To Marry You Need A Mary and a Barry

To Marry You Need A Mary and a Barry

Edmonton - Wednesday, July 17, 2002 - by: Ron Thornton

This week the appointed justices from an Ontario inferior court moved to redefine marriage and force institutions to sanctify homosexual matrimony. Yet, no matter how one wishes to change the facts, marriage has always meant the union of a man and a woman in order to provide a stable environment for the procreation of our species. Of course, in our free society some do not fulfill this obligation, but at least they have the necessary corresponding equipment to give it the old college try should they be so inclined.

Some point to the animal kingdom to justify the acceptance of homosexuality as a natural occurrence. Trouble is, there is no corresponding examples that parallel the human same sex bonding experience. What we find instead are creatures simply using whatever methods that are at hand, or at paw or at hoof, to gain relief. I could be wrong, but I don't really think what is essentially a form of masturbation actually constitutes a relationship.

Humans, on the other hand, appear to be different. We do form emotional bonds that are deeper than the purely physical or procreating aspects of a relationship. As homosexuality is no longer deemed illegal behaviour, it would seem proper to make available to committed gay couples the benefits of a contractual union. Yet, despite any empathy, tolerance, or acceptance we may have toward them, it does not alter the fact that for homosexuals to enjoy their right to marry they still require a partner of the opposite sex. Then again, we can just alter the definition. Remember, once the term "gay caballero" was just the description of a happy cowboy.

Ron Thornton



To Marry You Need A Mary and a Barry

Edmonton - Wednesday, July 17, 2002 - by: Ron Thornton
	This week the appointed justices from an Ontario inferior court moved to redefine marriage and force institutions to sanctify homosexual matrimony. Yet, no matter how one wishes to change the facts, marriage has always meant the union of a man and a woman in order to provide a stable environment for the procreation of our species. Of course, in our free society some do not fulfill this obligation, but at least they have the necessary corresponding equipment to give it the old college try should they be so inclined.

	Some point to the animal kingdom to justify the acceptance of homosexuality as a natural occurrence. Trouble is, there is no corresponding examples that parallel the human same sex bonding experience. What we find instead are creatures simply using whatever methods that are at hand, or at paw or at hoof, to gain relief. I could be wrong, but I don't really think what is essentially a form of masturbation actually constitutes a relationship.

	Humans, on the other hand, appear to be different. We do form emotional bonds that are deeper than the purely physical or procreating aspects of a relationship. As homosexuality is no longer deemed illegal behaviour, it would seem proper to make available to committed gay couples the benefits of a contractual union. Yet, despite any empathy, tolerance, or acceptance we may have toward them, it does not alter the fact that for homosexuals to enjoy their right to marry they still require a partner of the opposite sex. Then again, we can just alter the definition. Remember, once the term "gay caballero" was just the description of a happy cowboy.

	Ron Thornton