Same-Sex Marriage

cybercoma · February 15, 2006

The problem with this vote is Black Dog has 20 different names that he logs into to vote FOR gay marriage, otherwise the against vote would be much larger. There are 2 or 3 hardcore flamers in here that try to skew every poll in their favor and try to wreck it for everyone else.
Put no faith in that poll! (I am not accusing you of doing this though Mike hardner, I respect your opinion in this from the gay person's perspective.)

That's a pretty serious allegation. Care to offer any proof? If you must know, I've never cast a vote in one of these polls.

So serious that it could ruin your life, or career? It's a message board...you'll get over it.

geoffrey · February 15, 2006

The problem with this vote is Black Dog has 20 different names that he logs into to vote FOR gay marriage, otherwise the against vote would be much larger. There are 2 or 3 hardcore flamers in here that try to skew every poll in their favor and try to wreck it for everyone else.
Put no faith in that poll! (I am not accusing you of doing this though Mike hardner, I respect your opinion in this from the gay person's perspective.)

That's a pretty serious allegation. Care to offer any proof? If you must know, I've never cast a vote in one of these polls.

So serious that it could ruin your life, or career? It's a message board...you'll get over it.

No, not that serious. But behavior like that shouldn't be tolerated. Black Dog argues issues fairly, so I wouldn't go accusing him of something like that at all. How ridiculous of you...

Black Dog · February 15, 2006

So serious that it could ruin your life, or career? It's a message board...you'll get over it.

Let's put it this way: if it were true, I'd get banned and you'd be poorer for it. But then again, if it was true, I'd probably already have been banned, so I guess that's that.

crazymf · February 15, 2006

This thread is like the energizer bunny. I can't even think of anything left to say on this topic...

BD, that link was funny. You're not developing a regular sense of humor are you?? That's good progress.

Spike22 · February 15, 2006

A little joshing is fun when it's part of an intelligent discussion, but you should probably familliarize yourself with the accepted practices on this board if you want to continue here.

I don't know why, but all Spike's posts remind me of this.

This thread is like the energizer bunny. I can't even think of anything left to say on this topic...
BD, that link was funny. You're not developing a regular sense of humor are you?? That's good progress.

crazymf I think the old Black dog just might have developed a sense of humour. (Hit the crack again eh dog?)

crazymf · February 16, 2006

And I'm a poet...

Take a hike Spike.

na85 · February 16, 2006

Tsk tsk
Harder and Black Dork the gay fella's swaying the votes again...I knew something was up.

If you really want to get a point across, don't act like an immature, acne-faced pubescent 14-year old AOL user. "Black Dork", nice, that's a good burn.

If you want to say something intelligent, then by all means partake in debate, but otherwise stop wasting our time and our oxygen.

Biblio Bibuli · February 16, 2006

------------

no1important · February 16, 2006

I am for it. Its no big deal to me. Were a free country and if two people regardless of gender wish to get married, so be it. Heterosexual marriage with the high divorce rates is really nothing to be proud of.

Really, how does two men or two women getting married going to affect people anyways? It won't.

na85 · February 16, 2006

You'd be surprised at what the other side thinks will affect them.

Either way, this thread has pretty much been beaten to death.

Biblio Bibuli · February 26, 2006

I can't even think of anything left to say on this topic...

Well I can! <_<

On paper I generally make only around $30,000 a year so I'm eligible for a GST rebate. But because the government just found out that I've been sharing an apartment with a member of the opposite sex we are being treated as if we are a married couple, and thus the government now wants me to pay back my GST rebates for the past 6 years. Plus penalties.

Would the government be as presumptuous with two gay caballeros sharing an apartment?

If yes, I have a good mind to report my Uncle Joe.

Melanie_ · February 27, 2006

Well I can!
On paper I generally make only around $30,000 a year so I'm eligible for a GST rebate. But because the government just found out that I've been sharing an apartment with a member of the opposite sex we are being treated as if we are a married couple, and thus the government now wants me to pay back my GST rebates for the past 6 years. Plus penalties.

Would the government be as presumptuous with two gay caballeros sharing an apartment?

If yes, I have a good mind to report my Uncle Joe.

If you are cohabitating with someone, opposite or same sex, I think it is considered a common law marriage. If you were just sharing an apartment, you may be able to appeal (maybe one of our lawyers here, sage or FTA, can clarify that). If it was a common law marriage, your tax returns and eligibility for GST rebates will be based on both incomes. I don't see how it matters whether it is opposite or same sex partners, though.

seabee · February 27, 2006

Roman cathollic priests in Québec have published an open letter in La Presse directed at the Church, opposing its stand angainst homosexuality and same sex marriage.

La Presse

Biblio Bibuli · February 27, 2006

I don't see how it matters whether it is opposite or same sex partners, though.

KNOCK KNOCK!!! YOOOOO HOOOOOO!!!!

The government tracks adresses and they have flags. But they flag only the couples of the "opposite" sex!!! They notice that you are living with someone of the opposite sex and WHAMMM!!!! But they don't penalize guys or gals of the same sex sharing an apartment. No sireeee!

Is that fair?

Spike22 · February 27, 2006

Roman cathollic priests in Québec have published an open letter in La Presse directed at the Church, opposing its stand angainst homosexuality and same sex marriage.
La Presse

Wow is this new? , they have always claimed this...unless you are an alter boy then apparently all bets are off :blink:

I don't see how it matters whether it is opposite or same sex partners, though.

KNOCK KNOCK!!! YOOOOO HOOOOOO!!!!

The government tracks adresses and they have flags. But they flag only the couples of the "opposite" sex!!! They notice that you are living with someone of the opposite sex and WHAMMM!!!! But they don't penalize guys or gals of the same sex sharing an apartment. No sireeee!

Is that fair?

So the fags get a break at tax time, is that what you are saying? That is precisely my point. How much of this is gay agenda going to cost the average opposite sex boinking population? Not one person has given a straight answer or simply does not know.

Melanie_ · February 27, 2006

KNOCK KNOCK!!! YOOOOO HOOOOOO!!!!
The government tracks adresses and they have flags. But they flag only the couples of the "opposite" sex!!! They notice that you are living with someone of the opposite sex and WHAMMM!!!! But they don't penalize guys or gals of the same sex sharing an apartment. No sireeee!

Is that fair?

Calm down.

I suspect this will change now that same sex marriage is legal, so you have no need to oppose SSM on these grounds. And again, if you were simply sharing an apartment, not in a common law relationship, you can appeal.

Biblio Bibuli · February 27, 2006

The government tracks adresses and they have flags. But they flag only the couples of the "opposite" sex!!! They notice that you are living with someone of the opposite sex and WHAMMM!!!! But they don't penalize guys or gals of the same sex sharing an apartment. No sireeee!

Calm down.

I suspect this will change now that same sex marriage is legal,

You said (and I quote): ... "If you are cohabitating with someone, opposite or same sex, I think it is considered a common law marriage."

Now you are telling us that this is not yet in effect? :rolleyes:

Melanie_ · February 27, 2006

I don't know for sure what is in effect for SSM, but Revenue Canada isn't likely to hold one standard for opposite sex relationships and a different one for same sex ones, especially as these relationships become more mainstream. Legalizing SSM will make it more likely that the standard you are being held to will also apply to gay couples. But my point was, if you were simply sharing an apartment, not in a common law relationship, you can appeal.

Montgomery Burns · February 27, 2006

Melanie:

I suspect this will change now that same sex marriage is legal...

Likely not for long. No matter how much the liberal media promotes the changing of the 2000 year definition of marriage, the public disagrees.

There is a reason why the left would not put it to a referendum--a free vote, like democracies have. They knew that the results would be the same as they were in the 2004 US referendum. Many many Liberals were against this attempt to shatter the bedrock solid institution of marriage.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has vowed to open up this topic for further scrutiny. I am very confident that the Candian public will reject the changing of this 2000 year definition.

The gay community could've had civil unions, but NO! They had to push it further; they demanded it be called "marriage".

185 out of 190 countries in the world reject gay "marriage". I suspect that it will son be 186 out of 190 countries.

And I predict that the CBC/CTV/Toronto Star/Globe & Mail will - after gay "marriage" is rejected by the public - refer to traditionalists as homophobic bible-thumping hatemongering conservatives.

You know its true.

Biblio Bibuli · February 27, 2006

I don't know for sure what is in effect for SSM, but Revenue Canada isn't likely to hold one standard for opposite sex relationships and a different one for same sex ones ....

Just let me know when they do apply that same tough standard to gays, so I can report my Uncle Joe.

Thanks in advance!

Black Dog · February 27, 2006

Likely not for long. No matter how much the liberal media promotes the changing of the 2000 year definition of marriage, the public disagrees.

Most opinion polls show either a dead heat or a majority support SSM.

There is a reason why the left would not put it to a referendum--a free vote, like democracies have. They knew that the results would be the same as they were in the 2004 US referendum. Many many Liberals were against this attempt to shatter the bedrock solid institution of marriage.

Democacy is more than just casting a ballot. Indeed, putting decisions on minority rights in the hands of the majority is the antheisis of liberal democracy.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has vowed to open up this topic for further scrutiny. I am very confident that the Candian public will reject the changing of this 2000 year definition.

The Canadian public still won't get a say.

The gay community could've had civil unions, but NO! They had to push it further; they demanded it be called "marriage".

Kinda like how blacks once had their own schools, but no! Seperate but equal wasn't good enough: they wanted integration!

185 out of 190 countries in the world reject gay "marriage". I suspect that it will son be 186 out of 190 countries.

Argumentum ad numerum fallacy aside, I can't wait until Harper's "free vote" scam fails. After all: it is designed to fail.

And I predict that the CBC/CTV/Toronto Star/Globe & Mail will - after gay "marriage" is rejected by the public - refer to traditionalists as homophobic bible-thumping hatemongering conservatives.
You know its true.

If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck....

Biblio Bibuli · February 27, 2006

Most opinion polls show either a dead heat or a majority support SSM.

That is about where I picture the vote would stand if the polling was done among gays only.

I have a feeling that there are lots and lots of gays who, like Mr. Elton John and Mr. Furnish, would choose a "civil union" instead of a "marriage" certificate.

I also feel, and am stuck on believing, that buttinski heteros are more responsible for SSM being implemented in Canada than are Canada'a gay population.

They LOVE Arnold in San Francisco!

Liam · February 27, 2006

I have a feeling that there are lots and lots of gays who, like Mr. Elton John and Mr. Furnish, would choose a "civil union" instead of a "marriage" certificate.

Elton John and David Furnish did not have the legal standing to get a "marriage" certificate. British law only allows same sex couples to get a civil union certificate. They had no choice in the matter. Assuming there is different treatment under the law based on which type of union you enter (marriage v. civil union), I can tell you that as a gay man, the percentage of gay men I know who would willingly choose the one that gave fewer protections is virtually non-existent.