If they adjourned for too long, I'd be back to getting my fix from office politics. Much more dangerous than this armchair stuff.johnhenrygalt said:As long as they are occupied debating such trivial nonsense, it keeps them from doing greater damage. Remember, no one is safe when Parliament is in session.
Only an indefinite adjournement would have been better than this "wasted" time in the House.
Same Sex Marriage
- Thread starter slowpoke
- Start date
The recent debate was not about tax status, as tax status for unmarried cohabinting couples (same or opposite sex) is essentially identical to that of married couples. And if you read the Income Tax Act, being married hardly qualifies as a tax "break", more often then not it subjects the taxpayer to a host of income attibution rules which do not beset unmarried people.Bud Plug said:
The debate is not about pension survivorship, as those regulations were amended a long time ago.
Legally the debate is only about rights and obligations of the parties on "divorce" as in many provinces, the rights and obligations are drastically different for married vs unmarried persons.
Politically, the debate is about symbols and only symbols.
Gays can, and do have children ... their own and adopted.
The reason it is "very difficult to say that gay relationships serve the same purpose" is not because they can't actually server the same purpose, but because people like you just don't want to give them a legal right to serve the same purpose because of some kind of misfounded belief that you have a right to stick your nose in other peoples private business for no other reason than you find it against your own personal tastes.
This is a "chicken /egg" argument that doesn't stand up outside of it's own internal logic ... gays can't contribute to society because we make it illegal for them to do so, and we make it illegal so they can't contribute ... stop making it illegal and then your concern about them not contributing disappears.
I'm not particularly fond of the fact Harper felt a need to bring the debate about same sex marriage to the forefront again. I suspect it has to do with his desire to appeal to his party's base.
I personally think the debate is a total waste of time and I probably represent most Canadians when I ask, who cares?
Maybe there should be a debate banning all marriage since heterosexual marraige isn't exactly successful.
Banning all marriages might have saved me a few dollars in the 90's
I personally think the debate is a total waste of time and I probably represent most Canadians when I ask, who cares?
Maybe there should be a debate banning all marriage since heterosexual marraige isn't exactly successful.
Banning all marriages might have saved me a few dollars in the 90's
It was. Some things are best left understated.DonQuixote said:
One more kid to put through college then I'm off the hook
I love the argument of hey if we allow gays to get married then people will want to marry their gold fish or their couch!!!
this doesnt fly in the same argument that when women were given the right to vote it was given to women only above the age of 18, not to monkeys or sheep. And this topic is sooooooooo boring now, except for a few religious nut jobs who would have us all killed for wanting to look at nekkid women, the vast majority really dont care.
this doesnt fly in the same argument that when women were given the right to vote it was given to women only above the age of 18, not to monkeys or sheep. And this topic is sooooooooo boring now, except for a few religious nut jobs who would have us all killed for wanting to look at nekkid women, the vast majority really dont care.
I see marriage as a commitment between 2 people (intil it ends and then it's between 2 people and 6 or 7 lawyers). It is an open statement proclaiming love and devotion and it's the married couple who determine it's worthiness. If the couple happens to be same sex, their determination of the unions worthiness is no less valid, IMO.scouser1 said:I love the argument of hey if we allow gays to get married then people will want to marry their gold fish or their couch!!!
this doesnt fly in the same argument that when women were given the right to vote it was given to women only above the age of 18, not to monkeys or sheep. And this topic is sooooooooo boring now, except for a few religious nut jobs who would have us all killed for wanting to look at nekkid women, the vast majority really dont care.
I don't believe God, or any church has a monopoly on the proclamation of love. Certainly, the state has none.
By the way, what happened to your other sig pic? I thought that girl was hot!
Don't undertsnad the big to o about same sex marriage...they are like any other marrigae....married and same sex all the time...that's why these boards exist...
No, but I know a lawyer that married a teacher, and he taught her a thing or twodanmand said:
Why do people let themselves get screwed by lawyers?
Being married can either work for you or against you, depending upon your income level and that of your spouse. And no, I'm not going to set out a memorandum explaining how.johnhenrygalt said:
My reference to survivor pensions was intended to be an example of how equating gay unions to heterosexual relationships ends up triggering benefit payments in circumstances which don't serve analogous social purposes. Survivor pensions are premised on the idea that many women end up as dependants of their heterosexual husbands because they leave the workforce as they have children (either temporarily or permanently). This phenomenon has lessened recently, but the genesis of this benefit is founded on this model of dependancy. There is really nothing akin to this as between gay partners.johnhenrygalt said:
My point is that permitting gay unions to be recognized as "marriages" will have unintended results, some of which will cost taxpayers money. The cost of debate has to be measured against these costs.
I disagree, gay "marriage" will have an impact on many other legal rights.johnhenrygalt said:
With respect to the division of property and support obligations, I can't see why gay couples should be treated more like married heterosexual spouses than like unmarried co-habiting partners. They seem to have a lot more in common with the latter group.
Ah, classic liberal commentary - if you don't agree with me, you must be "ignorant". So much for liberal=tolerant!Cute In A Kilt said:I really hate this Government and especially Harper, everything he believes in is contary to what I believe is integral to the Canadian identity. I think Harper is sexist, homophobic, racist and classist, it's absolutely incredible such a liberated country like ours, allowed for such a prick to be in charge. Can we send him to America??? We'll trade Harper for gay couples LOL
I believe a majority of intelligent reasonable Canadians think Gay people should have the same rights as anyone else. If you don't agree with the Constitution, well... no one is making you commit to and/or attend a gay wedding, so keep your ignorance to yourself
BBK, Harper is already going that way... as a mixed minority single female he sends shivers down my spine.
