Canada: Two straight men to marry for tax reasons; gay community outraged

[Richard]

http://www.ottawasun.com/News/National/2005/08/07/1162543-sun.html

This is going to be interesting.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hmm, interesting.  Perhaps I should "marry" a friend for tax benefits.

[Richard]

In fact, if you read here,
http://toronto.24hrs.ca/Columnists/OnFamilyLaw/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes.

[Gabu]

Personally, I think that this is more an argument against the government giving benefits for marriage, not an argument against gay marriage.  Even with heterosexual marriage only, you still have people marrying just to reap the benefits.  It just happens to be a smaller set of two-sets of people who can do so.

[Giant Saguaro]

Well, and people who argue that legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all sorts of insane things are usually jumped on and ridiculed for being all sorts of things. It's just started, IMO.

From what I recall, tax benefits were up there on the reasons why the gays thought they should have marriage "rights." Marriage, of course, isn't a right, but rather a privilege and if they want to deal with this stuff up there, okay.

[Richard]

Personally, I think that this is more an argument against the government giving benefits for marriage, not an argument against gay marriage.  Even with heterosexual marriage only, you still have people marrying just to reap the benefits.  It just happens to be a smaller set of two-sets of people who can do so.

Very few women would be open to it.  I certainly don't know any.  But see, there are a great many people that do not consider two men, or two women, as "married."  They do not have inhibitions about signing some piece of paper to get tax benefits.  Signing it with a woman, well, that is a different beast.  Psychologically speaking, of course.

[John Dibble]

Personally, I think that this is more an argument against the government giving benefits for marriage, not an argument against gay marriage.  Even with heterosexual marriage only, you still have people marrying just to reap the benefits.  It just happens to be a smaller set of two-sets of people who can do so.

Very few women would be open to it.  I certainly don't know any.

When my uncle figured out he was gay, his wife and he stayed married because of tax reasons.

Of course, anyone stupid enough to risk getting married for tax reasons shouldn't complain when their partner divorcing them and taking half their stuff.

Anyways, it'll probably be an isolated type of thing in any event. And, as Gabu said, it's more of an argument against tax benefits for married couples than gay marriage.

[Gabu]

Personally, I think that this is more an argument against the government giving benefits for marriage, not an argument against gay marriage.  Even with heterosexual marriage only, you still have people marrying just to reap the benefits.  It just happens to be a smaller set of two-sets of people who can do so.

Very few women would be open to it.  I certainly don't know any.  But see, there are a great many people that do not consider two men, or two women, as "married."  They do not have inhibitions about signing some piece of paper to get tax benefits.  Signing it with a woman, well, that is a different beast.  Psychologically speaking, of course.

I know someone who married an American just to get a green card.  It happens.  Perhaps not with the frequency that will occur with same-sex marriage, but it happens.  I personally think that the gay community is quite right to be outraged, just as the straight community would be quite right to be outraged if a man and woman married just to reap the benefits.  Same-sex marriage is not destroying the foundation of marriage; people like Britney Spears, who treat marriage as a joke or as simply a way to get financial benefits, are the ones who are doing the damage.

[dazzleman]

Since the gay community has now defined marriage to be all about rights and financial benefits, and has gotten enough people to foolishly buy into that, they should not be surprised to see this happen.

Should there be some kind of "gay test" for same-sex couples?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Since the gay community has now defined marriage to be all about rights and financial benefits, and has gotten enough people to foolishly buy into that, they should not be surprised to see this happen.

Should there be some kind of "gay test" for same-sex couples?

What about opposite sex gays marrying for tax reasons? This will open a big old can of worms.

[dazzleman]

Since the gay community has now defined marriage to be all about rights and financial benefits, and has gotten enough people to foolishly buy into that, they should not be surprised to see this happen.

Should there be some kind of "gay test" for same-sex couples?

What about opposite sex gays marrying for tax reasons? This will open a big old can of worms.

They've always been able to do that.  There's nothing that can prevent this, other than the recognition that falsifying marriage has a huge downside that exceeds any potential tax benefits.

[Gabu]

Since the gay community has now defined marriage to be all about rights and financial benefits, and has gotten enough people to foolishly buy into that, they should not be surprised to see this happen.

It's not that marriage is "all about rights and financial benefits"; the argument is simply that marriage does come with those, and as such, should be open to everyone.  Personally, I think that the government should get out of marriage entirely, but that's just me.  If you're going to slap on benefits to come with marriage, however, you can't expect people to just act as if they don't exist.

It's not as if marriage solely for the purpose of acquiring benefits has never happened before the same-sex movement got underway, either.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Since the gay community has now defined marriage to be all about rights and financial benefits, and has gotten enough people to foolishly buy into that, they should not be surprised to see this happen.

Should there be some kind of "gay test" for same-sex couples?

What about opposite sex gays marrying for tax reasons? This will open a big old can of worms.

They've always been able to do that.  There's nothing that can prevent this, other than the recognition that falsifying marriage has a huge downside that exceeds any potential tax benefits.

Why the double standard then?

[minionofmidas]

Personally, I think that this is more an argument against the government giving benefits for marriage, not an argument against gay marriage.  Even with heterosexual marriage only, you still have people marrying just to reap the benefits.  It just happens to be a smaller set of two-sets of people who can do so.

Very few women would be open to it.  I certainly don't know any.  But see, there are a great many people that do not consider two men, or two women, as "married."  They do not have inhibitions about signing some piece of paper to get tax benefits.  Signing it with a woman, well, that is a different beast.  Psychologically speaking, of course.

I know someone who married an American just to get a green card.  It happens.  Perhaps not with the frequency that will occur with same-sex marriage, but it happens.  I personally think that the gay community is quite right to be outraged, just as the straight community would be quite right to be outraged if a man and woman married just to reap the benefits.  Same-sex marriage is not destroying the foundation of marriage; people like Britney Spears, who treat marriage as a joke or as simply a way to get financial benefits, are the ones who are doing the damage.

I've met literally dozens such couples. Although it's often hard to claim whether it's *just* to get residency, citizenship, whatever, it certainly plays a large part.

[Hatman 🍁]

There will always be people abusing the sanctity of marriage, big deal. Nothing new. Stop trolling, Richius.

[Richard]

I know someone who married an American just to get a green card.  It happens.

Uh, duh!  That is quite different from marrying someone for tax benefits.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But they're not...

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

You can do this just by marrying some of the opposite sex too. Hardly an argument against gay marriage.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

When my uncle figured out he was gay...

LOL!  I always hated non-linear equations!  Next time, tell him to use only linear equations, then he will stay straight.

[John Dibble]

When my uncle figured out he was gay...

LOL!  I always hated non-linear equations!  Next time, tell him to use only linear equations, then he will stay straight.

What, you think some gay people don't know they are gay, simply because society pressures them and expects them to be straight? I know that sounds terribly PC, but it is true.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

When my uncle figured out he was gay...

LOL!  I always hated non-linear equations!  Next time, tell him to use only linear equations, then he will stay straight.

What, you think some gay people don't know they are gay, simply because society pressures them and expects them to be straight? I know that sounds terribly PC, but it is true.

Could be, I didn't know until this past weekend that I wanted a new 2006 Mustang GT!



As a matter of fact, I didn't know I was attracted to a woman that works in my building until I met her....Maybe you should inform your uncle that we were all born with a sinful nature.

[John Dibble]

When my uncle figured out he was gay...

LOL!  I always hated non-linear equations!  Next time, tell him to use only linear equations, then he will stay straight.

What, you think some gay people don't know they are gay, simply because society pressures them and expects them to be straight? I know that sounds terribly PC, but it is true.

Could be, I didn't know until this past weekend that I wanted a new 2006 Mustang GT!

<forum stretching picture>

As a matter of fact, I didn't know I was attracted to a woman that works in my building until I met her....Maybe you should inform your uncle that we were all born with a sinful nature.

Wanting an object and having built in instincts aren't the same things.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's why I mentioned the girl who works in my building (the Mustang was just a joke, though I do want one).  I have an instinct to commit adultery.  In fact, I'm sure I have many built in instincts I haven't even explored.  But I don't go exploring just I might like it, rather my knowledge of right and wrong keeps me in check.

[John Dibble]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's why I mentioned the girl who works in my building (the Mustang was just a joke, though I do want one).  I have an instinct to commit adultery.  In fact, I'm sure I have many built in instincts I haven't even explored.  But I don't go exploring just I might like it, rather my knowledge of right and wrong keeps me in check.

I'm talking about being inherently attracted to the same sex vs. the opposite. You are married to a woman, and you are heterosexual by your instinct. My uncle is not heterosexual by instict, rather he is homosexual by instinct. You wanting to commit adultery has nothing to do with the subject.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I'm talking about being inherently attracted to the same sex vs. the opposite. You are married to a woman, and you are heterosexual by your instinct. My uncle is not heterosexual by instict, rather he is homosexual by instinct. You wanting to commit adultery has nothing to do with the subject.

But why do you limit your "he was born that way" argument to just sexual attraction?  Why not expand it to all desires?

[John Dibble]

I'm talking about being inherently attracted to the same sex vs. the opposite. You are married to a woman, and you are heterosexual by your instinct. My uncle is not heterosexual by instict, rather he is homosexual by instinct. You wanting to commit adultery has nothing to do with the subject.

But why do you limit your "he was born that way" argument to just sexual attraction?  Why not expand it to all desires?

Not all desires are inherent instinct, for one thing. You weren't born wanting to commit adultery, you were born wanting to mate. You can control whether or not you want to commit adultery, you can't control whom you are sexually attracted to.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Not all desires are inherent instinct, for one thing.

Well, I have four kids, and I can tell you they were all born with the instinct for lying, greed, envy, stealing, fits of rage, etc.

---

You weren't born wanting to commit adultery, you were born wanting to mate. You can control whether or not you want to commit adultery, you can't control whom you are sexually attracted to.

I didn't say "control who you are attracted to", rather I am simply stating: just because you feel like doing it, whether by instinct or learned behavior, doesn't make it right.