Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion The Water Cooler Congrats & thank you Canada!

Bridgman - Churches are nothing more than organizations formed by people without the government's involvement.

If you want to start the "Church of Bridgman", who is to stop you ? Heck, If you are any good, I may join ! ...

You say "governments perform most of the marriages, and essentially all same sex marriages" ... What you are saying here is you approve of the government controlling behavior. The government has no business deciding WHO should get married.

As for government's control of marriage, I understand I am bigtime in the minority here, because it sounds like I am opposing gay marriage. I am not.

I am opposed to a system which rewards societal behavior. As someone who has been married for 16 years, I have some questions that answers to would be fascinating.

1. Why should only married people get to leave an estate to someone tax free ?

2. Why should only married people get a more expensive benefits package from a corporation than do singles ?

3. Why should married people get a lower tax rate than do single people ?

4. Why should only married people get the benefit of Social Security benefits, for which the taxpayer pays, for moneys his or her spouse has accrued, when that spouse dies ?

Gay marriage government approval establishes even more firmly than before that:

Government can decide who may or may not marry. Think about it - in a different political climate, if government can "approve" gay marriage in 2005, in 2015, they could outlaw it. It was none of their damn business in the first place. Get rid of all the artificial and unfair benefits of "government marriage", and marriage would be what it should, a commitment between two people, gay or straight.

Craig, I'm not arguing in favour of the government controlling who gets married... I'm saying that the government IS doing the marrying, ie the marriages are civil ceremonies not religious ceremonies.

>>I am opposed to a system which rewards societal behavior. As someone who has been married for 16 years, I have some questions that answers to would be fascinating.

Not sure I agree with you here. Our societies have always rewarded certain kinds of behaviour and I don't really have a problem with that. Regarding marriage, there are two reasons why society sees fit to reward it :

1. Anyone making a commitment to support another "in sickness and in health etc.." provides one of the most important support systems in our society, arguably as important or more important than health care. As a society, we feel that pairwise relationships are the most stable and effective, and we reward those relationships with tax benefits and the ability to share other benefits (health care etc..).

2. Marriage was traditionally associated with child-rearing and genetic diversification, which we also support and reward as a society. Everything from wedding presents to barn-raisings has been geared around giving a new couple a solid foundation to support themselves and their future family members.

Same-sex marriage is so hotly debated up here (apart from the knee-jerk reactions) because the first part clearly applies to same sex couples every bit as much as male/female couples, but the second part (child rearing) typically does not apply.

The people in support of same-sex marriage support it because they feel it is equally valid due to the first point. The people who oppose same-sex marriage feel it is not equivalent because of the second point, and they aren't enthusiastic about same-sex couples raising children.

Needless to say, the two factions never talk to each other so this disconnect still persists.

Bridgman - I understand government licenses marriages. I just don't think they have any business doing so.

200 years ago, governments also approved the idea certain people could own other people.

That was not so good for freedom, either.

Edit - Bridgman, The citing of things like "in sickness and health" is the religious aspect of marriage, and is not relevant to the government licensing nor sanctioning.

I gather from your response you are in favor of preferential treatment for marrieds over single people ?

>>The citing of things like "in sickness and health" is the religious aspect of marriage

Interesting. I thought that applied to civil marriages as well, will check. If it doesn't my argument is weakened

>>I gather from your response you are in favor of preferential treatment for marrieds over single people ?

I am strongly in favour of anything that actually, effectively encourages the formation of strong and stable relationships. I am not completely convinced that preferential treatment of married couples actually has that effect.

So - If we had a system that did not force singles into paying higher taxes, to receive lower benefits, and no reasonable choices for handling an estate, that would weaken marriage ?

As for the state performing a marriage, All one needs to do is get a license, and have whatever ceremony, if any, one desires. In other words, you can ELECT to say in sickness and health, but there is no legal requirement.

You need a license to drive, own a bar, start an insurance company ... but you don't need a license to have children.

Why do we need a license to get married ? Because politicans passed laws saying we did, and we as lemmings said "OK".

All of the attributes you ascribed to "traditional marriage" had nothing to do with the government, either. Barn building, gift giving - that was all private.

If two people want to declare a lifetime commitment to each other, and others want to build them a barn, that is a private matter.

If Spiff and Roger want to marry, that is wonderful. I just don't think the government should have ANYTHING to say about it, and I also think that Spiff and Roger should not be punished either way. They should be able to declare a commitment to each other without some govt. saying "We approve - here is your license".

Nor should they be punished financially if they don't wish to marry.

In reply to:

---

Canada's government believes in more freedom ? Not even close. If you don't like the health care system, you are screwed. You still pay for it. Top tax rate ? over 50%.

---

Craigsub, i'm so glad you like Cdns but these kind of statements fuel the general characters traits that Cdns dislike towards the US, in case you haven't noticed.
Typical American repsonse to Canada's system of gov't.
My brother lives there now and he argues the US taxes are soooo much lower. Par for dollar my wife and I and make 'less' in American equivalent to my brother and his wife, yet we can 'afford' more for our daily living (an actual house with a yard costing less than his condo, more than one car, more audio equipment, etc.).
But you know, i don't have to pay for a $200,000 heart surgery fighting an HMO to do it and i LOVE paying higher taxes knowing that.
Quit bashing the Cdn system unless you live here.
Your perspective is brutally skewed, no matter how many 'trips' you make here or ppl you know in Canada.
I'm ecstatic to know we don't have 3 trillion dollars of debt.
Get over the financial arguments already.
Living in the US is not so much better than the rest of the world that we should all be wanting to do it. Get off the pedestal.

Geezuz, the arrogance just drips everytime i hear these nonsense statements.

BTW, Canada Day is not "independence day". That title seems more appropriate for the US values. Canada did not 'break free from tyranny' but rather formed a special designation within the British rule which started as Dominion Day and Confederation Day.
Please do not desecrate our holiday with titles that parallel US concepts of becoming indepedent from such oh so horrible outside influences.

And you've been doing so well. You had to reduce it to a personal attack, and name calling didn't you? Pity.

I had a feeling something like this was going to happen.

Chess - My words were quotes from Canadian business associates, not my own. I do a signifigant business in Canada, and my reps there are quite adept at educating me. One was be-moaning having to pay over $100K in Taxes last year.

As for housing costs, it depends on where you live. Canada, like the US, has a widely flucuating housing market.

We live in an area of 300,000 people, and our home cost us $500,000 for 7000 square feet. We live on a 3 acre lot, too. In the U.S., condos are usually located in a city, and are quite expensive. I have researched the GTA housing market, as we may need to get a 2nd residency in Canada as things expand for our companies. The GTA is roughly double in square foot dollars to what we pay here.

As for our health care system - the average American gets an MRI within 72 hours. In one of our dealerships, we had an older gent who needed quadruple by-pass, and it was done the day after the blockage was found. I am in contact with literally thousands of people weekly. Part of our services to clients is employee benefits. People here do not "pay $200,000 for surgery while arguing with an HMO".

I am curious though - since you decided to "get personal" read through EVERYTHING I wrote, and tell me how you got the idea that I was anti-Canadian ?

Perhaps it was the part where I said we have in common the loving to complain about our governments.

I do apologize for upsetting you with my congratulations on your Independence Day. That really WAS a cheap shot...

In reply to:

---

Living in the US is not so much better than the rest of the world that we should all be wanting to do it.

---

Obviously you haven't been to south Florida during the winter months.