Canadian same-sex marriage... between two straight men?

[Tom444]

From the Ottowa Sun:

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.

I’m not really surprised by this - I figured it was only a matter of time. If anyone needed proof that gay marriages undermine all marriage, here it is. I wonder, though, whether these guys are trying to prove a more significant point than just tax matters.

Any thoughts?

 

[Tom444]

Still, I should point out that part of me finds this somewhat amusing. Seeing gay activists trying to defend the sanctity of gay marriage is so absurd that I either have to laugh or cry…

 

[JimG]

Two gay men, two straight men, two spinster sisters, mother-daughter, mother-son, brother-brother, odd couple, two business partners, etc. Canadian law doesn’t discriminate, does it? Marriage for everybody.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

Sweet! I’ve been searching for a good tax break! Now I’ve got it…mwahahahaha!!!

In Christ,
Rand

 

[AlanFromWichita]

“Generally speaking, marriage should be for love,” he said. “People who don’t marry for love will find themselves in trouble.”



I think it’s funny. Most of us are upset because gays want to water down marriage to make it what it is not. They think it is about some perverted kind of “love” so they took away the requirements.

Now they get what they reap. It’s like they got marriage now as a contract without respect to which sex like they wanted, but now they’re like OMG these people are NOT gay! They are corrupting “our” pure institution of marriage which is only for honest gays and not those living as brother and brother.

I say it serves them right. They said it’s all about “love.” I think the Church should just summarily quit recognizing civil unions in any way (save a lot of money on tribunals btw) and only consider marriage when it is sacramental. No longer can we agree with the government on who is married and who is not.

Alan

 

[jjwilkman]

this is nasty. then can a man marry his sheep??? that could be the next step, eh?

 

[WanderAimlessly]

jjwilkman:

this is nasty. then can a man marry his sheep??? that could be the next step, eh?

In today’s society, who knows. Moral Relativism is the “gospel” of the Secular Humanists. Anything is allowed.

PF

 

[Edwin1961]

It’s sad, even making fun of the gay marriage stance is STILL making fun of the Sacrament of Marriage as a whole.
I’m extremely :banghead:
Why can’t they just leave Marriage alone!

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Tom444:

From the Ottowa Sun: I’m not really surprised by this - I figured it was only a matter of time. If anyone needed proof that gay marriages undermine all marriage, here it is. I wonder, though, whether these guys are trying to prove a more significant point than just tax matters. Any thoughts?

Yes, I have some thoughts. I think this is the best news we have had in a long time. Why? When Trudeau first decriminalized homosexual behaviour he said, “The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation.” His intent was entirely different from the intent of the gay lobby. The gay lobby has manoevred the state right smack dab into the middle of their bedrooms.

The gay lobby has sexualized the issue of taxes, benefits, subtitute health case decision makers, and so on and the gay lobby has made it about marriage. All those benefits are a sub-set of marriage, not marriage itself. The state has no business in people’s marriages.

The power to marry people should be removed entirely from the state and left to religious organizations. The state should have the power to join couples in adult dependent unions.

These unions should include everybody wanting the benefits. All people wanting to get married in the Church, should also have a civil union, but can choose not to if they do not want the benefits. All people includes:

1. people applying for marriage in religious institutions;
2. people just taking care of each other, for instance a neighbour caring for a disabled neighbour;
3. people who feel that they are a ‘same sex couple.’

Sex should have nothing to do with it.

Love on the other hand…What kind of love are we talking about? Well caring for each other, taking care of each other: that is Christian love. And the Church says that gay couples can legitimately have this kind of love; they just can’t have sexual love.

Bishop Henry of Calgary actually promoted this kind of union. What they gay lobby has done by sexualizing civil marriage is disenfranchise a whole segment of the disabled community. Unless we fix this – fast – we are going to see euthanasia rise exponentially.

This straight couple getting married will be a test case to examine the consequences of the new legislation. Good. It is time we examined the consequences.

 

[Hildebrand]

JimG:
Two gay men, two straight men, two spinster sisters, mother-daughter, mother-son, brother-brother, odd couple, two business partners, etc. Canadian law doesn’t discriminate, does it? Marriage for everybody.

All those options are no joke. How can you discriminate against two siblings who want to live together, maybe adopt children, and share tax benefits and other financial benefits? They have the “right” to be married as much as two gay or lesbian people.

Eventually someone will want their dog or cat to get their health and dental benefits and things may go a “little” crazy.

But for now, any combination of two adults is open for acceptance. Because the defense of gay marriage comes down to letting two adults marry, whatever their situation may be.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

Marriage and taxes have always had a rather strange interrelationship in Canada.

On a Canadian individual tax form, one is asked to identify one’s marital status. There are not two choices – married or not married – there are SEVEN.

For many years, marriage in Canada has been taken to be something contrived and defined by law “for tax purposes.” I doubt that the Gov’t of Canada has shown any uniqueness in being more interested in collecting money than supporting instituations important to human society, but they have been very creative. Once it was established that “married” was something that one was “deemed” to be under tax laws, the rest of the deconstruction was, it seems, only a matter of time.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Kay_Cee]

Gerry Hunter:

On a Canadian individual tax form, one is asked to identify one’s marital status. There are not two choices – married or not married – there are SEVEN.

Good heavens, Gerry, what could there be besides Single, Married, Divorced, or Widowed? Could you enlighten us please?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Gerry Hunter:

Marriage and taxes have always had a rather strange interrelationship in Canada.

They have a strange relationship in the US, too.

For example, when I die, my wife pays no taxes on what I leave behind. But when SHE dies, the estate she passes on to the children and grand child is heavily taxed.

So if two people of the same sex can get married, why not several people of assorted sexes?

We marry our children and grand child and out-fox the IRS.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

Kay Cee:

Good heavens, Gerry, what could there be besides Single, Married, Divorced, or Widowed? Could you enlighten us please?

I just checked, and they revised the form: There are now SIX:

Married, Living Common Law, Widowed, Divorced, Separated, and Single.

They seem to have folded a previous category into “Living Common Law” that used to be for people who lived together for more than a couple of years, but didn’t claim to be a couple. Now, one doesn’t have to make the claim. It’s “deemed”.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[Jennifer123]

So what IS the gov’t going to do about it? This has to affect the treasury eventually right?

 

[Siena]

Jennifer123:

So what IS the gov’t going to do about it? This has to affect the treasury eventually right?

Stop tax benifits for couples entierly

 

[Cubsfan]

The implications are to huge to imagine. I predict that every country that passes gay marriage will eventually be seamped in a benefits crisis both public and private. Eventually employers will have to stop offering them as they will become such a burden.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Hildebrand:

Eventually someone will want their dog or cat to get their health and dental benefits and things may go a “little” crazy.

When I work in a tax office and ask, “any other dependents?” sometimes they kid around and say, “no, unless I can claim my dog.”

Never quite sure whether they think a return joke would be funny, I try to deadpan back to them, “do you have a Social Security card for your dog?”

So far I haven’t gotten any to say “yes.”

Alan

 

[abcdefg]

jjwilkman:

this is nasty. then can a man marry his sheep??? that could be the next step, eh?

1st with female sheep then male ones.:whacky:

 

[davy39]

1st with female sheep then male ones.:whacky:

As I said on another thread, the biggest crisis the world is facing today is the rise and normalization of homosexulality and it’s agenda. I don’t think many people agreed with me, but this is just a sample of what’s to come.