Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't see any opposite gender marriages happening for financial benefit? You're kidding right? You can't be THAT naive.
Up until recently when women couldn't have their own career,s one of the main things a woman looked for, or at least found attractive, was a husband who could PROVIDE for her and their children.
It's a cliche, but how many poor old men do you see with young beautiful wives?
It is true that non-consummation is not seen as a reason for an annulment of a same sex marriage. Is this an issue for gay people? For straights?
Maybe for a few catholics who want to remarry in their church ,an annulment is the way to go, but today?
Getting divorces is so much easier these days that annulments sound as medieval as their religious origins.
I think you're describing women who marry men for money, but that usually involves a bit of trickery to the point where the man thinks there's more to the relationship.
I don't know about that. There are laws preventing marriage to a foreigner for the purpose of citizenship. I don't see too many opposite gender marriages happening for financial benefit, but perhaps I'm naive. Isn't a heterosexual marriage vulnerable to annulment if the marriage is not consummated?
A same gender marriage is somehow outside of the whole consummated marriage thing because ... well ... intercourse between two women or two men doesn't make sense to me.
Still sounds like an imagined problem to me.
Citizenship is different because it grants you full rights in a first world country. Lots of people will try to bend the rules to get that.
But the benefits that one gets for being married I am not sure outweigh everything tax-wise. It is sometimes said it's better to not get married tax-wise if you are a DINK couple.
I hardly think that is an issue. First off you don't have to be married, common law would work the same. Also I fail to see how IF it was occurring, how is it any different than " best friends " of the opposite sex doing the same?
Don't see any opposite gender marriages happening for financial benefit? You're kidding right? You can't be THAT naive.
Up until recently when women couldn't have their own career,s one of the main things a woman looked for, or at least found attractive, was a husband who could PROVIDE for her and their children.
It's a cliche, but how many poor old men do you see with young beautiful wives?
It is true that non-consummation is not seen as a reason for an annulment of a same sex marriage. Is this an issue for gay people? For straights?
Maybe for a few catholics who want to remarry in their church ,an annulment is the way to go, but today?
Getting divorces is so much easier these days that annulments sound as medieval as their religious origins.
I think you're describing women who marry men for money, but that usually involves a bit of trickery to the point where the man thinks there's more to the relationship.
In any case, that has nothing to do with Harper.
Anyone reading post #190 can see I was responding to your post. WHICH HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HARPER! EDIT:Maybe it does. I wonder how their relationship is. Lots of rumours...
You " think " i'm describing women who marry men for money? You THINK? UGH.
Do you see the problem with the numbers? Revenue down 5 billion, spending increase 1 billion, but the total overspending was 9 billion. Something is wrong with the disclosure of numbers. Was the other 3 billion a surplus left over by the Conservatives?
Where did the other 3 billion come from?
The deficit is 9.4 billion as of March 31, 2016, compared with 3 billion the same time last year. So the increase of change was 6.4 billion, 5 billion of which stems from declining revenue and 1.3b due to more spending.
"For March, the government posted a $9.4-billion deficit compared with a deficit of $3 billion in the same month last year.
The shortfall came as revenue fell $5 billion to $24.1 billion.... Program spending increased by $1.3 billion to $31.5 billion, while public debt charges increased $100 million."
You were assuming the budget was balanced last year, or you didn't understand how public finances work.
The deficit is 9.4 billion as of March 31, 2016, compared with 3 billion the same time last year. So the increase of change was 6.4 billion, 5 billion of which stems from declining revenue and 1.3b due to more spending.
"For March, the government posted a $9.4-billion deficit compared with a deficit of $3 billion in the same month last year.
The shortfall came as revenue fell $5 billion to $24.1 billion.... Program spending increased by $1.3 billion to $31.5 billion, while public debt charges increased $100 million."
You were assuming the budget was balanced last year, or you didn't understand how public finances work.
Deficit for the month of March 2016 was 9 billion. 6 billion of that has been explained (5+1.3)
Military near Mosul are missing Harper - especially the CF-18s. I would be an awful lot happier if the CF-18s were there to support our troops! ... and I don't really care about the politics of the planes. Canadian ground troops (who are providing training to Kurdish soldiers) prefer that the CF-18s have their backs.
"Canadian troops were fired on while assisting with the two-day operation called Operation Evergreen, during which more than 5,000 Kurdish Peshmerga took 120 square kilometres of territory near Mosul.
Interim Conservative leader Rona Ambrose accused the Liberals in daily question period of “misleading Canadians about the nature of this mission,” which she said is now “more dangerous” and “is combat.”
While the Conservatives support “taking the fight to ISIS,” Ambrose said the “Liberals have put them into a more dangerous mission, tried to call it training and have withdrawn our CF-18 (fighter jets) that are a key pillar to degrade the enemy.”
Ambrose said the Liberals pulled the CF-18s deployed under the previous Conservative government for “purely political reasons.”
Was it the media that first revealed that Canadian soldiers had sewn Kurdish/Turkish flags to their uniforms? Those flags were there to protect Canadian soldiers this week in Iraq.
How stupid is that?
The Liberals sent Canadian soldiers to Iraq to retake Mosul from ISIS, and then grounded the six F-18s that have always protected ground troops, regardless of role. Liberals justified grounding the F-18s by stating that Canadian soldiers were providing training and would not be in combat. Yesterday, Canadian soldiers were ducking bullets, contrary to Liberal claims, and Canada's F-18s did not have their backs.
How stupid is that?
Why did the government grant TV access to military operations in Northern Iraq?
In any event, on a federal level I don't miss the leadership of a party that just recently and finally recognized that marriage can be beyond just one man and one woman. Its kind of hard if not impossible for me to support a party that is 12 years late to the fairness party when it comes to human rights. For me this is something fundamental.
I don't know what the P.C's official party line is on that Provincially in Ontario. I cringe to research that to be honest lest the answer I get will be rather disappointing.
Are Ontario Conservatives social conservativists?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
