Two straight men to marry in Canada

[MaterDei]

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.

[Iain]

...As for wedding plans, Pinn and Dalrymple haven't set a date.

- "Well, I can't make Glen set a date"
- "Well, you're gonna hate this idea but I think you should consider a fake pregnancy."

[griz]

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

That sort of defines the issue. It's fine to say marriage is about love, I may even agree. But the government can not and should not regulate love. So we are stuck with a government that controls the tax implications and inheritance issues in the name of marriage. Is it inevitable that the government will use social engineering to control people?

[matis]

I hope they actually do it, and get the tax benefits that go with marriage.

Nothing like taking this ridiculous trend to its logical conclusions to show up its absurdity.


Actually, if I wasn't so happy with my lady and didn't plan to marry her (as soon as my ex finds her soul-mate) -- I'd marry my Malamute.


He's gorgeous, thinks I'm great, he's completely loyal and never complains about my boorishness or other defects.

Then I'd go for the marital deduction, additional personal deduction and deduct any vet bills over 7.5% of my income!  We'd just file jointly.


So what if I'd have to spend a few grand on a diamond ring?



(And besides, he's neutered -- so I'd never even have to worry about getting pregnant.   )




matis

[Paddy]

From the movie "Strange Bedfellows"

[Oleg Volk]

While at it, what would be so immoral about the Mormon approach? If a man has resources and time enough for multiple wives (or a woman for multiple husbands: though that's less efficient from the reproductive standpoint, that efficiency isn't the first concern of many couples anyway), and if he's insane enough to want more than one...why stop him? Is being willing to care for multiple mates somehow immoral? I'd say, on the contrary, insisting on only caring for one is selfish...at least the socialists would say that he's got to share the wealth, the virility and all the other benefits.

[matis]

Fine, fine, Oleg.

But you left out dogs.  What have you got against dogs?


Are you caninophobic?



matis

[Felonious Monk/Fignozzle]

While at it, what would be so immoral about the NAMBLA approach? If a man has resources and time enough for multiple pre-pubescent boys (or a boy for multiple men: though that's less efficient from the ejaculation standpoint, that efficiency isn't the first concern of many couples anyway), and if he's insane enough to want more than one...why stop him? Is being willing to care for multiple mates somehow immoral? I'd say, on the contrary, insisting on only caring for one is selfish...at least the socialists would say that he's got to share the wealth, the virility and all the other benefits.

While at it, what would be so immoral about the necrophilia approach? If a man has resources and time enough for multiple decaying bodies (or a body for multiple men: though that's less efficient from the ejaculation standpoint, that efficiency isn't the first concern of many couples anyway), and if he's insane enough to want more than one...why stop him? Is being willing to care for multiple mates somehow immoral? I'd say, on the contrary, insisting on only caring for one is selfish...at least the socialists would say that he's got to share the wealth, the virility and all the other benefits.

Should I keep going?  I guess I'm separating the "covenental relationship" from the economic.

[Chris Rhines]

We're talking consenting adults here Fig, not pederasts.  No similarity.

- Chris

[Guest]

I'm failing to see what the big deal is.

[Silver Bullet]

What have you got against dogs?

You beat me to it.    I was gonna say that if I weren't already married, I'd marry my goldfish for tax benefits.

[Oleg Volk]

We have plenty of guys on THR who kiss their rifles. :-) Would marriage to a really good 870 be out of question?

[Guest]

I dont really care much about the gay marriage thing one way or the other. I simply have much bigger things to worry about.

I do however find this statement to be rather amusing considering the source.

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

Generally speaking, marriage should be between a man and a woman. People who dont marry the compatible sex will find themselves in trouble.

People who are activists for unconventional lifestyles really should get struck by lightning when they whine about other people being unconventional.

[Oleg Volk]

To people who bring up bestiality: is screwing an animal so much worse than the accepted practices of milking it or slaughtering it?

[SalukiFan]

I'm failing to see what the big deal is.

I'm with you Barbara.  

There is nothing special about the Canadian same-sex marriage legislation that makes it more likely than opposite-sex marriage to have negative financial ramifications for the state, as far as I know.  

If I had a dollar for every man and woman that I know who got a opposite-sex civil marriage for strictly for immigration, health insurance or tax purposes, I would be a rich woman.  I find this whole situation completely shrug-worthy.

Actually, this story is old news.  Here's a follow-up article from last August:
 
MATES STAY 'STRAIGHT'
15.8.2005. 13:00:34

Two long-time friends, both heterosexual men, have called off their controversial plans to wed in Canada, but not before causing a stir.

Bryan Pinn, 65, and Bill Dalrymple, 56, told the Toronto Sun a week ago in a letter that they planned to tie the knot to expose a major loophole in Canadas recently adopted same-sex marriage laws.

The pair, best friends for 22 years, had been kidding around at a Toronto bar on August 1, impersonating the actors from the television series, The Odd Couple, when they were told you two guys look like an old married couple.

The comment got them thinking that perhaps they could take advantage of the gay marriage laws enacted last month in Canada and benefit from preferential taxation afforded to Canadian couples.

After calling a lawyer, they found the new legislation did not specify that a union of two people of the same sex had to be a marriage of a homosexual couple.

Mr Pinn and Mr Dalrymple, both divorcees and the former a father of two adult children, intended for their wedding to shed light on the widespread financial implications of the new legislation.

If you are going to do social engineering, you should expect some unanticipated ripples to wash up on all shores. They had an exclusionary law, in an effort to make it inclusionary, the government had to make it all-inclusive. I dont know if they anticipated this, Mr Pinn said.

The two insist they have no desire to insult gays and lesbians, but the news of the impending nuptials has drawn a mixed response.

Generally speaking, marriage should be for love, Toronto lawyer and gay rights activist Bruce Walker, told the Ottawa Sun.

People who dont marry for love will find themselves in trouble, Mr Walker said, adding that he was not personally offended by the union.

Others were less welcoming, accusing the pair of being heretics and homophobes, said Mr Pinn in an interview with the Agence France Presse (AFP).

We pissed off the entire lunatic fringe, Mr Pinn was quoted as saying.

Ultimately, the pressure proved too much.

It was a moment of whimsy that spun out of control&This really was an act of political satire. If this is going to cause mayhem, we dont want to the tethered goats. Its out there now, discuss amongst yourselves, Mr Pinn said.

Besides, quipped Mr Pinn, he could not possibly marry Mr Dalrymple after discovering that he washed his clothes in the sink and hung them out to dry in the shower.

Well probably be best friends for another 20 years, but we dont have to get married. Why would you ruin a good friendship and get married? Mr Pinn told the AFP.




SOURCE: World News

-SalukiFan

[Guest]

I was gonna say that if I weren't already married, I'd marry my goldfish for tax benefits.

I'd do the same, but then I wouldn't get to claim it as a dependent anymore.

[280plus]

I was gonna say that if I weren't already married, I'd marry my goldfish for tax benefits.

I'd do the same, but then I wouldn't get to claim it as a dependent anymore.

LMAO...

[Silver Bullet]

Well, if we're going to think "dependents", let's start thinking rabbits.  

[matis]

To people who bring up bestiality: is screwing an animal so much worse than the accepted practices of milking it or slaughtering it?

I guess that all depends on your "tastes", eh?



(Personally I hate to get fur in my mouth, but hey, that's just me.)  




matis

[El Tejon]

I'm not marrying a common shotgun, now a Mauser 66 on the other hand.