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.
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!!
later pingout.
It is bigotry to prohibit "straight" men from marrying each other.
Sorry...I'm just up too late here! Couldn't resist being the peanut gallery!
I should be more specific and add: We should continue to base the marriage "model" on the family unit that is produced in accordance with the laws of nature.
A same-sex couple might use a surrogate mother or a donor father, but the law should provide an incentive for the man and the woman who produced the child to marry and stay married. That way, family order is better preserved.
Btw, I see you've just joined. Welcome.
"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."
That, I can agree with. However, some members don't seem to think so. Those who cannot produce children should get some kind of cohabitation agreement rather than a marriage certificate (see post #30).
"But I still feel that it excludes those who have every right (i.e. legitimate marriage candidates, not siblings or other partners) to be married" - just for clarification.
Bump. The chancellors of the University of California system need to take notice, they are working towards extending married student housing benefits towards gays.
This will start out as a trend and as it grows Canada will end any tax credits for married people because so many people will be married it will be digging into their tax base.
This could very well happen.
In other words, gay marriages could be the end of any benefits for married couples of any persuasion.
I know a lot of people here in my liberal paradise that would marry their dogs if given a chance. Let's send that one through the pipeline up to Maple Leaf land.
"But I still feel that it excludes those who have every right (i.e. legitimate marriage candidates, not siblings or other partners) to be married" - just for clarification.
Yeah, well, jokes about significant others are OFF LIMITS!!!! Love is love!!!!! ;)
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.