Homosexuality is an anomaly

[guyser]

Gay unions should not benefit from the same tax breaks as male female unions. This is because a gay union does not have the possibility of adding to the population. Children are the basis of any country, and governments giving tax breaks and such is only right.

As soon as you and the govt draw up the rules to grab the money back from some heterosexual couples we will talk. All heterosexuals that fall in these categories will have to pay it back, they are....

1) Childless couples by choice

2) Childless couples due to health

3) Couples who marry over age 50 (not likely to have kids)

4) Every husband who has a vasectomy.

5) Every women who has had a hysterectomy

That will do for now.

I live in Canada, and our birthrate has been so low we do not even come close to maintaining our population. My wife is a school teacher, and schools are closing at an alarming rate. Schools are growing empty, and the only way the government can fight this is to have massive levels of immigration. The implications of these conditions are not encouraging. Couple this with a baby boomer generation getting set to begin retiring in few years, and the results on our work force and tax base will change Canada like nothing before. Encouraging gay unions by giving them the exact same benefits as straight couples only shrinks an already dwindling birth rate.

So , in a nutshell you are saying that due to dwindling child birth rates, we should not give gays a tax break as we need that money? So the gays ARE the answer to our dwindling taxes. How kind of you to say so.

I have an idea that will work better. Seeing as how gays dont have the tax breaks the heteros do, and seeing also that, in your own words , we need more money for the tax base, we can just get rid of any tax incentive for married folks thus ensuring a larger tax base. Since there are far more hetero marriages than gay ones, the income will be enormous.

Do whatever you want in your bedroom, but don't expect your government to treat you the same as a couple that has the possibility of contributing to the life blood of the nation.

And I sincerely hope your school teacher wife is not infected with your thoughts.

Maybe....just maybe Liam and his future partner have plans to adopt a child from overseas. There is your lifeblood to our nation growing up right before your eyes. Now what do you do? What can you say?

Liam, great post . Canada is supposed to be gay friendly , and it is for the most part, well at least the city I live in is. My gay Michigan friends think it nirvana here. Lets hope they dont read some of these posts.

[sharkman]

So , in a nutshell you are saying that due to dwindling child birth rates, we should not give gays a tax break as we need that money? So the gays ARE the answer to our dwindling taxes. How kind of you to say so.

I have an idea that will work better. Seeing as how gays dont have the tax breaks the heteros do, and seeing also that, in your own words , we need more money for the tax base, we can just get rid of any tax incentive for married folks thus ensuring a larger tax base. Since there are far more hetero marriages than gay ones, the income will be enormous.

No I am not saying that. You are preoccupied with money, it's about the children and how little Canada has ( as well as many other countries). We need children for the tax base, not money.

[gc1765]

No I am not saying that. You are preoccupied with money, it's about the children and how little Canada has ( as well as many other countries). We need children for the tax base, not money.

If you think we need more children/people in Canada, does that mean we should allow more immigrants?

[Canadian Blue]

I highly doubt the gays are responsible for the dwindling birth rate. Maybe we should wonder why fewer people here at home aren't having as many children first.

[gc1765]

...or perhaps we should give tax breaks to people who adopt for foreign countries?

Anyways, if your best argument for giving heterosexual couples more rights is that they have the possibility to produce children, why wouldn't you rather give incentives to have kids (which there already are anyways)? A tax break proportional to the number of children, regardless of marital status?

[guyser]

No I am not saying that. You are preoccupied with money, it's about the children and how little Canada has ( as well as many other countries). We need children for the tax base, not money.

If we need children for the tax base, and since gays can adopt children, then why is allowing them the same rights or privileges not your mark?

I figure you don't want to offer the same tax breaks for gays as heteros , yet they can both contribute children to the world (albeit not natural childbirth on the gays part) .

Why would one get it and not the other. Replace gay with yellow people, does the argument remain the same?

[Melanie_]

yet they can both contribute children to the world (albeit not natural childbirth on the gays part) .

Gays and lesbians also have biological children. I have a good friend who has two children, born to her by artificial insemination, from the same father. She is as good a mother as any heterosexual woman I know, and both her children are smart, strong, and well adjusted. Being a lesbian doesn't change the fact that she is a woman, with a maternal instinct. Another friend of mine has a daughter born before she was ready to admit to herself and to her family that she was a lesbian - her daughter is 22 now, and is an amazingly gifted, self assured young woman. I have several other friends and aquaintances who are also gay or lesbian, and so do each of you - you just might not know it.

[Figleaf]

Gay unions should not benefit from the same tax breaks as male female unions. This is because a gay union does not have the possibility of adding to the population.

Presumably, then, you would have every heterosexual married couple fertility-tested to determine their proper tax status, and you would terminate any advantages to couples after the woman has passed menopause. Right? If not, why not?

[sharkman]

Gay unions should not benefit from the same tax breaks as male female unions. This is because a gay union does not have the possibility of adding to the population.

Presumably, then, you would have every heterosexual married couple fertility-tested to determine their proper tax status, and you would terminate any advantages to couples after the woman has passed menopause. Right? If not, why not?

If you'll read the line you quoted, I said the possibility of adding to the population. Without this police state testing as you purpose, the male female couple has the possibility of offspring while the gay couple does not. Since we live in free countries, people are free to choose what lifestyle they want. But of course choices have consequences.

It seems by the number of comments, I have opened a can of worms. Sorry I haven't been reading this board this afternoon, I put together a barbecue, watched some hockey and now my wife and I are going to a movie. Thanks for your thoughts and polite comments, I was kind of expecting the term homophobe to be thrown at me since often times anytime someone has a contrary opinion about gay issues, that's the knee jerk response.

[Figleaf]

Gay unions should not benefit from the same tax breaks as male female unions. This is because a gay union does not have the possibility of adding to the population.

Presumably, then, you would have every heterosexual married couple fertility-tested to determine their proper tax status, and you would terminate any advantages to couples after the woman has passed menopause. Right? If not, why not?

If you'll read the line you quoted, I said the possibility of adding to the population. Without this police state testing as you purpose, the male female couple has the possibility of offspring while the gay couple does not.

You can't be serious. You believe that sterile couples have the possibility of producing offspring?!?

Grab a biological clue, dude. STERILE means NO POSSIBILITY of procreation.

[Martin Chriton]

As soon as you and the govt draw up the rules to grab the money back from some heterosexual couples we will talk. All heterosexuals that fall in these categories will have to pay it back, they are....

1) Childless couples by choice

2) Childless couples due to health

3) Couples who marry over age 50 (not likely to have kids)

4) Every husband who has a vasectomy.

5) Every women who has had a hysterectomy

That will do for now.

How about only couples with dependents get special tax breaks?

I see no reason why male female unions or gay unions with no kids should get any special tax break at all. They should be treated just the same as single people.

Why should someone in a union with no kids be taxed less than me and my roommate?

[gc1765]

I see no reason why male female unions or gay unions with no kids should get any special tax break at all. They should be treated just the same as single people.

Why should someone in a union with no kids be taxed less than me and my roommate?

That is a good point...

...however, there are many advantages to being married that do not take anything away from single people. Here's one example Link

[Figleaf]

I see no reason why male female unions or gay unions with no kids should get any special tax break at all. They should be treated just the same as single people.

Why should someone in a union with no kids be taxed less than me and my roommate?

For that matter, why should someone who has chosen to burden the Earth with their offspring be rewarded with public funds?

[Leafless]

Really, what exactly did the democratically elected Liberal government do that was so terrible. Do you mean making French Canadians feel at home in Canada, I don't quite get what your saying. I haven't been forced to learn the French language yet.

No, I mean giving Quebec the tools to remain aloof and nationalistically independent from all other provinces, in order to allow the undemocratic influence and spread of a useless minority language to actually have a direct undemocratic influence and impact, in beating down the English language with its primary purpose of stealing English employment.

You mean getting majority and minority governments which they received from the Canadian electorate. That's not totalitarianism bud, I think you should take a trip to Myanmar before making such a claim.

It seems you have great difficulty understanding that the cult of Quebec only cares about its own nationalistic existence. French politicians ensure on enforcing these traitorous actions in making this a reality.

Obviously the majority of Canadians are accepting of homosexuality. I get sick of people using religion to disguise their bigotry, strangely enough the same people don't call for an end to poverty or a lenient justice system.

And I get sick and tired of that loud mouthed tiny percentage of homosexuals preaching paganism and a classless society.

[BubberMiley]

And I get sick and tired of that loud mouthed tiny percentage of homosexuals preaching paganism and a classless society.

Then stay out of the gay bars. You don't have to listen.

[Martin Chriton]

I see no reason why male female unions or gay unions with no kids should get any special tax break at all. They should be treated just the same as single people.

Why should someone in a union with no kids be taxed less than me and my roommate?

For that matter, why should someone who has chosen to burden the Earth with their offspring be rewarded with public funds?

Children benefit the economy in the long run. Investing a little now for long term gains is good economics in my books.

Having children shouldn't be just something the rich can afford.

[Figleaf]

I see no reason why male female unions or gay unions with no kids should get any special tax break at all. They should be treated just the same as single people.

Why should someone in a union with no kids be taxed less than me and my roommate?

For that matter, why should someone who has chosen to burden the Earth with their offspring be rewarded with public funds?

Children benefit the economy in the long run. Investing a little now for long term gains is good economics in my books.

Ah. Well then, if the legislators determine that encouraging marriages is also economically beneficial, is there any reason not to do so?

[Leafless]

And I get sick and tired of that loud mouthed tiny percentage of homosexuals preaching paganism and a classless society.

Then stay out of the gay bars. You don't have to listen.

I wouldn't go near a gay bar to begin with.

But political sites (which I am referring to) like this one are over represented with gays who make it their business to propagate and flood the threads when the opportunity arises to preach their unpopular, antichristian. unorthodox, and anti-capitalistic views.

[gc1765]

But political sites (which I am referring to) like this one are over represented with gays who make it their business to propagate and flood the threads when the opportunity arises to preach their unpopular, antichristian. unorthodox, and anti-capitalistic views.

NEWSFLASH: This thread was started by YOU.

[sharkman]

I suppose the question is, how many gays have posted on this thread with militant gay agenda remarks.

[Figleaf]

But political sites (which I am referring to) like this one are over represented with gays who make it their business to propagate and flood the threads when the opportunity arises to preach their unpopular, antichristian. unorthodox, and anti-capitalistic views.

So ... let's summarize then. You'd agree that:

-the unpopular are a bunch of fags,

-the unorthodox are a bunch of fags,

-the unchristian are a bunch of fags, and

-the anticapitalists are a bunch of fags.

Does that grasp your point correctly?

[gc1765]

I suppose the question is, how many gays have posted on this thread with militant gay agenda remarks.

How many anti-gays have posted on this thread with militant anti-gay remarks?

I find the gays to be quite respectful in their posts on this thread, especially people like Liam (I haven't read ALL 35 pages but I haven't seen any "militant gay agenda remarks"). What I have seen though, is many anti-gay remarks from people like Leafless. And yet he is the one complaining about flooding the threads?????

[gc1765]

oops double post...

[sharkman]

I find the gays to be quite respectful in their posts on this thread, especially people like Liam (I haven't read ALL 35 pages but I haven't seen any "militant gay agenda remarks"). What I have seen though, is many anti-gay remarks from people like Leafless. And yet he is the one complaining about flooding the threads?????

Uh, liam slammed me just a couple pages back, something about the gay agenda is not to be treated like a dog turd on the street(?), and wanting me to spare him the gay agenda crap. I did nothing to deserve such treatment.

[gc1765]

Uh, liam slammed me just a couple pages back, something about the gay agenda is not to be treated like a dog turd on the street(?), and wanting me to spare him the gay agenda crap.

From my understanding, he is not calling YOU a dog turd, or slamming you, but that he doesn't want other people slamming him or treating him like dog turd. What's wrong with not wanting to be treated like dog crap?