Pro-family group quits gay marriage fight

[maldon_road]

Pro-family group quits gay marriage fight

Wants better breaks for child-rearers

The head of a national pro-family organization says it's time to ditch the fight against gay marriage and push instead for tax breaks and other incentives to make marriage and child rearing more attractive options.

Dave Quist, executive director of the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada, said yesterday he has become less concerned about same-sex marriage since census figures released earlier this month demonstrated how rare gay marriage is.

The census, which counted same-sex marriages for the first time, reported 7,465 such unions, accounting for about 0.1 per cent of the 6.1 million married couples in Canada.

Quist said the "incredibly low" number of same-sex marriages, combined with a lack of "political will" to restore the traditional definition of marriage, has persuaded him to move on. A possible federal election in the coming months will not change the picture, he predicted....

.

.

.

...But Quist said the institute is more concerned about the increasing popularity of common-law relationships in Canada, and that it would rather spend its time and resources encouraging measures to strengthen the institutions of marriage and family.

He said a first priority should be to change the tax rules so only married couples - not those living common law - are allowed to split their incomes, thereby reducing their tax hit.

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...ca-c86a2b4bfa37

[ScottSA]

I think that's a wise move. If one can't go in the front door, go in the back door instead. I await the homo lobby's court cases demanding that they be given the "right" to spawn kids.

[Guest coot]

I think that's a wise move. If one can't go in the front door, go in the back door instead. I await the homo lobby's court cases demanding that they be given the "right" to spawn kids.

Everybody has the right to spawn kids already. You probably mean adopt, which is different.

[jennie]

Pro-family group quits gay marriage fight

Wants better breaks for child-rearers

The head of a national pro-family organization says it's time to ditch the fight against gay marriage and push instead for tax breaks and other incentives to make marriage and child rearing more attractive options.

Dave Quist, executive director of the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada, said yesterday he has become less concerned about same-sex marriage since census figures released earlier this month demonstrated how rare gay marriage is.

The census, which counted same-sex marriages for the first time, reported 7,465 such unions, accounting for about 0.1 per cent of the 6.1 million married couples in Canada.

Quist said the "incredibly low" number of same-sex marriages, combined with a lack of "political will" to restore the traditional definition of marriage, has persuaded him to move on. A possible federal election in the coming months will not change the picture, he predicted....

.

.

.

...But Quist said the institute is more concerned about the increasing popularity of common-law relationships in Canada, and that it would rather spend its time and resources encouraging measures to strengthen the institutions of marriage and family.

He said a first priority should be to change the tax rules so only married couples - not those living common law - are allowed to split their incomes, thereby reducing their tax hit.

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...ca-c86a2b4bfa37

WARNING ... Alternate opinion ...

Low number ... unhuh ... Most of them in families raising kids, more women than men. You see their kids want them to be married because it's important in society. It would have been nice if IMFC would have checked that out beforehand, you know, just to see who they were bashing.

Since IMFC is now hell bent on bashing common-law families, there may be a new rash of same-sex marriages just to stay out of the new 'line of fire'.

This is where I get frustrated: Why don't these people go enjoy their perfect marriages and families and quit pissing on others? WHO CARES what narrow minds think about the rest of the world? It is a BIG world. There are LOTS of styles of families. Everybody needs one. Who is or is not in my family ... or yours ... is nobody's business but our own ... and that is not my opinion that is a fact, jack.

So ... let me get this straight ... These people who have the perfect marriages and families ... consider themselves superior to the point where other families should be extinct? ... or at least publicly denigrated?

Is that what perfection does to you?

I'll pass, thanks.

Such 'perfection' is highly overrated.

[ScottSA]

Everybody has the right to spawn kids already. You probably mean adopt, which is different.

Perhaps you'd like to explain the process by which two homosexual men spawn kids. And I don't mean adopt, and I don't mean mate first and then marry, and I don't mean surrogates. I mean two homosexuals left to their own devices. They can have progeny of the union I suppose, but it would smell something awful until it dried out, and it's not right up there on the cutie cutie coochy coo scale.

[jennie]

I think that's a wise move. If one can't go in the front door, go in the back door instead. I await the homo lobby's court cases demanding that they be given the "right" to spawn kids.

They already have the right.

How old are you?

This is hate speech promoting violence.

I hope Charles Anthony will see that and delete it and this.

Edited September 29, 2007 by jennie

[jennie]

Perhaps you'd like to explain the process by which two homosexual men spawn kids. And I don't mean adopt, and I don't mean mate first and then marry, and I don't mean surrogates. I mean two homosexuals left to their own devices. They can have progeny of the union I suppose, but it would smell something awful until it dried out, and it's not right up there on the cutie cutie coochy coo scale.

And so is this, Charles.

Is this the "moral" or the "'religious" part of this thread?

Edited September 29, 2007 by jennie

[ScottSA]

They already have the right.

How old are you?

This is hate speech promoting violence.

I hope Charles Anthony will see that and delete it and this.

Go away. How exactly do you make "promoting violence" out of this? Mind you, I promote police or military violence dorected at your buddies at Caledonia...

[jennie]

How exactly do you make "promoting violence" out of this?

I await the homo lobby's court cases demanding that they be given the "right" to spawn kids.

I believe it promotes hatred and possibly violence against the children of gay/lesbian parents.

You have labeled them with an offensive slur, and also their parents.

This is not publicly acceptable.

Edited September 29, 2007 by jennie

[ScottSA]

I await the homo lobby's court cases demanding that they be given the "right" to spawn kids.

I believe it promotes violence against the children of gay/lesbian parents, who are offensively labeled as are their parents.

Oh Puleeze. I believe you promote violence against civilians when you try to explain away the thuggish beatings of owners, who are offensively labelled "trespassers." I'm calling the HRC right this minute. Stick to defending thugs and leeches, and stop assaulting the sexually dysfunctional with your "help." Having you defend someone condemns them to ridicule.

[jennie]

Oh Puleeze. I believe you promote violence against civilians when you try to explain away the thuggish beatings of owners, who are offensively labelled "trespassers." I'm calling the HRC right this minute. Stick to defending thugs and leeches, and stop assaulting the sexually dysfunctional with your "help." Having you defend someone condemns them to ridicule.

Ah ... the last gasp. Good night.

[FTA Lawyer]

They already have the right.

How old are you?

This is hate speech promoting violence.

I hope Charles Anthony will see that and delete it and this.

Charles Anthony will be doing a great disservice to this board if he agrees to delete this.

Frankly, I don't really like most of what ScottSA has to say at any given moment...and I think he went a bit far in making sure we all knew what he meant in the second post about "progeny of the union".

BUT...while his comments are offensive (i.e. offend the sensitivities of those who would prefer not to read crude statements) they are not hate speech nor by any reasonable interpretation of the words can someone see promotion of violence.

In a rather base manner, ScottSA has simply expressed his disdain for the gay rights movement by mocking the fact that they will likely seek court declarations for "rights" that defy the laws of biology and possibly physics.

He said it pretty darn dumb-like (insert sound effect of yokel making "hyuk, hyuk" noise) but that's all he said.

Free speech means freedom to say dumb, offensive things. We absolutely cannot allow ourselves to delete such things by stretching all logic and trying to call it hate or violence promotion. By that standard, most of MLK's speeches would have been banned...just look at the amount of violence that occurred due to the ideas he advocated.

FTA

[betsy]

They already have the right.

How old are you?

This is hate speech promoting violence.

I hope Charles Anthony will see that and delete it and this.

And how is that promting violence????

You mean you want to censor the opinions posted on the board! See? Just shows you the leftists are the true scary-scary we should be watching out for! They want complete CONTROL!

[betsy]

I await the homo lobby's court cases demanding that they be given the "right" to spawn kids.

I believe it promotes hatred and possibly violence against the children of gay/lesbian parents.

You have labeled them with an offensive slur, and also their parents.

This is not publicly acceptable.

I didn't know gays can spawn children now! When did this breakthrough happen?

So two men can now naturally concieve and naturally give birth to babies!

Jennie, I have an advice for you. Whether you like it or not, I'll give it to you anyway so you wouldn't be interrupting a seriously interesting discussion. You remind me of a child icessantly disrupting adult debate trying to get attention. It's not cute.

I have been enjoying reading the exchanges between the two debaters....and here you come disrupting AND de-railing the arguments that truly make any forum lively!

I hope Charles have a good chit-chat with you.

READ. READ AND UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU READ!

Edited September 29, 2007 by betsy

[Guest American Woman]

Perhaps you'd like to explain the process by which two homosexual men spawn kids. And I don't mean adopt, and I don't mean mate first and then marry, and I don't mean surrogates. I mean two homosexuals left to their own devices. They can have progeny of the union I suppose, but it would smell something awful until it dried out, and it's not right up there on the cutie cutie coochy coo scale.

What's wrong with homosexuals mating first and then marrying, using a surrogate, or adopting as a means of acquiring a family?

Look at the divorce rate today and you cannot deny how many families there are where straight people mated first and then married someone else. Are those families less of a family to you? Have the kids been "spawned" in a way that's less acceptbale to you than those whose biological parents stay together for all eternity?

In other words, if it's acceptable for straight couples to go these routes, and they are doing so in increasingly high numbers, I fail to see how gay couples can be criticized for going the same route.

Furethermore, many straight couples "left to their own devices" are unable to "spawn" too. Would you also deprive them of a family and/or criticize them for taking alternate routes?

[betsy]

Dave Quist, executive director of the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada, said yesterday he has become less concerned about same-sex marriage since census figures released earlier this month demonstrated how rare gay marriage is.

The census, which counted same-sex marriages for the first time, reported 7,465 such unions, accounting for about 0.1 per cent of the 6.1 million married couples in Canada.

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...ca-c86a2b4bfa37

I would assume the flurry of same-sex marriages were spurred by the controversy surrounding it. A good percentage of those would've most probably made it just for the purpose of making a political statement.

As I've pointed out in past debates, there is a group of homosexuals (bless their hearts) who took the great step of placing a big ad in a national newspaper, urging that marriage should be left alone....and that it's traditional definition be preserved. So gay groups who advocate same-sex marriage are not speaking for the whole gay communities.

That small percentage of same-sex marriage will whittle down....due to divorce. What are the chances that those who divorce will go through the motion of getting married again?

Yes, I agree with Quist. We should spend the energy by finding ways to strengthen the institution of marriage. We need to promote it. The "enlightened" would say it's just a piece of paper.....but boy, for those who truly understand the depth of its meaning....ripping that piece of paper is not something that's quite so easy to do.

Edited September 30, 2007 by betsy

[M.Dancer]

They already have the right.

How old are you?

This is hate speech promoting violence.

I hope Charles Anthony will see that and delete it and this.

Do you have the right to make false accusations?

That is hissy speech promoting stupidity.

I hope Charles Anthony will see that and delete it and this.

[M.Dancer]

Free speech means freedom to say dumb, offensive things. FTA

And Scott does his best to make sure that freedom gets exercise, as does Jennie.