Wednesday, August 10, 2005

Why Not Marry Your Pet?

The "hot" story these days is the impending marriage of two Canadian men. Not because they're homosexual, but because they're not:
Two 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 [. . .] that while sitting in a bar last week it occurred to Bill Dalrymple, 56, and Bryan Pinn, 65, that [. . .] 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. . . .

[. . .] Bruce Walker, a Toronto area gay and lesbian rights activist, has [criticized Dalrymple and Pinn]. “Generally speaking, marriage should be for love,” he said. “People who don’t marry for love will find themselves in trouble.” . . .

“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. . . .
Dalrymple and Pinn simply believe in the old-fashioned kind of brotherly love.

Well, why not marry a beloved pet? If you die before the pet does, the pet will inherit your home and have a comfy place in which to live out its days, without going through the fuss and bother of probate.

(Thanks to my son for pointing me to the story about Dalrymple and Pinn.)

Technorati tag: