<p>
</p>
<p>Someone thinks heterosexuals are being out-bred by gay people? 
:)</p>
<p>"The most ironic part is that I’m going to go out on a limb here and presume these people are politically “conservative.” </p>
<p>Umm try reading the OP’s post again Prince –> the proposition was filed by “proponents of same sex-marriage” not opponents. I hardly think these folks are politically conservative.</p>
<p>The main reason government was in the marriage business in the first place was to promote families and more importantly children. Without them there won’t be anyone to pay our social security or change our diapers when we are in the nursing home. Unfortunately they haven’t done a very good job of it and now it has all become politicized over this same sex marriage business. </p>
<p>The governmental benefits of marriage were intended to increase procreation. As a side effect they also benefited childless couples. The homosexual community feels they ought to be entitled to the same marriage benefits that childless couples get, and thats the guerilla theater point of this initiative. The prolem is to my mind it only points out that the government ought to get out of the marriage business altogether. I mean why should government prefer one group of people over another just because they might do something (have children) that will benefit society. Skip the middle man I say and just grant benefits to people who actually do have children and leave marriage to churches or whoever else wants to sanction them.</p>
<p>BTW the Romans levies heavy taxes on people who didn’t have children. During the Pax Romana a man’s day didn’t end when he slaughtered the last barbarian or laid the last brick in the new aqueduct.</p>
<p>It’s just a message about the absurdity of arguments used against same sex marriages.</p>
<p>To demonstrate the government’s interest in procreation one need only look across our northern border to a country far more ‘progressive’ than the US.</p>
<p>In Canada, couples are paid, on a sliding scale, for producing more offspring. As I recall, the subsidy is nearly exponential with each little-Canadian produced.</p>
<p>All governments have a very big interest in the “production of its citizenry.” </p>
<p>O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love **in all thy sons command.***</p>
<ul>
<li>and daughters…one gets cash for producing them, as well.</li>
</ul>
<p>This is pretty good political performance art.</p>
<p>Interesting DorothyPX - I did not know that about Canada!</p>
<p>The only way to prove one can have kids is to have them- someone’s trying to market maternity wedding gowns. PS- infertility workups often show one should be able to have kids even if the attempts prove otherwise.</p>
<p>Ha! </p>
<p>I knew this was a joke as soon as I read it. It’s political theater–they’re trying to make a point.</p>
<p>Sometimes I’m just not sure if I understand the state in which I reside. Trying to understand this place has put me into a state of confusion, and that is one in which I am quite comfortable.</p>
<p>
pretty much true in the US also just a bit indirectly. The total tax liability is typically lower for families with kids … more exemptions, larger deductions for health care expenses, etc … the tax code essentially provides a small subsidy for each kid … the more kids the larger the tax break. This doesn’t come close to the incremental cost of each child but does create a tax code where families with kids pay less in taxes.</p>
<p>Of course singles without kids get the biggest subsidies. If you want more of something then pay for it. if you want less tax it. We tax work and reward sloth. Tax the responsible and subsidize the reckless. If I live in Ohio and go to colege in California I pay out of state tuition. If I live in Mexico and cross the border illegally and go to college in California I pay in state tuition. It is a great country.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I didn’t find any Canadian benefits that pay more per child after the first one. The Universal one (to help with child care for children under age 6) pays a flat fee per child under age 6. The benefit to help low income families pays on a sliding scale but the recipient gets the most for the first child, a bit less for the second, and still less for the third.</p>
<p>Did I miss a benefit that meets the criteria of “nearly exponential with each little-Canadian produced”? Or were you just indulging in a little good natured leg-pulling?</p>