Ah yes open that can of worms boyz let's just see whats inside

So now thats its legal for same sex marriage in Canada
The flood gates have now begun to open HEH
Original article can be found here
http://www.ottawasun.com/News/Nation...62543-sun.html
Some info
"Queer aisle for straight guys"
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.

All I have to say is Toronto lawyer Bruce Walker outta shut the hell up before hes sued for discrimination
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Sort of lets the air out of the government's case against Bountifull British Columbia as well.
http://www.rickross.com/reference/po...olygamy65.html

Quote:

---

Sort of lets the air out of the government's case against Bountifull British Columbia as well.
http://www.rickross.com/reference/p...polygamy65.html

---

not really:

Quote:

---

But in both Canada and the U.S. authorities are more interested in other allegations made by a group of almost fifty apostate UEP Mormons, including several women who have lived in Bountiful. They have formed a group called the Committee Concerned with Child Abuse in Polygamy and claim that girls as young as thirteen have been brought into Canada to become the plural wives of men often three times their age or more. If this is correct, those involved could be charged under the Canadian Criminal Code for a variety of sexual offences.

---

sort of makes them sexual predators, doesnt it?

As I am sure most people know, rumors about these types of orginizations abound. If anythting were found to be proven then it would have been moved on quickly.

Ah, yes. Rumors/accusations by former, possibly vindictive and definitely disgruntled members of the cult do not carry enough credibility to support a case against those men, especially if there is no supporting testimony/complaint from a "victim", i.e. one of the wives. It is particularly to hard to crack the oath of silence blanketing those closed, secretive societies, especially when you throw religious fervor/paranoia into the mix.

By giving official recognition to same sex marriages, the Canadian Government may be opening the doors for polygamist unions to seek official standing. If you set aside the Judeo-Christian standard/definition of marriage, why would polygamist unions have less legitimacy than monogamist ones?

Don't get me wrong, I am not campaigning against recognition of same sex marriages, just pointing out a logical extension of that line of reasoning. In my opinion, marriages to minors are still wrong, although I think they can be legal in the USA with parental consent. (You'll have to look that up.) In fact, most cultures and religions accept them as perfectly normal. The only sticking point for us then becomes the legal age of consent and the extent of parental authority.

And, don't limit your thinking to older men having multiple young wives. How about older women having multiple young husbands? Or, older people having multiple young spouses of both sexes? Bisexual (Metrosexual?) Polygamy with Minors! Just food for thought! :p :devil: ;)

Thank You El_Squid thats exactly the points iu was trying to make
The can of worms is now open
Food for thought indeed. All of the mentioned combinations have become not only a possibility but a reality as well.
:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El_Squid

Ah, yes. Rumors/accusations by former, possibly vindictive and definitely disgruntled members of the cult do not carry enough credibility to support a case against those men, especially if there is no supporting testimony/complaint from a "victim", i.e. one of the wives. It is particularly to hard to crack the oath of silence blanketing those closed, secretive societies, especially when you throw religious fervor/paranoia into the mix.

By giving official recognition to same sex marriages, the Canadian Government may be opening the doors for polygamist unions to seek official standing. If you set aside the Judeo-Christian standard/definition of marriage, why would polygamist unions have less legitimacy than monogamist ones?

Don't get me wrong, I am not campaigning against recognition of same sex marriages, just pointing out a logical extension of that line of reasoning. In my opinion, marriages to minors are still wrong, although I think they can be legal in the USA with parental consent. (You'll have to look that up.) In fact, most cultures and religions accept them as perfectly normal. The only sticking point for us then becomes the legal age of consent and the extent of parental authority.

And, don't limit your thinking to older men having multiple young wives. How about older women having multiple young husbands? Or, older people having multiple young spouses of both sexes? Bisexual (Metrosexual?) Polygamy with Minors! Just food for thought! :p :devil: ;)

---

I've been told I'm married to this computer. I'm thinking about making it official.

Any tax breaks that I can get from Canada?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard1

I've been told I'm married to this computer. I'm thinking about making it official.

Any tax breaks that I can get from Canada?

---

Dam straight ya can
anyone hassles ya, just scream ya got rights and threaten to sue for discrimination

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ferrit

Dam straight ya can
anyone hassles ya, just scream ya got rights and threaten to sue for discrimination

---

How come this political thread is loose in the lounge ? :eek2: .. I got told off last time for observing that some things aren't just political but a part of life, however at least I saw it when posted in here ! :thumbs:

Anyways, where ever its ended up, I'd say you are demonstrating an outstanding 'leap of logic' to conclude that any polygamist's out there are planning to make matters legal everywhere as far as they are concerned, by using 'anti discrimination' legislation & judgements to get their way (not like they won't already ! :devil: ). The whole premise of the 'homosexual marriage' debate (& the various judgements) is that its unfair to discriminate based on a persons sexuality, not on many folks 'sexuality' (or prefered living arrangements, however you want to describe it), so that's all a non starter ;)

Ok, I've got two friends, both straight and are confirmed bachelors. One has a good job, the other works for himself (ie no health insurance). What if these two got married, could one be covered under the other's health insurance? They'd be living their lives as they normally do, but they would share that matrimonial bond on paper only.

I think it could be done, if it hasn't already.

If its in Canada thats exactly what the 2 people in the story are doing
So yeah

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tacklebox

Ok, I've got two friends, both straight and are confirmed bachelors. One has a good job, the other works for himself (ie no health insurance). What if these two got married, could one be covered under the other's health insurance? They'd be living their lives as they normally do, but they would share that matrimonial bond on paper only.

I think it could be done, if it hasn't already.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tacklebox

Ok, I've got two friends, both straight and are confirmed bachelors. One has a good job, the other works for himself (ie no health insurance). What if these two got married...

---

They can get married under all this 'gay rights stuff' & get just the same benefits as anyone else who can 'marry' .. where the situation is patently unfair is when you consider family relationships, where say a window & a child co-habit (hopefully not indulging in 'incest: a game for all the family !' :eek2: ), but can't get the same tax breaks & benefits confered by a 'marriage', unlike a homosexual 'marriage' (or just a same sex partnership as there's nothing saying you have to 'indulge' ) - which ain't right at all ..

(I keep putting it in quotes as I'm sure you need an un-related pair, one a man & one a woman for it to be what I understand as a marriage & not something done for financial reasons !)

im tired of being discriminated against by our tax system because im single. why cant i get those tax breaks to!!!!

maby i should "marry" my room mate and we can have hte tax breaks, and the health care, and the shared benifits, and the reduced insurance, and anything else that married people enjoy that us batchleor colledge students cant.

So now you see where i was going with
"this can of worms"

don't forget, that if your living with someone for a fixed number of months you are considred to be a common-law relationship and that has tax benifits, the gay marriage would perchance legalize two room mate living together for a while and declaring that they have a gay common-law relationship and deserve tax benefits as a result.

One more reason to get a room mate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matridom

don't forget, that if your living with someone for a fixed number of months you are considred to be a common-law relationship and that has tax benifits, the gay marriage would perchance legalize two room mate living together for a while and declaring that they have a gay common-law relationship and deserve tax benefits as a result.

One more reason to get a room mate

---

sweet! i would not even have to do any paper work then, just proclame it to be common law!

we've been there 2 years, is that long enough? tax refund here I come!

How about someone marrying themselves? Narcissists and pro-autoeroticists have rights too!

Some locales outlaw the practice of ... ah ... loving one's self; certainly many noteworthy organizations discourage its practice. Personally, I believe "If you don't love yourself, how can you love others?"

;)

Getting back to Ferrit and -ed, I'm in Massachusetts, where just last year gay marriage was put in place by a radical supreme court judge who don't give a sh!t what the voters think... :mad:

Anyway, married homosexual couples are afforded the same benefits (tax, ins coverage, etc.) as married heterosexual couples. That's what got me thinking about the situation because one of them was doing a roofing job and fell off the roof. He got pretty well banged up and spent some time in the hospital, and if he had a better health plan, he would have received better care.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tacklebox

Getting back to Ferrit and -ed...

---

Now if you don't watch your implications (putting me & ferrit as a 'couple' like that), you'll be the one needing hospital food ! :p :devil:

However joking asside I really do think that common sense has left the building on this particular subject.

Gay/lesbian/straight shouldn't be in this arguement whatsoever, if marriage allows 'extra benefits' for straight couples fair enough , & if some folks think that discriminates against them because they aren't (straight), again fair enough, but to introduce legislation in an effort to even up any discrimination, that then discrimates against others - well that's just dumb, & you don't need to be a high court judge to figure that one out !

Aint that a daisy
Frankly thats the point this whole buisness of benefits for marriages/civil unions or whatever has been in place for many years.
Its just that saying a marriage is a man and a woman is sooooo dam demeaning we cant have that crap going on.
Yer exactly right confus-ed common sense has left the building on the bum's rush express.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by confus-ed

Now if you don't watch your implications (putting me & ferrit as a 'couple' like that), you'll be the one needing hospital food ! :p :devil:

---

:eek2:
You know what I mean :)

Better be careful with that common law marriage angle, or your roommate may be entitled to half of all the assets if you separate! :p :eek2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El_Squid

Better be careful with that common law marriage angle, or your roommate may be entitled to half of all the assets if you separate! :p :eek2:

---

um half of nothing is still nothing..... hes got all the good stuff (stereo, motorcycles, amps, guitars, GF), all i have is my car....

Ferrit, in this context, I love the phrase "bum's rush". Hey, just 'cause I'm a Texan doesn't mean I support the current administration's idiot policies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tacklebox

:eek2:
You know what I mean :)

---

I did indeed dude ;) .. however it was funnier to 'not' ! :thumbs2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by confus-ed

Gay/lesbian/straight shouldn't be in this arguement whatsoever, if marriage allows 'extra benefits' for straight couples fair enough , & if some folks think that discriminates against them because they aren't (straight), again fair enough, but to introduce legislation in an effort to even up any discrimination, that then discrimates against others - well that's just dumb, & you don't need to be a high court judge to figure that one out !

---

you mean like civil rights laws? women being allowed to vote, blacks being counted as a full person. etc.

I know what you mean -ed but be careful how you say it, because this very argument you laid out here is that same one the racist folks lay out against laws to help level the playing field for minorities.......and I don't think you want to be in that camp....do ya?

Personally I don't get what the big deal is. Who cares if two guys living together can get married for convience. what does it hurt? It's not like it doesn't happen with straight people. lots of folks aren't in love but get married for benefits and have an "open relationship"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kato2274

..I know what you mean -ed but be careful how you say it, because this very argument you laid out here is that same one the racist folks lay out against laws to help level the playing field for minorities.......and I don't think you want to be in that camp....do ya?..

---

I'm sat here wondering what the hell you mean ? What I'm saying is that by introducing legislation that allows two gay folks to get married for financial reasons, you are then discriminating effectively against ANY two people who might also want to enjoy the same financial benefits, but who aren't allowed to marry under either 'traditional marriage' or this 'gay marriage' stuff.

My grandmother & my aunt live together but couldn't of course 'marry' (either version) & are thus discriminated against.

Is that clearer ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by confus-ed

I'm sat here wondering what the hell you mean ? What I'm saying is that by introducing legislation that allows two gay folks to get married for financial reasons, you are then discriminating effectively against ANY two people who might also want to enjoy the same financial benefits, but who aren't allowed to marry under either 'traditional marriage' or this 'gay marriage' stuff.

My grandmother & my aunt live together but couldn't of course 'marry' (either version) & are thus discriminated against.

Is that clearer ?

---

umm....not sure.

In your example your grandmother and aunt wouldn't be discriminated against with gay marriage laws, unless you argue that your brother and sister are being discriminated against by tradditional (read hetero) marriage laws. so I don't quite follow how your example applies. I mean if we want to talk about laws regarding relatives marrying then let's do that in another thread.

my opinion is the only discrimination going on here is not allowing gay folks the same benefits as straight folks....I'm sure I'm in the minority here though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kato2274

..my opinion is the only discrimination going on here is not allowing gay folks the same benefits as straight folks...

---

Don't get me wrong, I applaud the introduction of this 'gay union stuff' (just please don't call it 'marriage' !! but that's another debate) - that stops a substantial part of the population losing out because of sexuality... but perversley it then creates discrimination against other folks, because of a lack of any sexuality in their relationships, & to me that's worse than the opening position.

Maybe it all goes back to the purpose of the tax break in the first place? Now that most married couples are both working and no one is "staying at home", the whole point of the tax break may be dead. Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the point of the tax break to give the married couple a financial inducement for two people living with one income? Kind of like the dependent tax break is to help folks who are raising children, supporting an elderly relative, etc. We need to examine the purpose of the tax break, then figure out if it is still necessary, or if it should be extended to other groups.

Just a thought. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El_Squid

Maybe it all goes back to the purpose of the tax break in the first place?

---

I think it does indeed, from the states perspective, marriage is all about encouraging population growth & that's generally best done with two parents, as you say one working to 'provide' & the other 'to care' (with obvious times where these roles may swap about) - when you get to relationships where no kids at all may be involved the whole situation gets very messey & confusing, & you are 'right' to consider the issue of any dependent at all in this equation (such as an elderly relative, or a chronically ill person).. just what is the right answer I suppose is a work in progress, but I do feel in a way this ('gay unions') is making matters worse, despite being in favour of it in some ways (& its a damned good job I'm confus-ed or I think that might be hypocritical !) .. I just don't think you can correct discrimination, by intoducing some more !