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?
Discuss!
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?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.