Two straight Canadian guys to marry

moridin

http://www.ottawasun.com/News/National/2005/08/07/1162543-sun.html

---

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.

solice

So the two straight men want to show the govt that same sex unions are wrong? how do they go about showing this? by marrying eachother?

Next we will have gay men marrying lesbians

damien

Commented on this on GayCork too:

Any pairing or coupling in society that stabilizes and makes society better should be welcomed by a Government and rewarded. In the ideal family model a married couple were what stablized society and so they were rewarded with tax breaks and soforth but now a whole new set of dynamics have occured and can be just as beneficial.


It'd be funny if Canada ruled these lads' marriage must be consumated.

Blub2k4

solice wrote:

So the two straight men want to show the govt that same sex unions are wrong?

How did you come to that conclusion? What they are doing is exploiting financial incentives that are opened up by a state of marriage, not trying to prove anything is wrong, interesting that that was your choice of words, did you even read the piece, I suspect not?
I think what they are doing is striking a further blow for liberalism, and I quote:
"I disagree with the government getting involved with what people should and shouldn't do."

What they are doing it would seem is looking for a further refinement of the law and a better thinking through of the situation to stop people doing what they are considering purely for the sake of convenience, although enough straight people do it for those reasons so in a purely equal world it shouldn't be regulated as orientation does not appear to be mentioned anywhere.

Your post strikes me as misreading what you are accustomed to reading and enjoying a victim role, sorry if that offends but......

solice

Does punctuation mean anything to you? (the symbol at the end of that sentence right there is a question mark, it implies that it is a question. This would imply that i do not know the answer and i seek further clarification)

Blub2k4

solice wrote:

Does punctuation mean anything to you? (the symbol at the end of that sentence right there is a question mark, it implies that it is a question. This would imply that i do not know the answer and i seek further clarification)

ok fair enough, it's not the way it came accross, I mean if one reads the article the question seems redundant is all, so it doesn't make sense.

Enigma365

Yes, with same-sex marriage, two male friends who are not in love *could* marry purely for tax benefits. However, with regular old fashioned marriage, a male and a female who are not in love could also marry just for the tax benefits. Yet shock horror, around the world where heterosexual marriage is available to all, this rarely happens.

If they are making an argument against marriage as a whole, fine. But this is not something that is specific to same-sex marriage and cannot be used as an argument against same-sex marriage only.

Amnesiac_ie

In the history of marriage, I'm pretty sure the marriages arranged for economic reasons outnumber those arranged on the grounds of love or romance.

Stark

Blub2k4 wrote:

ok fair enough, it's not the way it came accross, I mean if one reads the article the question seems redundant is all, so it doesn't make sense.

It's not so much their intention as much as what the anti-gay marriage brigade will make of it. They being renowned for "rational thinking" and all.

Blub2k4

Stark wrote:

It's not so much their intention as much as what the anti-gay marriage brigade will make of it. They being renowned for "rational thinking" and all.

Is this not a case of assuming the position again before anyone has made "anything" of it.

Stark

I call it a prediction based on past experiences.

Sort like when you get a list of numbers - 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and it's fair to assume 8 will follow.