Re: same *** marriage petition (Canada) .

"Marvin Edwards" <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:68iCb.299$5B.103@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I can sup****t "domestic partner****p" legislation, which gives similar
rights
> and responsibilities to any two people who have committed to sharing a
home
> and mutual sup****t, but I do not agree with the redefinition of
marriage.
> Marriage is the ethical structure that society imposes upon mating.
Marriage
> is as it is because mating is as it is. Mating remains objectively a
matter
> of male and female. This is true regardless of ***ual orientation.

Marriage is just a word.  If a civil union is given the same legal rights
as
a marriage, then the only thing lacking is the word.  Why should it be my
business if somebody else, probably not even known to me, uses the word
"marriage?"  Isn't my inserting myself into their business what we call
"meddling?"
>
> ***ual orientation normally serves mating. But there is a naturally
occuring
> anomaly that causes some people's orientation to be to the same rather
than
> the opposite ***. For them, it may feel more natural to "mate" with
someone
> of the same ***.
>
> Some will argue that a person with a homo***ual orientation should seek
> exclusively same-*** ***ual relation****ps. Others will argue that a
person
> should not be misguided by the desire, but rather seek a "normal"
marriage
> relation****p. Valid ethical arguments may be made for both choices. And
both
> may be argued from a position of love and care.
>
> Ultimately, however, the choice is personal and the individual's right
to
> make this choice for himself or herself must be respected.
>
> I believe we need to keep in mind that hetero***uality does not prevent
a
> homo***ual relation****p any more than homo***uality prevents a
hetero***ual
> relation****p.

Except that either makes the other very, very undesirable.

Bishop Gene Robinson is only one of many gay men who have
> married someone of the opposite *** and had children of his own. A
person's
> primary orientation does not usually bar ***ual pleasure from simple
> stimulation. In the same way that Bishop Robinson was influenced to
marry
> against his natural orientation, it is also possible for someone with a
> hetero***ual orientation to be influenced into a homo***ual
relation****p.
> What has prevented this from occuring more often is the cultural taboo,
> which is disappearing day by day.

It's also possible to go for days without eating.  But what does possible
have to do with a condition being desirable?  And because something is
possible, why should I force another person to do it?

If a tabu exists, where does it come from?  Is that a reason it should be
perpetuated?  (In examining that, also compare the 19th century with the
18th, the 18th with the 17th, and so on back to the first and beyond.)
>
> The taboo needs to be replaced with a realistic understanding of ***ual
> orientation. I feel that calling a committed same-*** relation****p
> "marriage" lies just to the left of truth and objective reality. Because
it
> is not really true, I am uncomfortable embracing it. On the other hand,
I
> can accept that others may embrace it as their truth, and I can still
> embrace them.

What does "not really true" mean?  Why do I need to embrace it?  All I
need
is to do is tend to my own business, and let gay couples tend to theirs.

P.S.:  Could you use a few hundred American signatures?
>
>
> "David Dalton" <dalton@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:brb764$30l$9@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Here's a note I got from a friend (and then I signed it).
> > Feel free to pass it on.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Check this petition out and sign it!
> >
> > I have just read and signed the online petition:
> >
> >    "Equal Marriage for Same-*** Couples in Canada"
> >
> > hosted on the web by PetitionOnline.com, the free online petition
> > service, at:
> >
> >    http://www.PetitionOnline.com/same***/
> >
> > Help make same *** marriages legal across Canada.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------
> >
> > David
>
>