Renegade

I can't disagree. Religions should be allowed to function according to their teaching, within their congregations (with all the appropriate qualifications). By the same token, there's no reason whatsoever to "impose" religous concepts (such as interpretation of what a marriage should be), in a secular society, on the people who have nothing to do with those religions. We should be able to agree here. The ironic thing here is being homosexual isnt aginst catholic doctrine, only homosexual acts are. So for a Catholic school to ban a gay partner, they would have to assume that the intent is to commit homosexual acts. Premarital hetroxexual acts are also against Catholic doctrine, however there doesn't seem to be the same presumption that a sin would occur in the case of hetrosexual prom dates.

I haven't heard of this before, but even assuming this happened, this is a far cry from the "gay lobby" pushing their agenda on to the curriculum, unless somehow you are suggesting that the "gay lobby" has infiltrated the school board. Whether it is objectionable or not really depends upon the context. Was it incidental to the story, was it informative about same-sex couples , or was it endorsing the lifestyle?

OK, but the tradesman is not looking to pass on his savings of 2% from the credit card transaction. He is sharing this savings from evading taxes.

Are you suggesting crime would go down if poverty were freely available? Isn't it already freely available?

While early studies suggested that there was a very weak correlation between the income of the parents and the income of offspring, more recent studies show otherwise: The Inheritance of InequalityIn order to address the issue of poverty, it woudl seem that we spend a lot of effort and money on programs which try and eliminate the correlation between the incomes of the parents and the offspring. It may be simpler and more effective simply to instute programs which encourage the poor to have few or no kids.

MH, I don't really see a contradiction. Production is generally expressed in a monetary amount. As a practical matter there is a limit to the number of hours a person can work, so there is a strong correlation between the amount of wages and productivity.

Not at all. Maybe a deep discussion of what education is supposed to achieve would be a good idea, though. For example, your post seems to say the desired outcome is higher wages - is that indeed true ? I think we take the aims of education for granted. It is certainly worth deeper thought. Certainly one of the aims is higher wages, but it may not be the only aim.

What exactly are you talking about? Who specificly is the "gay lobby", and what specificly are they trying to have taught in kindergarden? What exactly does this have to do with the issue of SSM? It is clear that you are completely judgemental of the gay community, and your only argument is based upon your personal belief system. You make no case why your personal belief system should be imposed across secular society or secular institutions.

How about if they call their arrangements: "marriage"!

It begs the question, why did you decide to get an education then? And what education did you get?

Are you suggesting that as a country we should no longer subsidize education because it no longer creates the desired outcome?

Yes, I agree, yet, society doesn't write a blank cheque and spend indefinite amounts to educate children.

You need to measure the value to determine if the price is worth paying.Have a read.

Melanie, I don't really know another way that decisions can be rationally made on whether we should or shouldn't invest in infrastructure without quantifying the benefits. Governments do this all the time, except what they quantify is the cost in political support vs the corresponding gain in political support. How else would we know if a childcare shoudl be universally funded, only partially subsidized, or only for low-income parents, or not funded at all? I appreciate you posting the links. I will look them over and comment when I have had a chance to look at them better.

I guess you and I have a different perception on what it means to be "guilty". In my view in order to be culpable you have to show that there is a causative action which has been taken by the culpable party which has resulted in a detremental impact to the injured party. It is not sufficient to simply say "we are rich and they are poor, therefore we must be guilty". I think what you are describing is remorse felt on your conscience because some are not a fortunate as you. It is understandable to feel this remorse, but it is not the culpablitiy that I and others in this thread are referring to. Of course the European invaders wanted the land, and they eventually got most of it some by force, some by agreement. In any case, the perpetrators you speak of are long dead. Where transgressions have taken place, those who have trangressed should be brought to justice. It is an incoherent argument to assign blame to all Canadians or all the white race or whomever you mean by "us". Would we blame all Muslims because a few of them perpetrated a terror plot? Are they all guilty? Forgiving and forgetting are frequently non-rational actions. Many Americans (and some Canadians) blame all Muslims, and vow they will never forgive or forget. How rational is that? ----------------------- Your justification seems to be that you claim guilt for our country/race/society simply because we are better off than others without being specific what actions we did to cause that guilt. By that twisted logic, there is nothing for which we are not guilty, and we get to pass on that guilt to the yet unborn generations. Does that make any sense to you?

Can't answer that one becaue living on welfare is not mutually exclusive of a healthy enriched environment. A lot depends upon the parent.

Nor can I wrap myself around why I person would suggest others do so as well. Isn't that what is done everyday? Did you teach your kid to ride a bike? Were you certified and trained to do so? Should we require mothers who want to stay home and look after their kids be certified and trained as ECE professionals? Why not, we require it of childcare staff?

The study says that the prmary benefit is to mother by increased earnings. It also says that the number could be wrong: In principle I'm fine with an investmetn, so long as the funding for that investment is repaid by the beneficiaries.

Huh? What are you taking about? I'm a parent, and I feel I bear full responsbilty for the cost of raising and educating my children. I won't have any more kids, because I'm not willing to take on any more of that responsibility than I've already signed up for.

Of course the working lower middle class have a choice. They have a choice to have kids or not. If the overall burden is too much for them to bear, they should not have kids. If what you are arguing is that those on welfare need subsidized childcare, that is a different discussion. You are proposing a childcare subsidiy which affects all parents seeking childcare. I never was against immigration. If you look at immigration threads where I've commented you will see that I am strongly pro-immigration. As far as society needing children, society does not need to add additional inducements to have children. People already have children without those inducements. Our population has grown for years and will continue to do so for a while yet. Personally I see a better argument to say that we should be reducing or stabilizing our population.

Yes I'm familiar with your response. When ever someone wants funding for their pet cause but they can't prove the actual value, they will cite an intangible value "greater than mere numbers" or for "the good of society", blah, blah, blah. Fact is what is being asked for are investmetn dollars, (ie numbers), to back a case that those dollars are well spent you need to quantify value (ie numbers). Anything less fails to make your case.

If single parents want highly regulated childcare run by ECE professionals, they should factor that cost into their decision to have or keep children and act accordingly. Meaning, if they can't afford it, don't have the kids. No, I wouldn't. But I expect that cost of that certification to be included in the price I pay. I don't expect someone else to bear that cost. Let's say the government introduced such a high level of regulation on schools which taught sailing, that it dramatically increased the cost to the point where I and most people couldn't afford it. What would I do? Either not teach my child to sail, or I or a friend or relative would teach them ourselves. Of course we may be poor teachers and our boats may be unsafe, but since the regulation has put a barrier so high, we opt to take that chance.

"well rounded society"? I thought your argument was that it was an "investment". Some investment if you can't show a payback.

If a new daycare requres $3200/month for each spot and no one is willing to pay that, then the new daycare shoudl not be built. If the daycare which is charging $1400/month now charges $1500/month and some parents drop out becaue it is now not worth it to work and they woudl rather stay home, that in essence opens up spots and reduces or eliminates the waitlist. It is exactly the affluent who get the most out of daycare because they can generate the most income from having someone else look after their child while they work. Does it make any economic sense to you to have a daycare spot which cost $1400/month subsidized to $400/month so that the parent can go earn $1000 month?

By the general taxpayer, no. By the specific beneficiaries, yes. For example, I'm perfectly ok with user fees to fund libraries, roads, embassies, and zoos.