Homosexuality is an anomaly

[Figleaf]

Yeah, I know who the comment was aimed at since you quoted him. You seemed to have missed my point, however, that you slam scott for no content but have plenty of your own empty headed comments.

You have a funny way of expressing things, if that was your point. You didn't mention Scott, and you didn't mention a lack of content. Rather, you appeared to take issue with the specific content of the comment you quoted.

As a matter of fact you suspect wrong on the breeding assumption as well.

Oh well.

[M.Dancer]

sharkman:

Don't all gay's either adopt or use a surrogate?

More often than not, they, like O. Wilde, have children like everyone else.

[Leafless]

IMO the main reason the charter was IMPOSED on Canadians was because of the failure of Meech Lake and the Charlottetown Accord and the inability of

???

Maybe it is just me but I get the feeling of slipping through a sci-fi time warp on this one....

One of us is clearly losing it.

English Canadians have been politically stifled by years of Liberals rule and conditioned to accept undemocratic and racist language policies and were never given the LEGAL opportunity to respond to very important issues concerning OUR constitution.

Everyone I know, especially relating to political conversations, dislike the Liberals with a poisonous venom relating to the Charter and the political snow job they pulled of on the English speaking majority of this country or rather third rate BANANA REPUBLIC.

[Figleaf]

English Canadians have been politically stifled by years of Liberals rule and conditioned to accept undemocratic and racist language policies and were never given the LEGAL opportunity to respond to very important issues concerning OUR constitution.

Well, Leafless, in the same vein, I'll tell you -- Gabba gabba hey hey, gabba gabba hey. Ookie ookie ookie ookie lalalalala. Hey nonny no, hey nonny no. Boney was a warrior, wayayah. Pfffft, futz blablablablah. And furthermore doo wop doo wop doo doo diddy.

Everyone I know, especially relating to political conversations, dislike the Liberals with a poisonous venom ...

Yawn.

[Melanie_]

Canada is the only country in the world to implement a major amendment to Canada's constitution

Thank goodness. I wouldn't want any other counrty implementing a major (or minor) amendment to Canada's constitution. Perhaps you meant to say that no other country implements amendments to their constitution? Look south of the border, they have all kinds of rights guaranteed by one amendment after another, and several proposed amendments still pending.

Wikipedia

[Martin Chriton]

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

Children have obvious/proven benefits to the economy.

I have yet to see any proof that an official union between two childless people is of more benefit to the economy than me and my roommate.

[guyser]

And you have to ask yourself why?

Because, people of all walks of life, like you , have rights and this country made the correct decision to make sure they all get equal rights. I find it amazingly easy to understand.

Canada is the only country in the world to implement a major amendment to Canada's constitution (the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, human rights legislation) and deny proper representation to Canadians to be part of decision making process concerning this very controversial document.

Controversial in your own mind only.There was a vote in parliament and one side won. Haven't heard much about it since.

I consider this a slap in the face to be denied this basic right.

Hope it doesnt hurt because it is all over now. This is a done deal

Now back to the point.

Well the point of this thread is homosexuality is an anomaly.

Sure you are not going to change topics and put in something about the Charter and how ripped off you feel, coupled with a little slap at Quebec.?

The only group to benefit the most from the Charter is Quebec. In fact if you study the document it is clear the the Charter was built around Quebec to force Quebec ideologies including language into Canada. Other groups gained from the Charter but no group comes close to what the charter has undemocratically done for Quebec.

IMO the main reason the charter was IMPOSED on Canadians was because of the failure of Meech Lake and the Charlottetown Accord and the inability of Quebec to advance its prosperity due to its self imposed language restrictions discouraging investment in that province.

Oh there you go, I was right.

You seem to be having comprehension problems lately.

Well thank you.

Maybe you should take some time off and go and chew on a candy bar or something.

Will cookies do? Low calorie ones, I am putting on too much weight and it is the Charters fault...doncha know.

[Figleaf]

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

Children have obvious/proven benefits to the economy.

I have yet to see any proof that an official union between two childless people is of more benefit to the economy than me and my roommate.

Unfortunately, you have not answered my question. IF legislators determine that encouraging marriages is also economically beneficial, is there any reason not to do so?

[Black Dog]

I don't walk around all puffed out about being hetero, and if you choose to publicize your homosexuality, prepare to be challenged on it by me at least.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

[Martin Chriton]

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

Children have obvious/proven benefits to the economy.

I have yet to see any proof that an official union between two childless people is of more benefit to the economy than me and my roommate.

Unfortunately, you have not answered my question. IF legislators determine that encouraging marriages is also economically beneficial, is there any reason not to do so?

It's a ridiculous question. Until you can give a good reason for it, I will have to say no.

Having children carries significant financial burden for the couple, so it's easy to see why deceasing taxes for couples who have children might be a good idea.

Even if marriages are beneficial, the two are no worse off financially married then they were off as single people.

[Figleaf]

It's a ridiculous question.

I don't see why it's "ridiculous".

..., I will have to say no.

Just to be clear, do you mean 'no' as in you see no reason not to encourage marriages if the legislators determine it would be beneficial? That is, you would agree with tax advantages to encourage marriage if marriage is economically beneficial to society at large?

Or do you mean that even if marriage is economically beneficial to society at large you would not want tax advantages used to encourage it? If you mean this, please explain why.

[Martin Chriton]

I don't see why it's "ridiculous".

You haven't shown how it would be beneficial

Just to be clear, do you mean 'no' as in you see no reason not to encourage marriages if the legislators determine it would be beneficial? That is, you would agree with tax advantages to encourage marriage if marriage is economically beneficial to society at large?

Or do you mean that even if marriage is economically beneficial to society at large you would not want tax advantages used to encourage it? If you mean this, please explain why.

If it can be shown conclusively that the cost of your tax break is less than the gains (new tax money), then sure, it would be a good idea.

[Figleaf]

I don't see why it's "ridiculous".

You haven't shown how it would be beneficial

Come on, Martin, I've read your posts. You're obviously smart enough to understand the concept of a hypothetical question.

Or do you mean that even if marriage is economically beneficial to society at large you would not want tax advantages used to encourage it? If you mean this, please explain why.

If it can be shown conclusively that the cost of your tax break is less than the gains (new tax money), then sure, it would be a good idea.

Okay, thanks. (I was trying to determine whether your position was ideological, or if it was based on evaluation of facts as they may be. Congrats, you passed my self-serving and arrogant little 'test' . )

[Renegade]

Children have obvious/proven benefits to the economy.

I'd be intrested to know how you prove this. How for example is a child provide more economic beneift than imported labour.

[sharkman]

Children have obvious/proven benefits to the economy.

I'd be intrested to know how you prove this. How for example is a child provide more economic beneift than imported labour.

Why does it have to be compared to imported labour. A growing population will have, for the most part, a growing economy, and a shrinking population will not. That's why the government has opened the floodgates of immigration in Canada, there's not enough children being born.

[Renegade]

Why does it have to be compared to imported labour. A growing population will have, for the most part, a growing economy, and a shrinking population will not. That's why the government has opened the floodgates of immigration in Canada, there's not enough children being born.

Why is a shrinking economy a problem if the population base is also shrinking? If the economy shrinks slower than the populaton shrinks, doesn't that still indicate people's economic output still increases?

If the argument is for subsidizing children, then it has to be compared to other alternatives such as imported labour. Further, the net benefit of children must be looked at in totality. Sure the children will generate economic value, and thus taxes, but children will also cost to educate and for various beneifts. In addition, children add to the destruction of the environment.

What I'm saying that I'd like to see some proof of the "obvious" and "proven" that children are a net benefit.

[Figleaf]

Why does it have to be compared to imported labour. A growing population will have, for the most part, a growing economy, and a shrinking population will not. That's why the government has opened the floodgates of immigration in Canada, there's not enough children being born.

If the argument is for subsidizing children, then it has to be compared to other alternatives such as imported labour. Further, the net benefit of children must be looked at in totality. Sure the children will generate economic value, and thus taxes, but children will also cost to educate and for various beneifts. In addition, children add to the destruction of the environment.

What I'm saying that I'd like to see some proof of the "obvious" and "proven" that children are a net benefit.

That would be a fascinating line of literature. It would take a lot of research to develop a truly determinative understanding of the question. You'd have to compare the costs of raising kids with the costs of integrating immigrant labor. Another alternative is investing in raising the productivity of a smaller number of workers. In fact, arguably there is a direct opportunity cost apparent right now. The CPC government plans to give thousands of dollars to families for their children, but youths over 18 will get nothing more for education expenses. Data might show that investing $3000 in an 18yr old gives a better return than investing it in a 6yr old.

[Renegade]

That would be a fascinating line of literature. It would take a lot of research to develop a truly determinative understanding of the question. You'd have to compare the costs of raising kids with the costs of integrating immigrant labor. Another alternative is investing in raising the productivity of a smaller number of workers. In fact, arguably there is a direct opportunity cost apparent right now. The CPC government plans to give thousands of dollars to families for their children, but youths over 18 will get nothing more for education expenses. Data might show that investing $3000 in an 18yr old gives a better return than investing it in a 6yr old.

This is exactly what I'm saying. We are justifiying investment decisions without solid data backing up if that investment is better spent elsewhere or in fact returned to the taxpayer. I'm not saying I know where the funds are best invested, however when definitive statements are made such as children are the obvious investment choice, I'd like to understand how that conclusion was reached.

[gc1765]

Children have obvious/proven benefits to the economy.

How so? Can you elaborate on this?

[Leafless]

Because, people of all walks of life, like you , have rights and this country made the correct decision to make sure they all get equal rights. I find it amazingly easy to understand.

That is your opinion.

Rights don't grow on trees.

Rights are fought for and not handed out like candy by what can be viewed, as by a traitorous Liberal government and a handful of undemocratic corrupt politicians.

Controversial in your own mind only.There was a vote in parliament and one side won. Haven't heard much about it since.

Oh yeah, I forgot your a Commie fan.

Well the point of this thread is homosexuality is an anomaly.

Sure you are not going to change topics and put in something about the Charter and how ripped off you feel, coupled with a little slap at Quebec.?

Poor ignorant lackey!

Oh there you go, I was right.

Poor ignorant lackey!

Well thank you.

Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.

There you go!

Can't tell an insult from a compliment.

[Figleaf]

Poor ignorant lackey! ...

Poor ignorant lackey!

Reported.

[guyser]

That is your opinion.

And now it is de facto. Keep pushing that rock up the hill.

Rights don't grow on trees.

Correct. Thanks, I was going to go pick some more "rights" once the buds come out.

Rights are fought for and not handed out like candy by what can be viewed, as by a traitorous Liberal government and a handful of undemocratic corrupt politicians.

They fought for and got what they wanted. Like Martha says, That is a good thing.

Oh yeah, I forgot your a Commie fan.

I am not, I never liked Comrie when he was with Edmonton and now even less in Ottawa.

Poor ignorant lackey!

Poor ignorant lackey!

Thank you

Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.

There you go!

Can't tell an insult from a compliment.

Well thank you again for that astute observation.

And uh guys....I really dont think I need to have things "reported" when directed at me. Not my style to report people.......it makes them more cautious next time.

I figure that by now Leafless has about 3 metres of rope .......

[Leafless]

And uh guys....I really dont think I need to have things "reported" when directed at me. Not my style to report people.......it makes them more cautious next time.

More cautious about what?

Listening to you? "Poor ignorant lackey" should come as a compliment.

IMO that is what you are, 'a poor misinformed servile political follower' as indicated by your assholic replies.

You should smarten up and reply in a mannerism that reflects intelligent well thought out reasons to support your line of thought rather then reply in a childish manner that mocks and belittles a post and poster that you might not be in agreement with.

[Renegade]

Rights don't grow on trees.

Rights are fought for and not handed out like candy by what can be viewed, as by a traitorous Liberal government and a handful of undemocratic corrupt politicians.

Leafless, there seems to be a fundamental disconnect in your view of rights and that of most people. While some "rights" are accorded by governmet decree, many are inherent and independant of government and don't require the holder to struggle to earn those rights. Inalienable Rights

[Figleaf]

IMO that is what you are, 'a poor misinformed servile political follower' as indicated by your assholic replies.

Reported.