[scarecrowe]

KyleEverett KyleEverett:

I fully plan on having children. Why should I be denied that joy in life. I would prefer using a surrogate mother, but adoption would be okay.

But even without spousal benefits which you say should be denied to all childrenless marriages, but what about the other legal protections marriage provides?

I only speak to the aspects of spousal benefits that impact the tax system negatively. All other benefits you spoke of such as the right to visit at a hospital, to inherit an estate (which can be done via a will without marriage btw) and all others you mentioned I am OK with.
Why does society have bear the financial burden of providing spousal benefits just because two people are in essence just living together and not doing any special service to society as a whole?

[Brenda]

So to you, Scarecrowe, it is all about money.
For the people that this is all about, it is about a little more than that...

Or, no, it isn't about SSM in your case at all, is it...

[scarecrowe]

Brenda Brenda:

So to you, Scarecrowe, it is all about money.
For the people that this is all about, it is about a little more than that...

Or, no, it doesn't go about SSM in your case at all, does it...

Please read all the previous posts. The money was initially intended to help couples raising children. Somehow, childless couples have weaseled their way in and in effect are taking money out of the system for themselves that was initially intended to only go towards the care of children. It has nothing to do with the SSM's specifically but rather to all those childless couples who withdraw $$$$ from the system for their own benefit and not for assisting in raising children. As I stated before, adoption by any couple, I am OK with.

[Brenda]

I read all the previous posts.
I didn't know though childless couples (or people at all) could deduct $$ for children.

But if you are talking taxes, and especially child tax benefits, you should include income with that too... Donald Trump doesn't really deserve the same amount as a single parent, imo. But, that is far from the subject...

[herbie]

tritium tritium:

California banned same-sex marriage.

westmanguy, I respect your view on this issue, but agree with the results.

What pissed me off is that an election was held, the majority of people spoke and now the courts are getting involved.

That's democracy?

Yup.
If the Court finds it unconstitutional it doesn't matter what the majority thinks.
Consider ourselves fortunately it's DONE and OVER with here and there's no opportunity for people to Canadians to force any identifiable group to comply out of sheer pigheaded intent.

[scarecrowe]

lily lily:

$1:

It has nothing to do with the SSM's specifically but....

No... no but. This topic is about SSMs. Maybe YOU need to go back and read the posts... or at least the topic title.

No you read my first post on page 8 and think a little.

[scarecrowe]

Brenda Brenda:

I read all the previous posts.
I didn't know though childless couples (or people at all) could deduct $$ for children.

But if you are talking taxes, and especially child tax benefits, you should include income with that too... Donald Trump doesn't really deserve the same amount as a single parent, imo. But, that is far from the subject...

When you apply for payment from your insurance company for dental care, the company that employs you generally pays for that insurance service (in whole or in part) and in turn will write the cost of that off on their income tax thus removing money from the tax system that could be made available to a couple raising children.

[scarecrowe]

lily lily:

That post was completely irrelevant to the topic.

...an SSM wanted to get the benefits of marriage including spousal benefits...not irrelevant ... no wonder the Liberals are where they are now.

[scarecrowe]

lily lily:

You chose one phrase out of his well written long post, completely ignoring all he wrote that was ON-topic.

See my response to him on page 14...follow the bouncing ball. It really is easy if you read everything.

[scarecrowe]

lily lily:

I'm not going to go chasing through a 15 page topic looking for posts you made that might have some sort of relevance.

Let's simple this up, shall we?

Give me one good reason SSMs should be banned.

Can you succeeed where others have failed?

You mean banned in Calif. since it is legal in Canada?
Since it is only legal presently in the minority of jurisdictions on the planet, I would say that the Californians are simply doing what comes naturally and that is a gradual progression towards a progressive society that will in the end legalize SSM's but for now, people have to stop whining about it being banned there because Calif. is a democracy and in a democracy the majority rule and that same democracy will some day in the end relinquish the ban so just be patient and don't get your gonads in a knot.

[scarecrowe]

lily lily:

You could have saved yourself a lot of typing (and me a lot of reading) by simply saying, "I can't think of a single good reason".

The good reason is that right now, it is banned because it is a democracy. If you don't think a democracy is a good idea then you are out of your realm.

[scarecrowe]

lily lily:

Looks like I need to simple it up some more.

In a democracy, people vote.

In order to vote, one would hope the people would think carefully about why they're voting one way or another.

So...

please give me one good reason to ban SSMs.

You can't, because there isn't one.

Think about it very clearly and you will know why some people are against SSM's. I am not one of them but surely you can understand some aspects of humanity and if not, too bad.

[mtbr]

of all places you would think that it would never be banned..California

sure happy I visited SF 2 weeks ago , they must be rioting in the streets tonight

[scarecrowe]

lily lily:

scarecrowe scarecrowe:

lily lily:

Looks like I need to simple it up some more.

In a democracy, people vote.

In order to vote, one would hope the people would think carefully about why they're voting one way or another.

So...

please give me one good reason to ban SSMs.

You can't, because there isn't one.

Think about it very clearly and you will know why some people are against SSM's. I am not one of them but surely you can understand some aspects of humanity and if not, too bad.

I know why some people are against SSMs, however, I didn't ask for reasons... I asked for a single GOOD one.

If you can't understand that, well... too bad for you.

Perhaps the good reason is that the Californians ave cleverly come to the realization that there is a potentially very large group of people who will be in line to collect massive amounts of money for spousal benefits in health and dental care and that would put a severe strain on the Californian monetary system causing them to cut back on such social programs as child care so in their truly infinite wisdom Californians are saying that this is a waste of money and that money should be spent on the needy and not the greedy...and believe me GREED is the biggest reason for wanting to legalize SSM's. So, if you think the stressed out monetary network in the USA can take another hit, who should lose out? The homeless? The infirmed. The sick? The aged? You SSM's?
You choose...and stop thinking that money grow on trees...it has to earned by doing something worthy.

[RUEZ]

lily lily:

That sounds like a good reason to ban marriage period, not just SSMs.

That sounds like a good reason to bring in universal health care.