Queer aisle for straight guys

Ottawa Sun ^ | By LESLEY WRIGHT, Sun Media

[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.

[A message]

"You lost this battle a long time ago."

No, the battle continues. It is you that surrendered.

[OKIEDOC]

Plain old BU!! $h!t.

[scripter]

It is bigotry to prohibit "straight" men from marrying each other.

And it's bigotry to prohibit brothers and sisters from marrying, or two brothers, or father and son, or father and daughter, or mother and son, or mother and daughter, or grandfather and grandson...

If we're going to allow gays to marry, why stop there? Why not let more than two marry?

If someone can live as a heterosexual and then become homosexual, they can live as a homosexual and become a heterosexual. In fact, the number of ex-gays are growing. What we need to do is start spreading the word that gays can leave the lifestyle...

[spinestein]

["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.]


If two heterosexual men want to get married for the tax benefits but a homosexual rights activist thinks it's a bad idea because they're not gay, then isn't he basing his opposition to it on what's going on in the bedroom?

[Tired of Taxes]

So if two men are together and decide they want to raise a child together and do it via a surrogate mother, you think the one who gave the sperm and the surrogate mother should get married, instead of the two men who are going to raise the child?

No, that's not what I'm trying to say.

I see this poster has been banned now (and I'm not surprised). But, I'll respond anyway:

Why do you think states have marriage laws in the first place? The reason is to create a legal institution that offers security and stability for the family unit (man, woman, and children possibly born of that union).

Yes, some couples are adopting children. And, yes, some couples are using surrogate mothers or donor fathers. But those are all exceptions to the rule.

The marriage model is based on "the rule" - man, woman, and children produced - because it promotes a social order.

[spinestein]

Agree!

[taxesareforever]

You got me.

[KeyWest]

The problem with that is, there are many heterosexual couples who don't (or can't) have children. Should they not get married then?

---

Actually, most get married first then find they cannot have children. Some get married with the understanding they will not have children, but the option is always there, so many do change their minds and have children.

The basis for marriage is a stable environment for children. Governments have encouraged it just to keep those taxpayers coming.

Actually , the real counter argument for same sex marriage is to just do away with marriage and have no benefits for married people. Then the only reason for same sex or any marriage is gone. We are all the same, cohabiting and satisfying our lust.

But if you do that, who are the only ones that are penalized and have to sacrifice? People with children. It always gets back to the children.

[longtermmemmory]

You are intentionally misquoting me.

A married couple has the POSSIBILITY of adopting.

A childless couple has the possibility of having a child placed into their lives.

Homosexuals raising children, always a bad idea, will NEVER be normal. No child in that environment can ever be told they are in a normal mother and father environment.

Homosexuality is ONLY about recreational sex. That is the sole function of the lifestyle. The model divorce code of the ABA seeks to normalize homosexual behavior by making marriage only about adult sex. Children are sidelined as "accessories".

The HRC, lambda lega, and even the looney Lakoff base their arguments of homosexual marraige on adult conduct. IOW sex.

You would be far more comfortable over with the other DUmies. After all the Democrat Party is now one "gay" party.

[Aetius]

---"I disagree with the government getting involved with what people should and shouldn't do," Dalrymple said. "Stay out of the bedrooms." ---

This has got to be one of the most trite, bogus, and disingenuous sayings that comes up every time gay marriage is discussed.

The choice of the people to grant legal status and recognition only to traditional marriage is in no way an intrusion into the bedroom. Such laws in no way tell two men that they can't do whatever they want to do in their own bedroom. They simply say that society does not have to grant to such behavior the same status it accords to the marriage of a man and woman.

Its a snappy little soundbite, and it plays to libertarian feelings we all have, but that doesn't change the fact that it is completely bogus.

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping.

This raises some very interesting questions.

Note this:

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."

So friends should be able to get married according to this logic - don't real friends love each other?

Or maybe he means that marriage should be based sexual lust. In that case, what about the man and the horse in Enumclaw (of course, that story had a tragic ending - maybe if they had been allowed to be married, it wouldn't have happened that way?)

Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.

*Note - I slacked off the last couple of days, I'll be apinging a few now, maybe not with so many acidic comments as usual...

[little jeremiah]

That is one historical viewpoint. There are others.

[dfwgator]

They aren't doing anything Bill and Hillary didn't do.

[little jeremiah]

Link to excellent article about homosexual parenting, with more elucidation down the thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1420072/posts
Expert: Many Promote Homosexual Parenting With Poor Reasons, Faulty Premise

[little jeremiah]

Very well said.

[little jeremiah]

Note my link above about homosexual parenting.

[absolootezer0]

i disagree, marriage is a definate business contract. and dissolving it can cause great amounts of litigation, payouts, buyouts, etc.

[beezdotcom]

I KNEW it would come to this! Straight same-sex couples getting married for the tax benefits!

In a human resources benefits meeting for our company not long ago, they started briefing about the "domestic partner" benefit. I asked some questions of the HR lady; the dialogue went something like this:

Me: "Do you have to be gay to receive the benefit?"

HR lady: "Oh, no, you can be opposite-sex domestic partners."

Me: "No, I mean can two straight guys collect the benefit?"

HR lady: "Um, I think you have to sign a legal affidavit stating that you are in a loving and committed relationship."

Me: "Whoa! Does that mean if my current marriage isn't loving, I can't get the benefit?"

HR lady: "I'd like to end this line of questioning now. NEXT?!!"

[marty60]

AWWWW, the always present problem with leftie thinking. They never think past the moment and end up with "unintended consequences". always amazws how they keep doing the same thing over and over again. No wonder they have a Jack ass as their symbol.