Straight men to marry (each other for tax reasons)

[papau]

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1492636.html

Straight men to marry

Two heterosexual Canadian men are to tie the knot to enjoy the tax benefits of being a married couple.

Bill Dalrymple, 56, and best friend Bryan Pinn, 65, are taking advantage of Canada's new same-sex marriage legislation.

"I think it's a hoot," Mr Pinn told the Ottawa Sun.

But the two, both previously married to women, insist there is a serious issue behind the stunt.<snip>

[rfranklin]

1. Come out of the closet boys!

Tax benefits...right!

[gmoney]

4. that's Santorum's big fear

that people will start marrying household pets and livestock to claim them as dependents... and if you can MARRY a sheep, why can't you ADOPT a sheep... some rancher in Texas could adopt 10,000 head of cattle as dependents and not pay a dime in taxes!

Of course, he'd be charged with murder if he attempted to send them to slaughter. It's all part of the liberal vegan agenda!! Don't you people get it!!

:sarcasm:

[sui generis]

2. well good for them

I think their "point" will backfire though.

Just as there is no test for sexual orientation in a marriage there is most certainly no test for "being in love" either for either kind of marriage.

So what's the point again? People are going to get married for the tax treatment? Whaaaaa? If they aren't already doing it in heterosexual marriage then it will make zero difference in any other kind of marriage.

[sniffa]

5. Lame fuckers

i think it's a hoot? fuck them.

aLthough, i do remember aLL those interaciaL coupLes getting hitched once it became LegaL, because it was a hoot.

[bertha katzenengel]

3. I don't get it.

"A hoot." Well, bully for you, pal.

"There are significant tax implications that we don't think the government has thought through," Mr Pinn said.

Mr Dalrymple has been to see a lawyer already and there are no laws in marriage that define sexual preference.

Okay. True enough. But what exactly is these guys' point in pulling their little stunt? Are they pro-equality? Anti-equality? Just looking for media attention? (Christ, if that's what they want they should move down to the U.S. They'll have cameras in their faces constantly.)

[Gildor Inglorion]

6. Well, why the hell not?

Gay men and women have entered into marriages of convenience for lo these many years. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, right? I'm about ready to conclude that government should take no notice whatever of anyone's marriage, family, children, etc.
x(

[SoCalDem]

7. Sheeez.. We just have to get real here..

ANYONE over 18 should be allowed to choose a "life partner" for tax & benefits, IF THEY CHOOSE..

Whom they have sex with is of no concern to me, but a 'single" person would be able to take advantage of any benefits that a married person can have, To punish someone for being single, or to reward someone for being married is silly in this day and age, we really DO have enough humans on this planet, so the incentive to be fruitful is no longer all that big of a benefit..

If someone is single and has a sibling without medical benefits, they should be able to claim that person as their "designated partner. This would put a rest to all the political right wing nonsense surrounding the same sex marriage

[terrya]

8. They're not violating the spirit of the marriage legislation just passed.

Hey, they're two legal adults who want to get married.

That's for the Canadian authorities to decide.

I'm not about to get judgemental here. Other people do the same about me.

[ghostsofgiants]

9. Somehow I don't thnk these two are the first two people to marry...

Solely for tax purposes. Maybe the first of the same sex...but not the first.

[papau]

10. LOL - very true!

:-)

[redqueen]

13. Yes... I don't see a problem here.

They should be able to save more money, which is good for the economy... they should also be able to use less space and resources, which is good for the planet.

What's the downside here?

[pitohui]

11. whatever

if the marriage is not consummated, it is not a legal marriage, at least not in the usa

although no one is doing bed checks really

everybody wants attention these days, you're not real unless you're on the color tv

[happyslug]

12. Not in most states

In my home state of Pennsylvania Common law Marriages (Abolished as of 1/1/2005) never had to be "consummated", all that was required is for two unmarried opposite sex people to announced to each other they are man and wife. Sex is NOT needed. Please note this is what in the Common Law is called an "In Presenti" Common law marriage, the only type recognized in Pennsylvania. In England you also have "In Futuro" common law marriage which is a promise to marry in the future followed by Sex.

This followed the same rationale behind ceremonial marriage, that the ceremony is what makes the marriage NOT any sexual activity. Lack of consummation was grounds for a Divorce under the old Divorce statutes (and to have a marriage annulled) but NOT grounds to make a marriage invalid by itself.

My point here is Sex is NOT needed in most (if not all) states to have a valid Marriage.

[sui generis]

14. ha ha - try this on

define consummation.

Fucking? How? In what position? For what purpose? You can't say "sex".

It's an archaic term and an archaic idea.

Marriage, as far as the courts give a damn, is about property.

[Chovexani]

15. So true

And that's really the point we need to get across when arguing in favor of same-sex marriage. There is nothing religious about marriage as far as the state is concerned, it's just a legally binding contract between two adults that grants certain rights and obligations.

Personally I think the gov't should get out of the business of marriage entirely. Adults of any gender configuration should get a civil union from the state, and leave marriage to religious groups. Of course that'll never happen because then you'll have straight people who have been married a long time get angry when their marriages are dissolved and they're forced to get civil unions. Which I find hilarious, because they'll finally get a taste of their own medicine.

[sui generis]

16. hi Cho!

long time no see! :hi:

[Chovexani]

18. Hey there!

How's it going? :hi:

[LisaL]

17. They should just admit they are gay and be done with it!

Ain't no shame being in love!