits, and as a citizen who has faithfully paid taxes and obeyed laws all my life, I’ve just grown a bit weary of people slicing and dicing their everyday lives and hypothetical circumstances to find the sliver crevices where they can remain mortified at the fact that life has gotten a bit better – and fairer – for homosexual citizens.
I don’t want your acceptance – I never have. But I wont’ stand around and pretend its ok for you to spew your angst because society has moved ahead from your neanderthal beliefs (not that you believe in neanderthals, that is). I have no desire to have some homophobe (who just decided, thanks to Ann Coulter, that FAGGOT is an ok word to throw about) marry me and my partner. But I will forever demand that in the public arena, that he and I be treated fairly – and justly.
You can can save their hateful, discriminatory attitudes for special worship services in your tax-haven monasteries. When in public, just do your job.
So, Karl, time to pony up and tell us all about your horrific life experiences facing actual predjudice or were you, as you so succinctly put it, just talking out of your ass??
Adune – for heaven’s sake, please understand that SSM has nothing to do with the charter. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing.
Marriage isn’t a charter issue.
Neither is sexual preference. And ‘sex’ in the Charter has zilch to do with ‘sexual preference’.
These are social and only social issues. Nothing to do with human rights. Nothing to do with the Charter.
Therefore all your examples, based on your trying to equate sexual preference with religion and race – are false.
Equally, your example of life insurance and religion is meaningless.
Again, marriage is a SOCIAL issue. Nothing to do with human rights and nothing to do with the Charter. If someone rejects marrying SSM couple, then, they are rejecting the SOCIAL decision – and please remember that this decision favoring SSM is not a majority decision. Therefore, the society has to allow people to not only agree with SSM but to disagree with it. The commissioner, hired prior to this new decision, ought not to lose his job because he is one of those who disagree. His task would be to find someone who will marry them; that’s all.
Again, please stop asserting that SSM is a charter right. It isn’t. Sexual preference is not in the Charter.
This isn’t complicated.
The government claims to represent all citizens. As such, it’s employees ought not to be able to discriminate in the provision of services. Marriage commissioners are public/government employees.
Churches and other private organisations do not claim to represent all citizens; consequently church officials and private organisations should be free to decide who they will or will not marry.
All that said, I think the government has no rightful place in the marriage business at all, but as long as it administers them and is the final arbiter as to whether they are legal or not, it has no right to refuse that service to any Canadian citizens.
Re: Karl–So, this means that the terms of their employment have now changed. What if some have to leave their jobs because of it? Do you think there should be some sort of payout? Or are they just shafted?
Their terms of employment were to issue a legal license to any applicable pair of people applies for it. It wasn’t to issue a legal license to those applicants that the person felt were an appropriate couple to marry.
Their approval of the marriage in question was never a part of that job. If they wanted to selectively marry, that’s the job of a minister, in a denominationally sanctioned religious ceremony.
Joe: thank you for your military service–it’s greatly appreciated.
Not sure about the rest of Canada, but in Alberta about 3 years ago, the JoP’s performing marriage services were NOT government employees. They are independent businessmen licenced by the province. Heck you could get a licence for a day to marry your friends if you want.
ET, yes marriage is a social contract, but has consequences with respect to taxes, benefits etc. It is something more to society than standing up in front and declaring undying devotion to someone.
I don’t believe homosexuality is a “choice” like choosing a Honda over a GMC. If it were merely a choice, who would willing put up with the crap dumped on you for merely choosing to love (or sleep with) someone with the same plumbing as you.
Last I checked, sexual orientation was not in the charter, but has been read into common law by a precedent set by a judge. This precedent has not been tested by the supreme court and stands until replaced by a higher court. Parliament (or the Supreme Court if the matter is challenged by someone) has the ability to stop gay marriage, but chooses to allow the precedent stand.
My biggest problem is that gay marriage and common law marriage has some pretty ugly potential complications for society re: company benefits, death benefits, CPP, and common property rights on dissolution.
There is also the “Gay” agenda pusher who seem do seem to deliberate trying to push society. Like most other progress/change in society, it needs to advance in a slow evolutionary pace rather than a quick revolutionary pace.
Need help finding a commissioner.
My dog and I have set a date, bought a dress, and registered at PetsRus. But we realy realy realy feel we are being discriminated against.
Yeah, and if a Lawyer wants to help we’d appreciate it. Sadie will even do tricks if you want!
ET: SSM has a lot to do with the Charter. The legal basis for SSM is based on a supreme court ruling that excluding protection of homosexals violated section 15 of the Charter. As a result, the Charter is legally read to include protection of sexual orientation. Refusing to allow gays to marry constitutes discrimination based on sexual orientation, and voila, we have legalized gay marriage.
The federal legislation allowing SSM was simply a legal clarification of the decisions already made by the courts. A public official refusing to issue a license based on someone’s sexual preference would constitute a violation of their human rights, their freedom to their choice of sexual orientation.
To RobertBollocks, Quote: “you cant discriminate against groups/individuals over thing they got NO CONTROL OVER.”
So it’s fine to discriminate against someone because of their choice(?) of sexual orientation. Cool. How about religion then? That’s a choice after all.
If we decided that we don’t want any of those Jews around, let’s stop selling food to Jews, stop letting them buy houses, don’t let them marry. After all, it’s their choice to practice Judaism. Your logic is impeccable.
I think I have heard every argument re homosexual marriage ad nausem. One man sodemizing another does not make those people special. Two women playing sex games does not make them special. Sexually deviant behavior has been with us since the dawn of time, so has the effort to corrupt societies. This to will pass.
adune – the Supreme Court refused to rule on SSM. Homosexuality has nothing to do with Section 15 of the Charter.
No, the Charter is not ‘legally read’ to include sexual orientiation. The Charter specifically doesn’t say a word about sexual orientation.
In most, but not all, cases, sexual orientation is not a choice; there’s a great deal of chemistry involved. But, sexual orientation is not a human right; marriage is not a human right. And the Charter says nothing about both.
eastern Paul, how do you equate the marriage of two consenting adults with you and your dog. Seriously, I would hate to see your girlfriend if you are willing to put on a dress and marry your your dog. Woof woof.
Charter provides protection to those groups, who are somehow disadvantaged due to the factors that they can’t change. This makes sense: if a person has green skin and emits light from his eyes, that person has no choice. But if someone can join the disadvantaged group by choice, which does not require any proof, that’s not discrimination that requires charter protection. Tomorrow the gay will scream that they want job quotas and I will claim that I ma gay, and my neighbour will too. No one is going to examine our anal cavities before giving us a job. Or will they? Who knows, huh.
The charter and other SSM issues are moot.
The parliament of canada decreed SSM legal.
If you work doing the state’s business, you are paid to do the state’s business. You collect a paycheque for doing your employer’s business.
The state now marries SS couples. If you don’t want to marry SS couples for the state, I suggest you go private and work for your church. I hear a good lot of them are short priests and ministers.
ET: The charter does not say a word about sexual orientation, correct. However, the result of Vriend v. Alberta [1998] means that the charter is now legally read to include sexual orientation in section 15.
You may not like this. That doesn’t change the fact that Canadians are protected from discrimination based on sexual orientation. That means that when someone performing a civic duty refuses to perform that duty based on the clients’ sexual orientation, they’re violating their charter rights.
If you want to argue about something, argue perhaps that an unelected body should not be adding protections to the Charter–That’s the job of parlaiment.
The courts were not in position to rewrite the Charter last time I checked.
Can anyone answer me this question?
First, how does what 2 men, or 2 women, do, or how they live their life, affect you in any way shape or form or the relationship you have with your significant other of the opposite sex? Please, anyone answer me this question in a rational, intelligent manner and leave religious arguments out of it.
Second, someone previously mentioned that marriage was a religious institution first. Actually that is wrong. Anyone who’s done any research on the matter will know that it was first conceived of as a civil/societal matter to settle property rights, protect bloodlines, and perpetuate the species. The concept of it being a holy sacrement first appeared with St. Paul (10 BCE – 67 CE). There are no references to marriage being a religious sacrement prior to St. Paul. None. And don’t confuse performing a marriage with the concept of it being a religious sacrement as throughout history religious officials have often carried out duties on behalf of civil officials.
At the end of the day, a marriage commissioner’s job is to perform civil marriages. Not religious ones. As such, it’s their job description to perform ALL marriages deemed legal in civil law. And as of now that includes SSM. Any marriage commissioner unable to carry out their job description shouldn’t be doing that job.
I’m a Professional Engineer. Laws, codes, and standards have changed since the day I was granted my professional designation. Do I get to ignore those changes in my work now because they were not in place the day I became a Professional? Nope. If I did at best I could get fined and at worst I could lose my license to practice. I have to adapt to those changes in order to continue to practice my profession.
While I feel that religion has no business in a civil matter, I also feel that civil law has no business in religion. And as such I’ll defend religion’s right to carry out it’s practices free from government interference. Marriage included. No religion should be forced to perform a SSM if it’s against their dogma. But at the same time, anyone doing work on behalf of the government must carry it out according to the law regardless of their religious beliefs.
Adune, Warwick
Marriage Commmisioners or Justices of the Peace are not paid by the government, they are paid by the couple getting married. At least 3.5 years ago in Alberta that was the way it worked.
Adune, until the supreme court rules or parliament enacts a law, SSM is resting on a house of cards. There is no LAW allowing SSM. There is merely an Ontario court ruling that allows it. Parliament has not deliberated either way. It is certainly NOT a charter right at this point.
By what law are you going to force a JP to perform a marriage? If a JP can choose not to marry a straight couple (for whatever reason) why can they not refuse a gay couple?
DKJONES
What rock have you been living under? There is INDEED a LAW allowing SSM, which is a good bit better than a stack of cards.
And the argument is not about a JP chosing not to marry a straight couple (for whatever reason). They don’t have that right either. But nice try at another red herring.
Perhaps you should take a look at recent history instead of the fictionalized one in your head:
Same-sex marriage was legalized across Canada by the Civil Marriage Act enacted on July 20, 2005. Court decisions, starting in 2003, had already legalized same-sex marriage in eight out of ten provinces and one of three territories, whose residents comprised about 90% of Canada’s population. Before passage of the Act, more than 3,000 same-sex couples had already married in these areas. Most legal benefits commonly associated with marriage had been extended to cohabiting same-sex couples since 1999.
The Civil Marriage Act was introduced by Paul Martin’s Liberal government in the Canadian House of Commons on February 1, 2005 as Bill C-38. It was passed by the House of Commons on June 28, 2005, by the Senate on July 19, 2005, and it received Royal Assent the following day.
One of the federal Conservative’s campaign pledges, that was brought up during the debates, was to look at the same-sex marriage legislation again. On December 6, 2006 the Conservative government brought in a motion asking if the issue of same-sex marriage should be reopened to support the traditional definition of marriage. This motion was defeated the next day in a vote of 175 (nays) – 123 (yeas). Prime Minister Stephen Harper has since said that he “doesn’t see reopening this question in the future.”
DKJones: “If a JP can choose not to marry a straight couple (for whatever reason) why can they not refuse a gay couple?”
That’s my point. JP should not be picking and chosing who they’re going to perform a civil function for. It’s not their job to approve of the marriage. It’s their job to issue the license.
A JP may not approve of a young couple getting married, ie: Under 18 with parents’ approval, but they should still issue the license. A JP may not approve of mixed race marriage, but they still should issue the license. Etc.
I’ll strongly defend any church’s right to NOT perform any marriage they don’t want to. As a private group, that’s their protected right. However, for a public official, that’s a different matter entirely.
Public services should be availale to EVERYONE that qualifies.
Ried,
How does SSM affect you. Well it affects you in the pocket book.
Because the government should not be peaking into the bedroom to determine if the marriage was “consumated” (which will not be an obsolete term wrt marriage), we can now have any two people able to confer CPP or company medical benefits unto whomever they choose. We (as in society) have no recourse to determine the validity of the marriage in terms of life partnership.
Now we have SSM and Common Law Marriage. What will stop heterosexual roommate A from claiming common property or even palimony from heterosexual roommate B when they split? Far fetched? then so was SSM a few years ago.
There is some answers for you without even invokin slippery slope or the fact that religious grounds for poligamy are stronger than the grounds for SSM.
Joe,
I stand corrected. No need to get testy. But I live in a comfortable rock. How is the Roche you are living under?
Adune,
There are many reasons a JP may not perform a ceremony aside from moral objections. Holidays, days off, booked already that day or simply just not want too. By what crystal ball are you going to use to determine a reason.
Lets force doctors to do abortions next.
There are other avenues to available to get married. They are denied nothing as there are many other JPs who would marry the couple.
Well, DKJONES,
When exactly did the government first crack down on all those heterosexual faux marriages so sly citizens could get the benefits to which their taxes contribute?
I mean, with 97% of the population (give or take) being heterosexual, the fraud must have been staggering, millions upon millions of false marriages from coast to coast.
And now, I can just imagine how many college roommates are plotting – as we speak – to game the system by “pretending” to be gay and geting married. OH What Wickedness! Pure Genius! Maybe they’ll even adopt children so they can snag another $1200 per year for child care. The riches are just waiting for people willing to live a lie with a faux partner.
Ok, now back on planet earth, that’s not why people get married. But, again, nice try!
DKJONES:
All those arguments are wrong.
1. If 100 men married 100 women you’d have 100 couples that you have to pay CPP or medical benefits to. If instead, 98 men married 98 women, 2 men married each other, and 2 women married each other, you still have 100 couples. The net cost increase w.r.t benefits is zero. No change to my pocketbook.
2. Your roomate example. If you’re talking about 2 people living together in a relationship, then they already have those rights to go after palimony etc. If you’re talking about 2 people living together platonically then what’s stopping it is that roommate A will not want to give half to roommate B when they were just buddies. And that would be easy to prove in a court of law if roommate B lied and said they were in a loving relationship. You’re taking this “slippery slope” to ridiculous places.
Like I challenged. Someone give me 1 good reason. No one ever has when I’ve asked this question.
DKJONES,
I’ve been a bit harsh (perhaps too much coffee today). You may find this utterly silly at this point, but I wish you only well. Have a wonderful evening with your loved ones – I mean that.
We all need to hold them close in scary times – and in good times too.
Adieu!
Not to worry Joe. I had forgotten about that legislation and I know better now. I wish you well with your loved ones as well. Try to ignore the homophobes.
Ried…Duck..Whoosh….
The CPP example applies. Benefits were meant to be extented to your immediate family. SSM marriage now allows extention of the benefits to SS couples. This is fair and equitable no doubt.
But it will allow platonic couples to be created to extend these same benefits not to family, but to anyone who comes along. I don’t think this is likely to be huge problem, but there will always be some who will game the system. And with the aging population, I am going to have enough problems giving government bene’s to those who deserve it.
Reid writes, “First, how does what 2 men, or 2 women, do, or how they live their life, affect you in any way shape or form or the relationship you have with your significant other of the opposite sex? Please, anyone answer me this question in a rational, intelligent manner and leave religious arguments out of it.”
The main thing, in a biological nutshell, Reid, is that the 2-men, 2-women model can’t produce the next generation. Very simple, isn’t it? (I’m surprised it hasn’t occurred to you.)
Psst . . . The fact that the man-woman model CAN create new life is the reason that religion–whoops! forget I mentioned it–AND the state AND everyone in it have always had a compelling interest in heterosexual unions–and now same-sex get-togethers.
The primary building block of every society is the biological, man-woman-child(ren) family. Without it, there is no society. E.g., If all unions are heterosexual, future generations will continue to be born. If all unions were homosexual, society would become extinct within a generation. Isn’t it quaint that I should accord the necessary union any precedence?
(Just for the non religious record, how about the well documented, quite out of proportion in number pathologies–substance abuse, promiscuity, violence–of same-sex relationships? How about, re child abuse–consider the above too –the well documented vastly increased vulnerability of children living with non-related adults, the position of every child in a same-sex liason? If you have no notion of these anomalies, Reid, I think you’re pretty naive.)
I hope I’ve satisfied your requirements.
Did I hit a nerve paul?
Cant have anyone pointing out your hypocracy, right?
Kate get this fool unattached from your website before people start thinking your a pal of that doofus over at myblahg.
P.S. I wrote, “Isn’t it quaint that I should accord the necessary union any precedence?”
In that regard, the same-sex union has actually piggy backed on and taken advantage of the natural one. What cheek! (Please excuse the puns–or not.)
Without the rights accorded the natural family, the same-sex model would have no basis for its so-called, judge manufactured rights. What irony. And, as I said, what cheek.
The sad part is there would be no objections if the government at the time took the advice of their study groups and chose a different term than marriage. There was an option suggested, option 3, that would have had the government “get out of the marriage business” and into the civil-union business for everyone. This would have made it non-discriminatory for everyone and protected the rights and sensibilities of religious groups. It also would have provided a further separation of church and state, something everyone would agree is a “good thing.”
It may be law but not for ever. Ever fag marriage in Canada will be dealt with sooner or later.
Just because it was shoved down our throats doesnt mean we will just surrender.
FREE: nice ironic handle you got.
lookout: if every gay person found the love of their lives (or even the loves of their lives) and got married tomorrow, there’d still be plenty of straight folks wanting to get hitched and do stuff that occasionally makes babies. We may have demographic issues coming up because of the low birthrate in Canada (who knows…) but gay folks are irrelevant in that equation. Even if gay folks can’t or can’t get married, they’re not gonna be out making babies too often. Then again, as far as I’ve noticed (enjoyed), most straight sex isn’t–and hasn’t been–about making babies anyway, or either.
The fact that society and the State have had, as you put it, a compelling interest in heterosexual unions hasn’t always been a good thing. In fact, the countries that have paid the most attention to regulating unions strictly have, by any number of other indicators, been among the world’s most despotic–and it really hasn’t mattered whether the regulation was religious or political or some messy combination of the two.
As for your point about pathologies, well… institutionalize poor treatment of some/any sub-group for a while and see if you don’t get some problems. And that’s as if straight folks don’t have problems, too. Discount the trouble gay folks cause and *all* the rest of it is caused by straight folks.
But the real crux of this issue was cleared up for me by my mom when I was about 12 (maybe 1964?). My dad was friends with a guy at work who was also the first person I’d ever heard publicly referred to as gay or homosexual, and this guy lived with another guy. They both seemed to get along great but otherwise there wasn’t anything else remarkable about them. Anyways, I asked my mom if this was bad or good or weird or what…
…and my mom said “Oh, Ron, it’s hard enough to find anyone to love y’know…be happy for ’em.”
Common sense.
Well, FREE, when you decide to “deal” with my marriage, I hope you do it in person so I can “deal” with you.
And folks like FREE are the reason I support protection of people from descrimination based on sexual orientation.
Despite all the little reasons given, it all comes down to the fact that they’re different, and you don’t like it, and you want them gone.
I can probably find studies showing that rates of abuse, malnutrition, etc are significantly higher in aboriginal families than in whites in Canada. By the same logic, it’s time to start getting rid of the aboriginals, take their kids away, and not letting they marry.
Jews, homosexuals, the mentally ill, let’s pack them up & send them away, and then our nation will be so much better. Hrm, sounds familiar.
Ron Good, you miss the points I made. Among other issues, in response to Reid, I was explaining how we’re not islands unto ourselves and that the choices one group makes do affect the rest of us. That person’s contention that the “gay marriage” issue is somehow isolated in some bubble that will have no impact on anyone else is disingenuous and false. That’s what I was writing about.
Adune, you go over the top. You say, “By the same logic”, and then go on to provide a list of ridiculous and bigoted non-sequiturs that have nothing to do with my logic. The point I was making, again, is that the behaviour of this particular group–well documented in their own literature–can and will affect the rest of us. Reid’s point was that we’re islands unto ourselves and should just live and let live. Re the first, he’s altogether wrong. Secondly, what a lopsided point of view: those of us opposed to same-sex marriage are supposed to”suck it up”, while the gay activists’ agenda is precisely the opposite. As far as they’re concerned, if the rest of us don’t go along, they’ll use the jackboots of the state to force us to be “tolerant”. Irony here, anyone?
It seems my post to counter Ron and Adune’s non sequiturs has been lost. (Perhaps it will show up later.) No person’s an island . . . was a main point Reid needs to understand. I also point out to Adune the irony of his support for one of the most intolerant political groups in Canada–gay activists–using the power of the state to jackboot people with whom they disagree. Open your eyes and your mind! And then smarten up your logic (sic).
Adune – how do you prove your sexual orientation? Fuck your ‘wife with a penis’ in the ass in front of a crowd? Then you are more fucked up than I thought.
Just so that we are clear about bottom line: I oppose the idea, that two same sex individuals instead or procreating, will age and die, and before they buy the farm, they will suck the taxes for their healthcare from my children’s paychecks. This is called being parasites on the society.
Aaron: How do you prove religion? It’s a declaration, usually accompanied by certain lifestyle choices.
Lookout: Yes, the gays being allowed to marry is going to destroy the fabric of society. We just can’t sit back & let it happen!
That’s the same logic that’s been used to forment hatred against different racial & religious groups throughout history.
You’re stating that because you can statistically show that gay households are “on average” less wholesome than a straight household, the straight families need protection from the gay ones. You can apply that EXACT SAME LOGIC to anything you can divide people by. Race, Religion, Income, etc. What makes the gays a danger to society, but not another group with a lower standard of living?
It’s an unfair thing. You have to accept gay marriage. Logically, that means nothing. Racists have to “suck up” inter-racial marriages, and blacks using the same drinking foundtains as the rest of us. Sexists have to deal with female police officers, supervisors, etc, and other women in positions of power.
Homophobes have to accept gays being allowed to marry.
Personally, I would have preferred the government creating the legal contract of civil union, and doing away with marriage altogether, leaving that for religious institutions. The reality is that we have only marriage.
You may not like some of the militant gay whackos out there. Gays don’t like some of the militant anti-gay whackos out there. Despite the extremists on both sides, homosexuals deserve protection from discrimination just like any other group of people.
Aaron:
Do you also oppose heterosexual couples getting married who do not have children, either by choice or biology, then, “age and die, and before they buy the farm, they will suck the taxes for their healthcare from your children’s paychecks?”
You dodged the question like a lawyer or expreienced bureaucrat! Congrats. But you should not address any question regarding religion to me – I am not religious, and have no desire to know how one proves religion. I can prove that I am heterosexual – I have a wife and children and can submit for a DNA test any time. Be a man and answer the question – or maybe you are a woman? So be a woman and answer the question.
No, Reid, I don’t, as heterosexual couples have or have not children and that can change. The homo couples do not have children and that cannot change. I put it simple so you can get it.
the problem with granting gay couples pension benefits regardless of how many ‘couples’ are involved is: THEY WERENT PAYING INTO THE FUND AS A COUPLE beforehand. the cpp was calculated and geared on now obsolete frame of reference, there needs be some sort of adjustment until gay couples have contributed enough to justify drawing from the fund in future.
Check that. Couples that cannot reproduce are illegitimate. Couples that decide not to have children, and instead work jobs, paying more taxes are a DRAIN??? on your children? I’d rather have 2 people working & paying taxes than a family living on welfare pumping out babies every 18 months.
Fathering children does not prove one’s sexuality. I can introduce you to several gay people that have had children. Hrm. This means you could be a closet homosexual…
What is your question exactly? How do you prove sexuality? You cannot. It should not matter. The government and society has no business separating people by their sexuality. Every person should have the same rights, regardless of that.
(Just to clarify–Are you trolling, or are you really going around hating any couple that’s not producing children?)
“I oppose the idea, that two same sex individuals instead or procreating, will age and die, and before they buy the farm, they will suck the taxes for their healthcare from my children’s paychecks. This is called being parasites on the society.”
That’s one of the most vile things I’ve read on this thread, because it’s no leap of logic at all to apply that very same statement to heterosexual couples who choose not to have children or are unable to have children, people who never marry, the disabled, the elderly, you name it. Are only happily-married with-children couples to be eligible to receive the benefits of the state, to which we ALL pay taxes?
Are the rest of us (I’m single) all “parasites”?
Take a step down from your sanctimonious perch there, Aaron.
Adune, you are out for lunch. The question is, how two men living together prove that they are husband and wife, and not just two resourceful cone artists. I want a proof, that $7K of tax credit applies to them etc. You heard the question, quit babbling and pretending you don’t understand.
Oh, and I apologize for not noticing your last question – no, I do not hate anyone, gay, lesbian, black, white, green, except the communists. My issue with gays is simply accounting and medicine. I do not want them to be a financial burden and spread diseases. Pure and simple, just like I regard the drug addicts – I do not hate them and do not mind them to get high, but I do mind when they become too sick to work and start producing mutated babies incapable of surviving on their own. You either work and pay taxes, or you do not get anything from the taxpayers if it’s your own fault. To each their own.
Whoah, I get $7k of tax credits for being married? I never noticed a difference in my taxes. What am I doing wrong? (Serious question–I’m about to do our taxes for the year, and I never noticed anything that would give me a huge windfall)
I’m fine with the government granting civil union status to any non traditional family–Whether that’s a a child/grandchild caring for a grandparent, 2 male friends living together, a male and female friend in a non-sexual relationship, etc.
We’d need hard numbers, but I’d think that a couple living together that cannot produce children would tend to generate more income (Thus pay more taxes) than a couple where one has to stay home to raise children. Two gays living together rather than separately share expenses, and therefore have more disposable income, and then can buy more–paying taxes and stimulating the economy.
In terms of spreading disease, are you under the impressing that half of the gay population is wasting away from AIDS, and other diseases, a huge burden on our healthcare system?
If your concern truly is the balance of paying out in taxes & the use of public services & the ratio of that, you really are after the wrong group of people. Here’s who you need to learn about.
THE POOR.
That’s right. The poor have lower standards of living, poor diet, and are at much higher risk for a wide range of diseases that drain our healthcare system. Plus, because they’re poor, they’re paying in with fewer taxes. In some cases, they PAY NO TAXES AT ALL. That’s not the worst of it though. Some are living on welfare, sucking the system dry twice as fast.
You should look into the First Nations communities as well. They’re really killing the productivity of Canada. First, they get all kinds of money provided to them through our taxes. Next, they have much higher levels of diabetes & other diseases. Even worse, many reservations are in remote areas, where the cost of delivering healthcare and other services are MUCH higher. Compound this with the tax exemptions they have, aboriginals in Canada are a threat to our way of life.
Don’t get me started on the mentally ill either. Leeches, all of them!
Of those groups, the poor is probably the largest, and your biggest worry. Secondly would be the aboriginals, and finally, the mentally ill/handicapped.
Some helpful google search phrases for you might be: “Eugenics”, “Master Race”, “Eliminate undesirables”.
It’s because your wife works. Mine does not and I am proud of it. Two gays living together are only stimulating their own rectums, and not the economy.
Once again, you need to read instructions on the ice cream pack, so I’ll make it simple: the poor can become rich if they get off their asses and study, work, or start a business. Gay couples can’t have children, never ever, period. That cannot change. Two gays married mean that there will be two people less in the aging Canada in 40 years. Two heterosexual married who do not want to have kids means that there will be two less, equal or two more depending on circumstances – people change their minds, split, separate, re-marry, get fertility treatment etc. If you don’t want to see the obvious, too bad.
The aboriginals can and do change their life. Plastering an ‘asshole’ tag across all of them like you just did, because some militant actions in Caledonia or gas sniffing youth on a reserve is as short sighted as your posts here usually get. There are aboriginals and aboriginals, and I probably know about them across the Arctic more than you can imagine. Some suck whisky and welfare, some have profitable businesses and that can change. The gay couples cannot change the fact that they will die without leaving a trace on the planet Earth, and my kids will have to pick a tab for treating them for papilloma virus, anal warts or HIV.
Don’t get me started on the mentally ill either. It’s not their choice, but you turned your eyes away from that fact. You are comparing apples and oranges.
“Plastering an ‘asshole’ tag across all of them like you just did, because some militant actions in Caledonia or gas sniffing youth on a reserve is as short sighted as your posts here usually get.”
It’s called satire. You’re judging a group of people based on your perceived value of them collectively to society. I gave other examples of doing the exact same thing–And from your point of reference (Value to society) the problem groups I listed have a far greater impact.
I’m trying to help your realize that you’re hating a group of people in a way that mirrors racism.
Now let’s talk about YOU. You say your wife doesn’t work, and you have children. So you’re paying less in taxes, and MY tax money is going to subsidize you raising your kids. Your kids are paying no taxes, but they get government handouts, use up valuable health care, etc. Who’s the leech on society, hrm?
(Note: I’m married, with 2 kids, and my wife stays at home–I’m a leech too.)
My point is, that you’re being asinine judging the value of a person on their likelyhood of producing a child. I’m out, it’s been fun.
Re the muslim cabbies: There are still a segment of passengers who do not want to ride with a muslim cabbie, and some been accused of bigotry, etc. Now, all they do is tell the muslim cabbie that they have alchol in their baggage, and are refused transportation. Win Win as far as they are concerned. If all passengers say they have booze, and the cabbies get no fares, the problem will be solved, they either drive all fares or go somewhere else to earn a living. Let the muslims go out of business all by themselves for their ROP. Time for the muslims to start bending over backwards instead of us.
Since the word seems so popular now – per the number of posts now who use it above with immunity – this FAGGOT wants to clear something up. No, I wasn’t talking out of my ass, Karl, so you can forget your blabbering about “moral equivalency” (whatever tha hell that is – your term, not mine).
Actually, this FAGGOT is just sick of all the jabbering from people who have never experienced one iota of discrimination based upon their race, religion, sex, or any other personal attribute.
As a FAGGOT who served in the military in silence while everyone babbled on about the harm to unit cohesion and other gobbly-gook, as a Catholic FAGGOT who was told by the Pope that I was “ok” but that homosexuality is “intrinsically evil” and that having a soul-mate was completely off-limits, and as a citizen who has faithfully paid taxes and obeyed laws all my life, I’ve just grown a bit weary of people slicing and dicing their everyday lives and hypothetical circumstances to find the sliver crevices where they can remain mortified at the fact that life has gotten a bit better – and fairer – for homosexual citizens.
I don’t want your acceptance – I never have. But I wont’ stand around and pretend its ok for you to spew your angst because society has moved ahead from your neanderthal beliefs (not that you believe in neanderthals, that is). I have no desire to have some homophobe (who just decided, thanks to Ann Coulter, that FAGGOT is an ok word to throw about) marry me and my partner. But I will forever demand that in the public arena, that he and I be treated fairly – and justly.
You can can save their hateful, discriminatory attitudes for special worship services in your tax-haven monasteries. When in public, just do your job.
So, Karl, time to pony up and tell us all about your horrific life experiences facing actual predjudice or were you, as you so succinctly put it, just talking out of your ass??
Adune – for heaven’s sake, please understand that SSM has nothing to do with the charter. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing.
Marriage isn’t a charter issue.
Neither is sexual preference. And ‘sex’ in the Charter has zilch to do with ‘sexual preference’.
These are social and only social issues. Nothing to do with human rights. Nothing to do with the Charter.
Therefore all your examples, based on your trying to equate sexual preference with religion and race – are false.
Equally, your example of life insurance and religion is meaningless.
Again, marriage is a SOCIAL issue. Nothing to do with human rights and nothing to do with the Charter. If someone rejects marrying SSM couple, then, they are rejecting the SOCIAL decision – and please remember that this decision favoring SSM is not a majority decision. Therefore, the society has to allow people to not only agree with SSM but to disagree with it. The commissioner, hired prior to this new decision, ought not to lose his job because he is one of those who disagree. His task would be to find someone who will marry them; that’s all.
Again, please stop asserting that SSM is a charter right. It isn’t. Sexual preference is not in the Charter.
This isn’t complicated.
The government claims to represent all citizens. As such, it’s employees ought not to be able to discriminate in the provision of services. Marriage commissioners are public/government employees.
Churches and other private organisations do not claim to represent all citizens; consequently church officials and private organisations should be free to decide who they will or will not marry.
All that said, I think the government has no rightful place in the marriage business at all, but as long as it administers them and is the final arbiter as to whether they are legal or not, it has no right to refuse that service to any Canadian citizens.
Re: Karl–So, this means that the terms of their employment have now changed. What if some have to leave their jobs because of it? Do you think there should be some sort of payout? Or are they just shafted?
Their terms of employment were to issue a legal license to any applicable pair of people applies for it. It wasn’t to issue a legal license to those applicants that the person felt were an appropriate couple to marry.
Their approval of the marriage in question was never a part of that job. If they wanted to selectively marry, that’s the job of a minister, in a denominationally sanctioned religious ceremony.
Joe: thank you for your military service–it’s greatly appreciated.
Not sure about the rest of Canada, but in Alberta about 3 years ago, the JoP’s performing marriage services were NOT government employees. They are independent businessmen licenced by the province. Heck you could get a licence for a day to marry your friends if you want.
ET, yes marriage is a social contract, but has consequences with respect to taxes, benefits etc. It is something more to society than standing up in front and declaring undying devotion to someone.
I don’t believe homosexuality is a “choice” like choosing a Honda over a GMC. If it were merely a choice, who would willing put up with the crap dumped on you for merely choosing to love (or sleep with) someone with the same plumbing as you.
Last I checked, sexual orientation was not in the charter, but has been read into common law by a precedent set by a judge. This precedent has not been tested by the supreme court and stands until replaced by a higher court. Parliament (or the Supreme Court if the matter is challenged by someone) has the ability to stop gay marriage, but chooses to allow the precedent stand.
My biggest problem is that gay marriage and common law marriage has some pretty ugly potential complications for society re: company benefits, death benefits, CPP, and common property rights on dissolution.
There is also the “Gay” agenda pusher who seem do seem to deliberate trying to push society. Like most other progress/change in society, it needs to advance in a slow evolutionary pace rather than a quick revolutionary pace.
Need help finding a commissioner.
My dog and I have set a date, bought a dress, and registered at PetsRus. But we realy realy realy feel we are being discriminated against.
Yeah, and if a Lawyer wants to help we’d appreciate it. Sadie will even do tricks if you want!
ET: SSM has a lot to do with the Charter. The legal basis for SSM is based on a supreme court ruling that excluding protection of homosexals violated section 15 of the Charter. As a result, the Charter is legally read to include protection of sexual orientation. Refusing to allow gays to marry constitutes discrimination based on sexual orientation, and voila, we have legalized gay marriage.
The federal legislation allowing SSM was simply a legal clarification of the decisions already made by the courts. A public official refusing to issue a license based on someone’s sexual preference would constitute a violation of their human rights, their freedom to their choice of sexual orientation.
To RobertBollocks, Quote: “you cant discriminate against groups/individuals over thing they got NO CONTROL OVER.”
So it’s fine to discriminate against someone because of their choice(?) of sexual orientation. Cool. How about religion then? That’s a choice after all.
If we decided that we don’t want any of those Jews around, let’s stop selling food to Jews, stop letting them buy houses, don’t let them marry. After all, it’s their choice to practice Judaism. Your logic is impeccable.
I think I have heard every argument re homosexual marriage ad nausem. One man sodemizing another does not make those people special. Two women playing sex games does not make them special. Sexually deviant behavior has been with us since the dawn of time, so has the effort to corrupt societies. This to will pass.
adune – the Supreme Court refused to rule on SSM. Homosexuality has nothing to do with Section 15 of the Charter.
No, the Charter is not ‘legally read’ to include sexual orientiation. The Charter specifically doesn’t say a word about sexual orientation.
In most, but not all, cases, sexual orientation is not a choice; there’s a great deal of chemistry involved. But, sexual orientation is not a human right; marriage is not a human right. And the Charter says nothing about both.
eastern Paul, how do you equate the marriage of two consenting adults with you and your dog. Seriously, I would hate to see your girlfriend if you are willing to put on a dress and marry your your dog. Woof woof.
Charter provides protection to those groups, who are somehow disadvantaged due to the factors that they can’t change. This makes sense: if a person has green skin and emits light from his eyes, that person has no choice. But if someone can join the disadvantaged group by choice, which does not require any proof, that’s not discrimination that requires charter protection. Tomorrow the gay will scream that they want job quotas and I will claim that I ma gay, and my neighbour will too. No one is going to examine our anal cavities before giving us a job. Or will they? Who knows, huh.
The charter and other SSM issues are moot.
The parliament of canada decreed SSM legal.
If you work doing the state’s business, you are paid to do the state’s business. You collect a paycheque for doing your employer’s business.
The state now marries SS couples. If you don’t want to marry SS couples for the state, I suggest you go private and work for your church. I hear a good lot of them are short priests and ministers.
ET: The charter does not say a word about sexual orientation, correct. However, the result of Vriend v. Alberta [1998] means that the charter is now legally read to include sexual orientation in section 15.
You may not like this. That doesn’t change the fact that Canadians are protected from discrimination based on sexual orientation. That means that when someone performing a civic duty refuses to perform that duty based on the clients’ sexual orientation, they’re violating their charter rights.
If you want to argue about something, argue perhaps that an unelected body should not be adding protections to the Charter–That’s the job of parlaiment.
The courts were not in position to rewrite the Charter last time I checked.
a couple of new terms here for the SS crowd.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TRAVEL/03/06/bi.glamping.ap/index.html
Can anyone answer me this question?
First, how does what 2 men, or 2 women, do, or how they live their life, affect you in any way shape or form or the relationship you have with your significant other of the opposite sex? Please, anyone answer me this question in a rational, intelligent manner and leave religious arguments out of it.
Second, someone previously mentioned that marriage was a religious institution first. Actually that is wrong. Anyone who’s done any research on the matter will know that it was first conceived of as a civil/societal matter to settle property rights, protect bloodlines, and perpetuate the species. The concept of it being a holy sacrement first appeared with St. Paul (10 BCE – 67 CE). There are no references to marriage being a religious sacrement prior to St. Paul. None. And don’t confuse performing a marriage with the concept of it being a religious sacrement as throughout history religious officials have often carried out duties on behalf of civil officials.
At the end of the day, a marriage commissioner’s job is to perform civil marriages. Not religious ones. As such, it’s their job description to perform ALL marriages deemed legal in civil law. And as of now that includes SSM. Any marriage commissioner unable to carry out their job description shouldn’t be doing that job.
I’m a Professional Engineer. Laws, codes, and standards have changed since the day I was granted my professional designation. Do I get to ignore those changes in my work now because they were not in place the day I became a Professional? Nope. If I did at best I could get fined and at worst I could lose my license to practice. I have to adapt to those changes in order to continue to practice my profession.
While I feel that religion has no business in a civil matter, I also feel that civil law has no business in religion. And as such I’ll defend religion’s right to carry out it’s practices free from government interference. Marriage included. No religion should be forced to perform a SSM if it’s against their dogma. But at the same time, anyone doing work on behalf of the government must carry it out according to the law regardless of their religious beliefs.
Adune, Warwick
Marriage Commmisioners or Justices of the Peace are not paid by the government, they are paid by the couple getting married. At least 3.5 years ago in Alberta that was the way it worked.
Adune, until the supreme court rules or parliament enacts a law, SSM is resting on a house of cards. There is no LAW allowing SSM. There is merely an Ontario court ruling that allows it. Parliament has not deliberated either way. It is certainly NOT a charter right at this point.
By what law are you going to force a JP to perform a marriage? If a JP can choose not to marry a straight couple (for whatever reason) why can they not refuse a gay couple?
DKJONES
What rock have you been living under? There is INDEED a LAW allowing SSM, which is a good bit better than a stack of cards.
And the argument is not about a JP chosing not to marry a straight couple (for whatever reason). They don’t have that right either. But nice try at another red herring.
Perhaps you should take a look at recent history instead of the fictionalized one in your head:
Same-sex marriage was legalized across Canada by the Civil Marriage Act enacted on July 20, 2005. Court decisions, starting in 2003, had already legalized same-sex marriage in eight out of ten provinces and one of three territories, whose residents comprised about 90% of Canada’s population. Before passage of the Act, more than 3,000 same-sex couples had already married in these areas. Most legal benefits commonly associated with marriage had been extended to cohabiting same-sex couples since 1999.
The Civil Marriage Act was introduced by Paul Martin’s Liberal government in the Canadian House of Commons on February 1, 2005 as Bill C-38. It was passed by the House of Commons on June 28, 2005, by the Senate on July 19, 2005, and it received Royal Assent the following day.
One of the federal Conservative’s campaign pledges, that was brought up during the debates, was to look at the same-sex marriage legislation again. On December 6, 2006 the Conservative government brought in a motion asking if the issue of same-sex marriage should be reopened to support the traditional definition of marriage. This motion was defeated the next day in a vote of 175 (nays) – 123 (yeas). Prime Minister Stephen Harper has since said that he “doesn’t see reopening this question in the future.”
DKJones: “If a JP can choose not to marry a straight couple (for whatever reason) why can they not refuse a gay couple?”
That’s my point. JP should not be picking and chosing who they’re going to perform a civil function for. It’s not their job to approve of the marriage. It’s their job to issue the license.
A JP may not approve of a young couple getting married, ie: Under 18 with parents’ approval, but they should still issue the license. A JP may not approve of mixed race marriage, but they still should issue the license. Etc.
I’ll strongly defend any church’s right to NOT perform any marriage they don’t want to. As a private group, that’s their protected right. However, for a public official, that’s a different matter entirely.
Public services should be availale to EVERYONE that qualifies.
Ried,
How does SSM affect you. Well it affects you in the pocket book.
Because the government should not be peaking into the bedroom to determine if the marriage was “consumated” (which will not be an obsolete term wrt marriage), we can now have any two people able to confer CPP or company medical benefits unto whomever they choose. We (as in society) have no recourse to determine the validity of the marriage in terms of life partnership.
Now we have SSM and Common Law Marriage. What will stop heterosexual roommate A from claiming common property or even palimony from heterosexual roommate B when they split? Far fetched? then so was SSM a few years ago.
There is some answers for you without even invokin slippery slope or the fact that religious grounds for poligamy are stronger than the grounds for SSM.
Joe,
I stand corrected. No need to get testy. But I live in a comfortable rock. How is the Roche you are living under?
Adune,
There are many reasons a JP may not perform a ceremony aside from moral objections. Holidays, days off, booked already that day or simply just not want too. By what crystal ball are you going to use to determine a reason.
Lets force doctors to do abortions next.
There are other avenues to available to get married. They are denied nothing as there are many other JPs who would marry the couple.
Well, DKJONES,
When exactly did the government first crack down on all those heterosexual faux marriages so sly citizens could get the benefits to which their taxes contribute?
I mean, with 97% of the population (give or take) being heterosexual, the fraud must have been staggering, millions upon millions of false marriages from coast to coast.
And now, I can just imagine how many college roommates are plotting – as we speak – to game the system by “pretending” to be gay and geting married. OH What Wickedness! Pure Genius! Maybe they’ll even adopt children so they can snag another $1200 per year for child care. The riches are just waiting for people willing to live a lie with a faux partner.
Ok, now back on planet earth, that’s not why people get married. But, again, nice try!
DKJONES:
All those arguments are wrong.
1. If 100 men married 100 women you’d have 100 couples that you have to pay CPP or medical benefits to. If instead, 98 men married 98 women, 2 men married each other, and 2 women married each other, you still have 100 couples. The net cost increase w.r.t benefits is zero. No change to my pocketbook.
2. Your roomate example. If you’re talking about 2 people living together in a relationship, then they already have those rights to go after palimony etc. If you’re talking about 2 people living together platonically then what’s stopping it is that roommate A will not want to give half to roommate B when they were just buddies. And that would be easy to prove in a court of law if roommate B lied and said they were in a loving relationship. You’re taking this “slippery slope” to ridiculous places.
Like I challenged. Someone give me 1 good reason. No one ever has when I’ve asked this question.
DKJONES,
I’ve been a bit harsh (perhaps too much coffee today). You may find this utterly silly at this point, but I wish you only well. Have a wonderful evening with your loved ones – I mean that.
We all need to hold them close in scary times – and in good times too.
Adieu!
Not to worry Joe. I had forgotten about that legislation and I know better now. I wish you well with your loved ones as well. Try to ignore the homophobes.
Ried…Duck..Whoosh….
The CPP example applies. Benefits were meant to be extented to your immediate family. SSM marriage now allows extention of the benefits to SS couples. This is fair and equitable no doubt.
But it will allow platonic couples to be created to extend these same benefits not to family, but to anyone who comes along. I don’t think this is likely to be huge problem, but there will always be some who will game the system. And with the aging population, I am going to have enough problems giving government bene’s to those who deserve it.
Reid writes, “First, how does what 2 men, or 2 women, do, or how they live their life, affect you in any way shape or form or the relationship you have with your significant other of the opposite sex? Please, anyone answer me this question in a rational, intelligent manner and leave religious arguments out of it.”
The main thing, in a biological nutshell, Reid, is that the 2-men, 2-women model can’t produce the next generation. Very simple, isn’t it? (I’m surprised it hasn’t occurred to you.)
Psst . . . The fact that the man-woman model CAN create new life is the reason that religion–whoops! forget I mentioned it–AND the state AND everyone in it have always had a compelling interest in heterosexual unions–and now same-sex get-togethers.
The primary building block of every society is the biological, man-woman-child(ren) family. Without it, there is no society. E.g., If all unions are heterosexual, future generations will continue to be born. If all unions were homosexual, society would become extinct within a generation. Isn’t it quaint that I should accord the necessary union any precedence?
(Just for the non religious record, how about the well documented, quite out of proportion in number pathologies–substance abuse, promiscuity, violence–of same-sex relationships? How about, re child abuse–consider the above too –the well documented vastly increased vulnerability of children living with non-related adults, the position of every child in a same-sex liason? If you have no notion of these anomalies, Reid, I think you’re pretty naive.)
I hope I’ve satisfied your requirements.
Did I hit a nerve paul?
Cant have anyone pointing out your hypocracy, right?
Kate get this fool unattached from your website before people start thinking your a pal of that doofus over at myblahg.
P.S. I wrote, “Isn’t it quaint that I should accord the necessary union any precedence?”
In that regard, the same-sex union has actually piggy backed on and taken advantage of the natural one. What cheek! (Please excuse the puns–or not.)
Without the rights accorded the natural family, the same-sex model would have no basis for its so-called, judge manufactured rights. What irony. And, as I said, what cheek.
The sad part is there would be no objections if the government at the time took the advice of their study groups and chose a different term than marriage. There was an option suggested, option 3, that would have had the government “get out of the marriage business” and into the civil-union business for everyone. This would have made it non-discriminatory for everyone and protected the rights and sensibilities of religious groups. It also would have provided a further separation of church and state, something everyone would agree is a “good thing.”
It may be law but not for ever. Ever fag marriage in Canada will be dealt with sooner or later.
Just because it was shoved down our throats doesnt mean we will just surrender.
FREE: nice ironic handle you got.
lookout: if every gay person found the love of their lives (or even the loves of their lives) and got married tomorrow, there’d still be plenty of straight folks wanting to get hitched and do stuff that occasionally makes babies. We may have demographic issues coming up because of the low birthrate in Canada (who knows…) but gay folks are irrelevant in that equation. Even if gay folks can’t or can’t get married, they’re not gonna be out making babies too often. Then again, as far as I’ve noticed (enjoyed), most straight sex isn’t–and hasn’t been–about making babies anyway, or either.
The fact that society and the State have had, as you put it, a compelling interest in heterosexual unions hasn’t always been a good thing. In fact, the countries that have paid the most attention to regulating unions strictly have, by any number of other indicators, been among the world’s most despotic–and it really hasn’t mattered whether the regulation was religious or political or some messy combination of the two.
As for your point about pathologies, well… institutionalize poor treatment of some/any sub-group for a while and see if you don’t get some problems. And that’s as if straight folks don’t have problems, too. Discount the trouble gay folks cause and *all* the rest of it is caused by straight folks.
But the real crux of this issue was cleared up for me by my mom when I was about 12 (maybe 1964?). My dad was friends with a guy at work who was also the first person I’d ever heard publicly referred to as gay or homosexual, and this guy lived with another guy. They both seemed to get along great but otherwise there wasn’t anything else remarkable about them. Anyways, I asked my mom if this was bad or good or weird or what…
…and my mom said “Oh, Ron, it’s hard enough to find anyone to love y’know…be happy for ’em.”
Common sense.
Well, FREE, when you decide to “deal” with my marriage, I hope you do it in person so I can “deal” with you.
And folks like FREE are the reason I support protection of people from descrimination based on sexual orientation.
Despite all the little reasons given, it all comes down to the fact that they’re different, and you don’t like it, and you want them gone.
I can probably find studies showing that rates of abuse, malnutrition, etc are significantly higher in aboriginal families than in whites in Canada. By the same logic, it’s time to start getting rid of the aboriginals, take their kids away, and not letting they marry.
Jews, homosexuals, the mentally ill, let’s pack them up & send them away, and then our nation will be so much better. Hrm, sounds familiar.
Ron Good, you miss the points I made. Among other issues, in response to Reid, I was explaining how we’re not islands unto ourselves and that the choices one group makes do affect the rest of us. That person’s contention that the “gay marriage” issue is somehow isolated in some bubble that will have no impact on anyone else is disingenuous and false. That’s what I was writing about.
Adune, you go over the top. You say, “By the same logic”, and then go on to provide a list of ridiculous and bigoted non-sequiturs that have nothing to do with my logic. The point I was making, again, is that the behaviour of this particular group–well documented in their own literature–can and will affect the rest of us. Reid’s point was that we’re islands unto ourselves and should just live and let live. Re the first, he’s altogether wrong. Secondly, what a lopsided point of view: those of us opposed to same-sex marriage are supposed to”suck it up”, while the gay activists’ agenda is precisely the opposite. As far as they’re concerned, if the rest of us don’t go along, they’ll use the jackboots of the state to force us to be “tolerant”. Irony here, anyone?
It seems my post to counter Ron and Adune’s non sequiturs has been lost. (Perhaps it will show up later.) No person’s an island . . . was a main point Reid needs to understand. I also point out to Adune the irony of his support for one of the most intolerant political groups in Canada–gay activists–using the power of the state to jackboot people with whom they disagree. Open your eyes and your mind! And then smarten up your logic (sic).
Adune – how do you prove your sexual orientation? Fuck your ‘wife with a penis’ in the ass in front of a crowd? Then you are more fucked up than I thought.
Just so that we are clear about bottom line: I oppose the idea, that two same sex individuals instead or procreating, will age and die, and before they buy the farm, they will suck the taxes for their healthcare from my children’s paychecks. This is called being parasites on the society.
Aaron: How do you prove religion? It’s a declaration, usually accompanied by certain lifestyle choices.
Lookout: Yes, the gays being allowed to marry is going to destroy the fabric of society. We just can’t sit back & let it happen!
That’s the same logic that’s been used to forment hatred against different racial & religious groups throughout history.
You’re stating that because you can statistically show that gay households are “on average” less wholesome than a straight household, the straight families need protection from the gay ones. You can apply that EXACT SAME LOGIC to anything you can divide people by. Race, Religion, Income, etc. What makes the gays a danger to society, but not another group with a lower standard of living?
It’s an unfair thing. You have to accept gay marriage. Logically, that means nothing. Racists have to “suck up” inter-racial marriages, and blacks using the same drinking foundtains as the rest of us. Sexists have to deal with female police officers, supervisors, etc, and other women in positions of power.
Homophobes have to accept gays being allowed to marry.
Personally, I would have preferred the government creating the legal contract of civil union, and doing away with marriage altogether, leaving that for religious institutions. The reality is that we have only marriage.
You may not like some of the militant gay whackos out there. Gays don’t like some of the militant anti-gay whackos out there. Despite the extremists on both sides, homosexuals deserve protection from discrimination just like any other group of people.
Aaron:
Do you also oppose heterosexual couples getting married who do not have children, either by choice or biology, then, “age and die, and before they buy the farm, they will suck the taxes for their healthcare from your children’s paychecks?”
You dodged the question like a lawyer or expreienced bureaucrat! Congrats. But you should not address any question regarding religion to me – I am not religious, and have no desire to know how one proves religion. I can prove that I am heterosexual – I have a wife and children and can submit for a DNA test any time. Be a man and answer the question – or maybe you are a woman? So be a woman and answer the question.
No, Reid, I don’t, as heterosexual couples have or have not children and that can change. The homo couples do not have children and that cannot change. I put it simple so you can get it.
the problem with granting gay couples pension benefits regardless of how many ‘couples’ are involved is: THEY WERENT PAYING INTO THE FUND AS A COUPLE beforehand. the cpp was calculated and geared on now obsolete frame of reference, there needs be some sort of adjustment until gay couples have contributed enough to justify drawing from the fund in future.
Check that. Couples that cannot reproduce are illegitimate. Couples that decide not to have children, and instead work jobs, paying more taxes are a DRAIN??? on your children? I’d rather have 2 people working & paying taxes than a family living on welfare pumping out babies every 18 months.
Fathering children does not prove one’s sexuality. I can introduce you to several gay people that have had children. Hrm. This means you could be a closet homosexual…
What is your question exactly? How do you prove sexuality? You cannot. It should not matter. The government and society has no business separating people by their sexuality. Every person should have the same rights, regardless of that.
(Just to clarify–Are you trolling, or are you really going around hating any couple that’s not producing children?)
“I oppose the idea, that two same sex individuals instead or procreating, will age and die, and before they buy the farm, they will suck the taxes for their healthcare from my children’s paychecks. This is called being parasites on the society.”
That’s one of the most vile things I’ve read on this thread, because it’s no leap of logic at all to apply that very same statement to heterosexual couples who choose not to have children or are unable to have children, people who never marry, the disabled, the elderly, you name it. Are only happily-married with-children couples to be eligible to receive the benefits of the state, to which we ALL pay taxes?
Are the rest of us (I’m single) all “parasites”?
Take a step down from your sanctimonious perch there, Aaron.
Adune, you are out for lunch. The question is, how two men living together prove that they are husband and wife, and not just two resourceful cone artists. I want a proof, that $7K of tax credit applies to them etc. You heard the question, quit babbling and pretending you don’t understand.
Oh, and I apologize for not noticing your last question – no, I do not hate anyone, gay, lesbian, black, white, green, except the communists. My issue with gays is simply accounting and medicine. I do not want them to be a financial burden and spread diseases. Pure and simple, just like I regard the drug addicts – I do not hate them and do not mind them to get high, but I do mind when they become too sick to work and start producing mutated babies incapable of surviving on their own. You either work and pay taxes, or you do not get anything from the taxpayers if it’s your own fault. To each their own.
Whoah, I get $7k of tax credits for being married? I never noticed a difference in my taxes. What am I doing wrong? (Serious question–I’m about to do our taxes for the year, and I never noticed anything that would give me a huge windfall)
I’m fine with the government granting civil union status to any non traditional family–Whether that’s a a child/grandchild caring for a grandparent, 2 male friends living together, a male and female friend in a non-sexual relationship, etc.
We’d need hard numbers, but I’d think that a couple living together that cannot produce children would tend to generate more income (Thus pay more taxes) than a couple where one has to stay home to raise children. Two gays living together rather than separately share expenses, and therefore have more disposable income, and then can buy more–paying taxes and stimulating the economy.
In terms of spreading disease, are you under the impressing that half of the gay population is wasting away from AIDS, and other diseases, a huge burden on our healthcare system?
If your concern truly is the balance of paying out in taxes & the use of public services & the ratio of that, you really are after the wrong group of people. Here’s who you need to learn about.
THE POOR.
That’s right. The poor have lower standards of living, poor diet, and are at much higher risk for a wide range of diseases that drain our healthcare system. Plus, because they’re poor, they’re paying in with fewer taxes. In some cases, they PAY NO TAXES AT ALL. That’s not the worst of it though. Some are living on welfare, sucking the system dry twice as fast.
You should look into the First Nations communities as well. They’re really killing the productivity of Canada. First, they get all kinds of money provided to them through our taxes. Next, they have much higher levels of diabetes & other diseases. Even worse, many reservations are in remote areas, where the cost of delivering healthcare and other services are MUCH higher. Compound this with the tax exemptions they have, aboriginals in Canada are a threat to our way of life.
Don’t get me started on the mentally ill either. Leeches, all of them!
Of those groups, the poor is probably the largest, and your biggest worry. Secondly would be the aboriginals, and finally, the mentally ill/handicapped.
Some helpful google search phrases for you might be: “Eugenics”, “Master Race”, “Eliminate undesirables”.
It’s because your wife works. Mine does not and I am proud of it. Two gays living together are only stimulating their own rectums, and not the economy.
Once again, you need to read instructions on the ice cream pack, so I’ll make it simple: the poor can become rich if they get off their asses and study, work, or start a business. Gay couples can’t have children, never ever, period. That cannot change. Two gays married mean that there will be two people less in the aging Canada in 40 years. Two heterosexual married who do not want to have kids means that there will be two less, equal or two more depending on circumstances – people change their minds, split, separate, re-marry, get fertility treatment etc. If you don’t want to see the obvious, too bad.
The aboriginals can and do change their life. Plastering an ‘asshole’ tag across all of them like you just did, because some militant actions in Caledonia or gas sniffing youth on a reserve is as short sighted as your posts here usually get. There are aboriginals and aboriginals, and I probably know about them across the Arctic more than you can imagine. Some suck whisky and welfare, some have profitable businesses and that can change. The gay couples cannot change the fact that they will die without leaving a trace on the planet Earth, and my kids will have to pick a tab for treating them for papilloma virus, anal warts or HIV.
Don’t get me started on the mentally ill either. It’s not their choice, but you turned your eyes away from that fact. You are comparing apples and oranges.
“Plastering an ‘asshole’ tag across all of them like you just did, because some militant actions in Caledonia or gas sniffing youth on a reserve is as short sighted as your posts here usually get.”
It’s called satire. You’re judging a group of people based on your perceived value of them collectively to society. I gave other examples of doing the exact same thing–And from your point of reference (Value to society) the problem groups I listed have a far greater impact.
I’m trying to help your realize that you’re hating a group of people in a way that mirrors racism.
Now let’s talk about YOU. You say your wife doesn’t work, and you have children. So you’re paying less in taxes, and MY tax money is going to subsidize you raising your kids. Your kids are paying no taxes, but they get government handouts, use up valuable health care, etc. Who’s the leech on society, hrm?
(Note: I’m married, with 2 kids, and my wife stays at home–I’m a leech too.)
My point is, that you’re being asinine judging the value of a person on their likelyhood of producing a child. I’m out, it’s been fun.