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.
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.
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.