Political Crossfire Forums

[ALPINA]

Quote:

It was about time:

"Couples" of straight men and women, who are just best friends, begin to realize the benefits of gay marriage.

Hoorray ! :P

Maybe gay marriage was a real smart idea after all ... all hail Homer Simpson !



Queer Aisle for Straight Guys
Monday, August 08, 2005


They're just friends now ... but they'd like to be "friends with benefits."

According to the Ottawa Sun, Bill Dalrymple (search), 56, and best friend Bryan Pinn (search), 65, have decided to take the plunge and try out Canada's new same-sex marriage (search) 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 humor 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.

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 they 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


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165093,00.html

[F'losrix]

A number of people have argued on this forum that gay people can get married - they just have to choose someone of the opposite sex.

Now we get the argument that we shouldn't allow gay marriage because heterosexuals of the same gender will pair up just to get marriage benefits.

Hello - they could already pair up with some person of the opposite sex just for the benefits - why is the gender of the parties an issue? So people will have more options with the recognition of gay marriage. The idea that marriage is going to be exploited to a greater degree than it was when marriage was heterosexual couples only and will cause financial ruination with the addition of same-gendered marriage is laughable.

Why is one situation more acceptable than the other?

Marriage isn't about love, it's about entering into a contract to formalize the formation of a family unit. The idea that a family unit can only be formed by a heterosexual couple is utter bulls**t.

I say let consenting adults marry the partner of their choice without a restriction on gender or sexual orientation.

[ALPINA]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: A number of people have argued on this forum that gay people can get married - they just have to choose someone of the opposite sex.

Now we get the argument that we shouldn't allow gay marriage because heterosexuals of the same gender will pair up just to get marriage benefits.

Why is one situation more acceptable than the other?

Marriage isn't about love, it's about entering into a contract to formalize the formation of a family unit. The idea that a family unit can only be formed by a heterosexual couple is utter bulls**t.

I say let consenting adults marry the partner of their choice without a restriction on gender or sexual orientation.

You must have missed that biology class, where the teacher explained that thing with the bees and the flowers ... :lol:

In a sentence: Only a woman and a man can team up and produce children.

[StrangerWitCandy]

ALPINA wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: A number of people have argued on this forum that gay people can get married - they just have to choose someone of the opposite sex.

Now we get the argument that we shouldn't allow gay marriage because heterosexuals of the same gender will pair up just to get marriage benefits.

Why is one situation more acceptable than the other?

Marriage isn't about love, it's about entering into a contract to formalize the formation of a family unit. The idea that a family unit can only be formed by a heterosexual couple is utter bulls**t.

I say let consenting adults marry the partner of their choice without a restriction on gender or sexual orientation.

You must have missed that biology class, where the teacher explained that thing with the bees and the flowers ... :lol:

In a sentence: Only a woman and a man can team up and produce children.

:roll:

[F'losrix]

ALPINA wrote: In a sentence: Only a woman and a man can team up and produce children.
Marriage isn't about procreation. People have kids all the time without it, and plenty of married people don't produce any children.

A family unit doesn't have to include children. Do you honestly consider the childless couples within your own family to not be comprising a family unit?

[ALPINA]

Skeptical Mystic wrote:
A family unit doesn't have to include children. Do you honestly consider the childless couples within your own family to not be comprising a family unit?

Of course I consider married persons to be couples, not families.

They will become families with the birth/adoption of their first child.

[Melchior]

And gay couples can't adopt? :-|

[ALPINA]

Melchior wrote: And gay couples can't adopt? :-|

In most states/nations on earth they cannot adopt.

I'd say:

Tax cuts and social/other benefits only for families with children, no matter whether gay or straight.

No benefits/ tax cuts for married couples, no matter whether gay or straight.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

ALPINA wrote: I'd say:

Tax cuts and social/other benefits only for families with children, no matter whether gay or straight.

No benefits/ tax cuts for married couples, no matter whether gay or straight.

Why in the world should we hand out benefits to people who just happen to f*** each other [excuse my language] and then end up having a kid?

[Melchior]

I think that's a bulls**t standard. You are do not believe homosexuals couples can be a family because they can't have kids, but you are not in favor of allowing them to adopt kids either?

That's like saying I can't join the military because I'm disabled, and then you proceed to chop my limbs off. WTF? :x

[F'losrix]

ALPINA wrote: Melchior wrote: And gay couples can't adopt? :-|

In most states/nations on earth they cannot adopt.

I'd say:

Tax cuts and social/other benefits only for families with children, no matter whether gay or straight.

No benefits/ tax cuts for married couples, no matter whether gay or straight.
So in a childless marriage you don't believe one spouse should be able to make medical decisions on the other's behalf, shouldn't automatically inherit their estate in the absence of a will, shouldn't be able to cover their dependent spouse on their insurance, take time off from work to care for a sick spouse or take bereavement leave in the event of their spouse's death. I don't know how these things work in Deutschland, but I do know that in the U.S. those are benefits that married person's can receive in recognition of the familial relationship established by their marriage contract.

We don't have separate systems for people who don't have children to only receive couple's benefits, while other people who do have children get family benefits.

[F'losrix]

Definition of a family:

A family is a group of two persons or more (one of whom is the householder) residing together and related by birth, marriage, or adoption.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+family

In other words, gay couples would be considered a family if the stupid government would just acknowledge our marriages. Instead they treat us like legal strangers, no matter how closely our family unit resembles that of the heterosexual couple next door.

[curisz]

Personally I think this is fine. I have long believed that government should only issue a form of private incorporation that any two people (and maybe more) can use to take financial, legal and medical responsibility for one another. It needn't have anything to do with sex or sexuality at all.

[F'losrix]

curisz wrote: Personally I think this is fine. I have long believed that government should only issue a form of private incorporation that any two people (and maybe more) can use to take financial, legal and medical responsibility for one another. It needn't have anything to do with sex or sexuality at all.
I find myself more and more inclined to agree with this approach. If there's to be any assistance & recognition from the government, the emphasis should be on helping people take care of each other, not on whether theirs is a sexual, familial or some other type of relationship.

That doesn't mean we get rid of marriage or expand the definition to people who are just roommates. It merely means we stop using heterosexual marriage as a qualification for special treatment that no one else gets.

The chief argument against such an approach is the supposed economic impact of having to expand benefits to non-marital relationships. If the only argument were economic, then I'd say the government should not recognize any relationship - make everyone pay the enormous cost of making these financial, legal and medical arrangements now faced by people in non-marital situations. Under either scenario, there's an impact - either on the government (and by extension the people) or directly upon the people. But this is not an argument for maintaining the status quo either - leaving things the way they are now merely continues the negative effects already felt by people in non-marital relationships who feel they're subsidizing someone else's marriage. Especially maddening to those of use who can't get the government to recognize and subsidize our same-gendered marriages.

The government shouldn't be in the business of socially engineering people's relationships. We've already seen the failures in such an experiment. Time to find a better solution - what you're proposing might just be it.

[ALPINA]

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: ALPINA wrote: I'd say:

Tax cuts and social/other benefits only for families with children, no matter whether gay or straight.

No benefits/ tax cuts for married couples, no matter whether gay or straight.

Why in the world should we hand out benefits to people who just happen to f*** each other [excuse my language] and then end up having a kid?

Cause these kids will finance your retirement checks thru their taxes, ****. And the hospitals that will treat you, the ambulances and their personell that will move you, do the research and development that will lengthen your life, cure your diseases or at least ease your pain.

Children are the future ... without children, there is no future.
So any state or community got a vital interest in ensuring that thier members get children, at least enough to keep the population stable.

[ALPINA]

Melchior wrote: I think that's a bulls**t standard. You are do not believe homosexuals couples can be a family because they can't have kids, but you are not in favor of allowing them to adopt kids either?


I am all in favor of letting them adopt kids !
Nowhere did I say the contrary.

I just pointed out that in most western nations ( not to mention islamic, communist etc. nations :lol: ) it was not allowed so far -- that legislation will have to be changed, of course.

[ALPINA]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: ALPINA wrote: Melchior wrote: And gay couples can't adopt? :-|

In most states/nations on earth they cannot adopt.

I'd say:

Tax cuts and social/other benefits only for families with children, no matter whether gay or straight.

No benefits/ tax cuts for married couples, no matter whether gay or straight.
So in a childless marriage you don't believe one spouse should be able to make medical decisions on the other's behalf, shouldn't automatically inherit their estate in the absence of a will, shouldn't be able to cover their dependent spouse on their insurance, take time off from work to care for a sick spouse or take bereavement leave in the event of their spouse's death. I don't know how these things work in Deutschland, but I do know that in the U.S. those are benefits that married person's can receive in recognition of the familial relationship established by their marriage contract.

We don't have separate systems for people who don't have children to only receive couple's benefits, while other people who do have children get family benefits.

I know that that's the way it is, and I made clear what I think of it.

A couple of words about the things you mentioned above:

All these things incite to homicide. Kill your spouse and you'll benefit from it. And you know, if you live with a person in a house, and sleep in one bed, it's so easy to kill without raising suspicion. There's so many ways ... cancelling such benefits would help reduce the crime rates significantly as well.

[F'losrix]

ALPINA wrote: All these things incite to homicide. Kill your spouse and you'll benefit from it. And you know, if you live with a person in a house, and sleep in one bed, it's so easy to kill without raising suspicion. There's so many ways ... cancelling such benefits would help reduce the crime rates significantly as well.
:rotf:

Well, that's certainly an argument I don't recall ever seeing presented before.

[Jimi The Kid]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: family unit. The idea that a family unit

Have you ever read "The Giver"?

Skeptical Mystic wrote: I say let consenting adults marry the partner of their choice without a restriction on gender or sexual orientation.

I agree with you there.

[F'losrix]

Jimi The Kid wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: family unit. The idea that a family unit

Have you ever read "The Giver"?
Nope, never heard of it.