Canada passes same-sex marriage law

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » June 29, 2005, 10:12 am

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national ... 50628.html

2 days after the extension of the current session of parliament, the govt. passed the same sex marriage law 158-133.

Stephen Harper says that if the conservatives win the next election, this law will be revisited.

I guess Canadians that are truly against this particular piece of legislation can express their dissatisfaction by voting for the conservatives next elections.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » June 29, 2005, 3:07 pm

I still think this whole exercise is an appalling waste of resources.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national ... 50629.html

Instead, Klein proposed that the province might withdraw from sanctioning marriages and just recognize civil unions, leaving marriage to religious orders.

As an Albertan, I happy to see Ralph finally getting out of this fight and hope that he follows that proposal. Too bad he devoted as much time and energy as he did to fighting it.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » June 29, 2005, 6:43 pm

god why can't people just get the hell over themselves and let this be

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 29, 2005, 9:12 pm

The social liberal in me says good for them. the other part of me says why should they get to share health insurance and get tax breaks when they don't contribute any offspring to prolong society. all of me wonders what the big fucking deal is.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » June 29, 2005, 10:08 pm

umm ... you know Kyou ... there is such a thing as a gay guy having a lesbian have a baby for them ....

Lisandre · Post by **Lisandre** » June 29, 2005, 10:33 pm

And besides, if the ability to produce offspring were to be a standard for marriage, then barren men and women would be in the same boat as homosexuals.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 29, 2005, 11:41 pm

those are both stupid arguments. you can sit around all day and bring up exceptions.

do you think the government gives tax credits and special priviledges to married couples out of the goodness of their hearts?

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » June 29, 2005, 11:53 pm

The economic theory that we need to have more than 2 kids per couple to support people as they get older most closely resembles pyramid selling; and we know how effective that is.

If you really want to see a society that has completely embraced that idea, go look in the third world. They have babies in litters, and the men have large families w/ multiple women to fight the high infant mortality. That's also working brilliantly.

I personally favour the eskimo model; they know there's only so much food to go around, they know it's far too much work to get it to be supporting the useless part of the population, so out into the snow with you. I hear freezing to death is quite a painless way to go once you get hypothermia.

Lisandre · Post by **Lisandre** » June 30, 2005, 12:49 am

kyoukan wrote:the other part of me says why should they get to share health insurance and get tax breaks when they don't contribute any offspring to prolong society

I'm not arguing the motivations of government. You made a personal statement that pretty much said that homosexuals don't deserve the benefits of marriage (like shared health insurance or tax breaks) based on the fact that they can't produce offspring together. My argument against that statement is valid. Children are not the sole purpose of marriage.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 30, 2005, 1:13 am

Lisandre wrote:I'm not arguing the motivations of government. You made a personal statement that pretty much said that homosexuals don't deserve the benefits of marriage (like shared health insurance or tax breaks) based on the fact that they can't produce offspring together. My argument against that statement is valid. Children are not the sole purpose of marriage.

you're arguing an exception to a general rule. yes I know there exceptions. there are also couples who choose never to have kids because they don't want them. so? I'm telling you why the government gives tax breaks and incentives to married couples: because predominantly, they start families. families make more people, who in turn contribute to the overall wealth and growth of society.

gay couples love each other, sure. but the government doesn't give bennies to people just because they love each other. otherwise kylere could get medical insurance for his realdoll for when he rolls over in bed and crushes it to a million pieces underneath his ludicrously massive girth.

Why don't you tell me why heterosexual married couples and their children have legislated benefits and why same sex couples deserve equal treatment under the law then?

Lisandre · Post by **Lisandre** » June 30, 2005, 2:22 am

I am not an economist nor did I study political science, but I assume the goal of the government is to provide a framework for stability so society can flourish. A vast majority of homosexuals are productive members of society. They pay taxes, start businesses, and some even raise children. That in itself should be enough reason why they deserve equal treatment.

But, if what you're really asking is, "What would it benefit the government to treat homosexuals fairly?", then that would be a little bit more difficult to answer. I can only assume that if the government were to stop sanctioning fear and hate against a segment of society (by pointing out differences instead of similarities, etc), it could potentially promote more stability.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 30, 2005, 3:27 am

single people pay taxes and start businesses too. lots even raise children. and homosexual single parents are just as eligible for child tax credits and child related social services as anyone else.

I'm pretty ambivalent about same sex marriages. like I said the emotional liberal in me thinks why the hell not. pragmatically speaking however, there is no practical value in government recognizing same sex couples. if they want to swear an oath to each other in front of their friends/family, that's perfectly okay, why is it the state's business at all? all I am saying is the government provides incentives or at least cuts a bit of a break for people who marry up and start families. if you don't think population growth is important to a culture's well being (and don't be a retard and use africa as an example), then I really don't really know what to say.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » June 30, 2005, 4:26 am

In the time that breeding ourselves to prosperity was first proposed? Sure, lots and lots of untapped resources.

And the big difference between Africa and North America? Resources. Certainly you had more free time to refine your processes to get the most out of those resources, but you also started with a lot more.

At *some* point you have to run out of resources for a continually expanding population. Doesn't mean we're there, but we're starting to reach saturation point on a lot of resources, and not just oil/energy, e.g. given the US gets something like 400 times the production out of the same amount of land in Africa, how much further do you think we can stretch agricultural resources? <enter Chmee w/ the infinite expansion theory of the universe>

Given the (average) wealth of the gay community, they certainly probably don't need family-centric tax breaks, but then neither do the wealthy in general, and I don't particularly see that they're that much less likely to raise families if we stopped discriminating against them. But then again, it would make far more sense to remove said tax breaks altogether and package them back up as family benefits, then they can get married all they like and pay the same tax as singles and DINKs.

Lisandre · Post by **Lisandre** » June 30, 2005, 10:44 am

kyoukan wrote:single people pay taxes and start businesses too. lots even raise children. and homosexual single parents are just as eligible for child tax credits and child related social services as anyone else.

Yes. And, single people get treated fairly. If they meet someone they are willing to spend their life with, they have the option of getting married -- for as long as the person is of the opposite sex.

The benefits of marriage extend far beyond just receiving tax breaks. Some of those benefits include being able to make medical decisions for your partner, and inheritance. All those can be achieved through seperate contracts, but it is a lot more work. And, in the event of a separation, likely more difficult to dissolve than simply signing divorce papers.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » June 30, 2005, 10:45 am

um, where do you get that the gay community is a wealthy community? There are multiple levels of income within ANY community, and I know several with jobs paying less than mine.

The argument about children is pure ignorance. The majority of gay/lesbian people I know HAVE kids. They either had them in a prior relationship, or they had a "donor" to be able to raise a child within their current relationships. Hell, I have 4 siblings. Does this mean my parents did not "contribute" to the growth of society (granted my sister's ghetto fabulous ass shouldn't count)?

Seebs · Post by **Seebs** » June 30, 2005, 2:25 pm

(granted my sister's ghetto fabulous ass shouldn't count)?

Picture please.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » June 30, 2005, 2:48 pm

kyoukan wrote: pragmatically speaking however, there is no practical value in government recognizing same sex couples.

It does create revenue though. Gay marriage opens up the wedding market (judges, catering, DJs) to even more people now. It does add; however, not a whole lot.

They should just get rid of the incentives for getting married though. I don't know a single person that wants to have a kid, or get married, for the purpose of having a tax break.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » June 30, 2005, 5:06 pm

Pragmatically speaking, all people should be allowed to marry whoever the fuck they want.

Seebs · Post by **Seebs** » June 30, 2005, 5:19 pm

Teeny, I'm marrying you. I want to.

See you in Spain

Nick · Post by **Nick** » June 30, 2005, 5:43 pm

WELL FINALLY

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » June 30, 2005, 8:11 pm

Boogahz wrote:um, where do you get that the gay community is a wealthy community? There are multiple levels of income within ANY community, and I know several with jobs paying less than mine.

Given the (average) wealth of the gay community

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=average

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » June 30, 2005, 8:57 pm

Lynks wrote:They should just get rid of the incentives for getting married though. I don't know a single person that wants to have a kid, or get married, for the purpose of having a tax break.

'
it's not an incentive to have children more than it is a way to give people who otherwise might not be able to afford to have children a means to.