Skip to comments.Queer aisle for straight guys
Posted on 08/07/2005 7:42:51 PM PDT by Gomez
WHAT'S LOVE got to do with it?
Bill Dalrymple, 56, and best friend Bryan Pinn, 65, have decided to take the plunge and try out the new same-sex marriage legislation with a twist -- they're straight men.
"I think it's a hoot," Pinn said.
The proposal came last Monday at a Toronto bar amid shock and laughter from their friends. But the two -- both of whom were previously married and both of whom are looking for a good woman to love -- insist that after the humour subsided, a real issue lies at the heart of it all.
"There are significant tax implications that we don't think the government has thought through," Pinn said.
Dalrymple has been to see a lawyer already and there are no laws in marriage that define sexual preference.
'STAY OUT OF THE BEDROOMS'
They want to shed light on the widespread financial implications of the new legislation and are willing to take it all the way.
There are obvious tax benefits to marriage, they said, but insisted they don't want their nuptials to insult gays and lesbians.
"I disagree with the government getting involved with what people should and shouldn't do," Dalrymple said. "Stay out of the bedrooms."
Words of warning came from Toronto lawyer Bruce Walker, a gay and lesbian rights activist.
"Generally speaking, marriage should be for love," he said. "People who don't marry for love will find themselves in trouble."
Walker isn't personally insulted by the planned Pinn-Dalrymple union because he believes in personal freedoms and rights.
"If someone wants to do something foolish, let them do it," he said.
As for wedding plans, Pinn and Dalrymple haven't set a date.
Why not? It helps to flesh out the details of who gets what benefits for hooking up legally with who, and just how far we want to go, about what. Of course, I doubt these guys are going to go through with it. But it was a good publicity stunt.
I KNEW it would come to this! Straight same-sex couples getting married for the tax benefits!
Hey, who's to judge about my lifestyle choices?
And the litmus test for "love" is.....? Translated in a different way, this gay rights lawyer believes that if they're not sodomizing each other they can't get married under the homosexual marriage rights laws. And if they are sodomizing each other they are owed tax benefits by the government. What a topsy-turvy world we live in today.
Interesting quote, because...
...I was just in a discussion on another forum (where I was outnumbered). My argument was: The purpose of a legally-recognized institute of marriage is to provide stability for a man and a woman who have children. Only a man and a woman can have children together.
"Same-sex" marriage would redefine marriage as an institution based on "feelings."
Question: Did this idea that two people should marry "for love" lead us down the road toward same-sex marriage?
Why not a couple of single straight brothers?
"My argument was: The purpose of a legally-recognized institute of marriage is to provide stability for a man and a woman who have children."
The problem with that is, there are many heterosexual couples who don't (or can't) have children. Should they not get married then? I would tend to agree with the marriage based on love theory - although within reason. A marriage is a contract, but not of the business variety; it's a contract that binds two people who love each other to a lifelong commitment to care for each other. The debate shouldn't necessarily be why people marry, but who exactly is marrying whom (with regard to sexual orientation)
So if we return to the good ole' days where marriage was purely a business transaction, then the state is justified in regulating, supporting, and subsidizing it. By regulating marriage, the state is helping to bind people to the contracts they make, guarantee that the wealth is passed down in a predictable way, and that the overall business climate is just and ordered.
But if marriage is about something as private as "love" then the government shouldn't really have anything to do with it.
The fact that businesses are expected to provide health benefits to their employees is equally nonsensical proceeding from some romantic notion about how corporations are inherently evil and need to atone for their sins by guaranteeing the health and happiness of their oppressed workforce.
Sounds like a underhanded way to get social security benefits - half the spousel's total.
Why not everyone in a small town so that as one big group of married people they can get group medical insurance at a discount?
That was their argument (on the other forum), too. Both were straight and married, with no children.
But, the whole "model" of marriage is based on one man/one woman because they produce children together. So, while we might marry for "love", the reason for the state to recognize a legal institution called marriage is to provide stability for a family that a man and woman might produce together.
Anyway, I'm wondering how many Freepers would agree or disagree.
You are 100% wrong.
Straight couples who do not or can not have children STILL support the marriage for promulgation of society paradign.
There is always the reasonable possiblity that they will end up being parents. The issue of love to establish marriage has no place in law. You must not and can not have judges deciding if a marriage "had love". It is just too absurd. (What will we have a Love-o-meter to determine the alimony amounts?)
Society rewards an insitution not the individuals recreational sex. Marriage is NOT a mere contract. Mere contracts can not be altered annually by legislature with regards to divorce and support laws. Someone who married in 1950 under one set of divorce laws, got divorced in the 60's or 70's or 80's under different sets of laws.
Everything you speak of is just parroting the new DNC talking point put forth by liberal professor guru Prof. Lakoff.
Sorry but like lackoff, your points have no validity in the law or history of law with regards to marriage.
I'm glad it is happening in Canada so the people in the U.S. will SEE what can happen. Right now they have their heads in the sand.
Thanks. That's the way I see it, too.
"the reason for the state to recognize a legal institution called marriage is to provide stability for a family that a man and woman might produce together."
I won't argue with the traditional 'model' of marriage. But I still feel that it excludes those who have every right to be married, if only to provide a sense of stability for themselves, yes? That is, if marriage licenses were only to be issued to those based solely upon that model, there would be a lot less married couples around, and that would run a traditionally-minded society (such as ours) into problems concerning morality (living in sin comes to mind, when thinking about religious implications).
I suppose I should ask you: how do you feel about couples who cannot (or do not want to) have children? Should they be allowed to marry? Or should they live their lives alone?
Do you believe that infertile couples, or couples too old to have children, should be denied the right to marry?
You and I know that they have their heads buried somewhere else but you're just too polite to say where! ;-)
While I never posted it here, I told family and friends this would happen.
The results of homosexual mockery of reason.
Now, there's an idea!
"There is always the reasonable possiblity that they will end up being parents."
An excellent point; adoption is always an option for those who cannot have children. And for those who do not want children now, may want to create a family later on. Fair enough.
"Everything you speak of is just parroting the new DNC talking point put forth by liberal professor guru Prof. Lakoff.
Sorry but like lackoff, your points have no validity in the law or history of law with regards to marriage."
I'm not going to pretend to know the ins-and-outs of the law or the history of law; I was voicing my opinion. I've never listened to Prof. Lakoff, so to imply that I'm "parotting" his talking point is a little off base on your part, though it might seem a coincidence, if that's what he's preaching. My response to the poster was based solely on his perspective, and nothing more.
That's what the other people on the other forum asked me, too. I would never, ever believe that a man and a woman "should" have children or should even "want" to have children in order to get married. (My husband and I didn't plan to start a family, either, though we considered the possibility).
The people on the other forum were using "love" as a reason to support legalization of same-sex marriage. I know you're not doing the same thing. You're just saying that people marry for love. But, what I'm saying is, if the state (the gov't) based marriage law on "love" (a feeling), the model of traditional marriage (one man, one woman) begins to fall apart.
Just what is the possibility of that happening, do you think?
And by the way, please ONLY consider the possibility of both partners being the parent of the SAME offspring.
Once you leave that particular logic well, you might as well wander the universe of possibilities including impregnation by space aliens.
Please see post 27 for a further explanation.
Those who can not produce children have ALWAYS had the option of a cohabitation agreement. Forms are available for as little as $25. I am certain some places will have them for free.
Two homosexuals can even by a house as "tenances by the enireties" so that if one dies the other has the house automatically.
EVerything you cite is irrelevant to marriage.
A man and woman who are married can adopt and the child need never know it was adopted. The older couple can be pressed into raising grandchildren. Society has these substitute mother and father present to raise children in time of need.
IN the USA 27 states prohibit or restrict the sex partners of homosexuals from adopting the sex partners children. IOW it is against the law for heather to have two momies.
A man and woman who marry ARE rewarded by society because they are supporting the insitution. Your argument is used by homosexuals to push their "marriage based on adult sexual conduct" model.
Marriage is about society providing for its posterity. Posterity is created by maximizing the production and raising of children. No matter how you slice it, a man who sticks his penis in another man is not going to produce any children and has no future to provide for the furtherance of society.
There was NO thought of romantic love before the two people married. Love might, or might not come latter, it was not considered important, family/clan was important.
Actually, it sounds like you do agree with me.
fine without any assistance you managed to originally create the identical talking points used by the DNC's newest consultant Prof. Lakoff.
Professor Lakoff uses the identical arguments. Lakoff, like you, tries the distraction of homosexual marriage is about love and comitment not about society raising children.
Visions of Hillary throwing the lamp at Bill running through my head...
"Those who can not produce children have ALWAYS had the option of a cohabitation agreement. Forms are available for as little as $25. I am certain some places will have them for free."
That's all well and good, longterm, and I'm sure it's a blessing for many. However, after reading so many threads on this website about marriage (in general), the general attitude toward two people living together *unmarried* is far less than favourable, so for the unmarried couples, it seems like a double-edged sword. Personally, I could care less what other people think, but attitudes toward unwed couples can be pretty hostile. What's your solution to that?
"No matter how you slice it, a man who sticks his penis in another man is not going to produce any children and has no future to provide for the furtherance of society."
No argument there. ;-)
Father and son. Mother and daughter. Great way to eliminate ALL estate taxes!!!!
"Generally speaking, marriage should be for love," he said. "People who don't marry for love will find themselves in trouble."
Indeed, I think there is a strong case to be made for parents and children getting married. This would be a huge benefit to children as there would be no inheritance tax and they would also get SS suvivor benefits. What greater love is there than that between a parent and a child, Bruce?
I read it. It contributed nothing of value to the discussion.
There were an awful lot of Anne Murray fans in the 1970s when these guys were young. Then of course K.D. Lang and Melissa Ethridge so there's not as many interested females their age as you might think.
I don't think that the only reason two people should marry is to have children.
I'm just saying that the "model" of marriage as one man and one woman is based on the traditional family unit - because only a man and a woman "can" produce children together.
(Sure, there are surrogate parents and test tube babies and gay parents having children with the opposite sex, but in the end, you will always need one man and one woman to produce another person).
I think marriage "laws" don't even mention anything about "love" or feelings. Marriage laws read like business contracts with stipulations regarding children and assets, etc. (Of course, I've only found one online, so I don't know if other states mention "love" in their laws. Still, "love" is not something that can be legislated).
If we're not going to base the legal institution of marriage on that model, then what are we basing it on? If it's going to be based on "love", then we're basing it all on a "feeling". And, if it's based on a feeling, then what would stop the law from extending it to same-sex couples, polygamous marriages, whatever.
Thanks for ruining my appetite, ltm.
Perhaps you deserve a less dimissive response that I am wont to give such nonsense, so here goes:
Gays, whether men or women, can and often do live in households that include children. This has been true for centuries.
But, at least in western societies, there has been tremendous pressure, perhaps more acutely brought to bear on these inclusive households, to keep up appearances.
Sometimes this was done by having marriages, often between gay women and gay men. Always the child was kept in the dark about adult sexual practices - a sensible approach.
This is now out the window with children brought up in overtly permissive - even promiscuous homosexual households. The jury is out on how this will work out in the longer run, but it won't be out for long. I don't think that the gay community will like what the jury will have to say when the results of this irresponsible experiment in permissiveness, decadence and bawdery have become too painful for society to overlook.
Homosexuality will forever be with us, but it needs to be kept off the streets, out of our schools, out of our civic life and, if not in the closet, then emphatically in the bedroom, doors locked and curtains drawn.
Any form of legitimization of the "gay lifestyle" is irresponsible social experimentation. This is going to bite us very hard before the story is entirely written.
What we are experiencing from the traditionalist Muslim communities around the world is only the first wave of reaction to the dissolution we see in our society.
"I suppose I should ask you: how do you feel about couples who cannot (or do not want to) have children? Should they be allowed to marry? Or should they live their lives alone?"
I've known a number of couples who had no intention of having children but eventually did either because they had a change of heart about the matter, or it just happened and they decided to go for it. The biology is pretty strong there. As far as those folks who are unable to have children, I'd say that their union, though unable to produce children, at least symbolically reinforces and celebrates the societal model that typically does produce children. A homosexual union on the other hand is never able to produce children and moreoever directly challenges the traditional marriage model that does produce children. In any case, just because you aren't married doesn't mean you have to live alone. I had plenty of company before I was married. ;-)
"But I still feel that it excludes those who have every right to be married"
Anybody can get married, but there are restrictions on what or who you can marry. Do you think sisters and brothers should be allowed to marry as long as they agree to not have children? What about mothers and daughters or fathers and sons? Those would be homosexual unions with no risk of producing genetically weak offspring due to inbreeding.
What kinds of ports does your printer have? I am looking for one...:)
Ya banged that nail on the head!!