Laughing at the ridiculousness…

I remember I was laughing out loud when I heard it from TV news last night
And I was telling my friend that let’s go marry our best friends, you
get tax breaks you know! What is love? What is the fruit of love? Again
I just want to raise the questions, if homosexuals can marry, how about
polygamy? Or other kinds of relationships? How do they draw the line?
If Canada’s previous definition (sigh… how sad, it’s been history)
has been discriminatory, so is the present definition! After all, it
just opens up to one more group: the homosexuals. So you can’t say the
traditional definition of marriage is unfair because it’s
discriminatory, being discriminatory isn’t a reason to oppose
something… because the new definition is also discriminatory!!

Found a few links today regarding arguments regarding this issue:
Same  Sex Marriage: Lowest Common Denominator
My friend Amy’s view on the issue

Commentary: Two Canadian Straight Men Will ‘Marry’ – It’s a Hoot!
By John Jalsevac

self-professed straight (that is, heterosexual) Canadian men have made
public their decision to get ‘married’ to one another. It was only a
matter of time of course.

The Ottawa citizen reported on Sunday that, while sitting in a bar
last week it occurred to Bill Dalrymple, 56, and Bryan Pinn, 65, that
what with both of them being single, apparently without any serious
opposite-sex marriage prospects on the line, it wouldn’t be such a bad
tax-saving idea to get hitched…to each other. Thanks to the newly
instated civil marriage act, extending “marriage” rights to same-sex
couples, that’s not a problem. And since the new act doesn’t include
any discriminatory restrictions on ‘sexual preference’ (as if that
could be measured anyway) the two thoroughly straight men seem to have
a clear path to the altar.

“I think it’s a hoot,” said Bryan Pinn. And you can’t help agree
that really, it is, as he says, ‘a hoot’. In fact, what’s really
amazing is that in the context of new legislation it all makes a whole
lot of sense, and that proves to be the funniest thing of all.

After some reflection, what is actually offensive is not that two
straight men have decided to make use of the legislation and get
married to one another, but that Bruce Walker, a Toronto area gay and
lesbian rights activist, has dared to criticize them. “Generally
speaking, marriage should be for love,” he said. “People who don’t
marry for love will find themselves in trouble.” He continued, calling
Dalrymple and Pinn’s plan “foolish”.

It is offensive that Walker has the gall to imply that just because
the two men don’t want to have sex with one another that their
relationship is devoid of love; it is typical of the homosexual mind to
believe that erotic love is the only love.
‘Old’ marriage vows
mentioned sexuality insofar as a couple agreed to accept and rear
children as a gifts from God; but Canada’s new marriage vows don’t say
anything about sexual attraction or intercourse and who’s to say that
they should? Certainly not Bruce Walker.

“Marriage”, now, as Canada has defined it and the pro-gay activists
have consistently defended it, has absolutely nothing to do with
copulation or sexuality or procreation and everything to do with
‘love’—not erotic love, just…love, of whatever kind.

And therefore, under the new federal legislation it is undeniable
Dalrymple and Pinn have as much of a right as anybody else to publicly
declare their intention before a justice of the peace to love the other
until death do them part, and they have just as much of a right to be
given a federal pat on the back for their admirable act. The liberal
government has chosen, however foolishly, to grant special privileges
to those who do exactly that, and by all accounts Canada is going to
have to live with this reality, no matter where it leads.
Of course, some will ask in light of the impending marriage of
Dalrymple and Pinn, where will it lead? And the answer, it is no
secret, is quite ludicrously far.

Add to the story about Dalrymple and Pinn that of the Californian
lesbian couple who desired to be recognized as legitimately married by
the golf club one of them belongs to, so that the other could reap the
spousal benefits the club offers, and you’ll get an idea of how far it
will go. They won the case of course, before the Supreme Court, and now
the one without the club membership can golf for free.

Free golf. What better reason could there be to get married? Maybe
with that kind of a draw gay men will actually start taking advantage
of the new federal legislation and contract the new pretend ‘marriage’.

Of course, it is doubtful that Dalrymple and Pinn’s decision to get
married has anything to do with their love for one another. After all,
Pinn came straight out criticized the same-sex “marriage” decision,
pointing out that “there are significant tax implications that we don’t
think the government has thought through;” tax implications that the
pair are willing to exploit to make their point while saving a few

It is also doubtful that the farcical “marriage” of Dalrymple and
Pinn will do anything to change Ottawa’s mind about same-sex
“marriage”. At the most, all it does is gives pro-family activists a
reason to sit back for a moment and have a good chuckle at the
ridiculousness of the ideological fort that their opponents are
guarding so stubbornly. And that, perhaps, is a good enough reason.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: