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

"Marvin Edwards" <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:76DCb.324$im.254@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Gene Douglas" <genedoug@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:uBuCb.5412$YQ6.745@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > So once the aversions are learned, and a person is 20 years old,
that's
> where you begin. And if a gay has as much aversion to *** with a woman
as
I
> would have to *** with a man, you would be condemning him to a life of
> misery by telling him how you insist he must live his life. <
>
> I'm not suggesting that anyone be "condemned" to anything other than to
make
> the choice they personally feel will best serve their own happiness in
this
> matter. As you know, gay men and women are free to live in committed
> relation****ps today and do so.

As we also know, they are deprived of rights accorded to married people.
And
a civil union doesn't allow them to use the word, "married," which seems
im****tant to many, and costs me absolutely nothing not to interfere in how
somebody else lives his/her life.
>
> As to the aversion, I believe that comes from social conditioning. How
else
> do you explain an aversion to gentle ***ual stimulation, something that
is
> innately pleasurable? It is occurring only in the mind, no where else.
>
But what difference would your belief make?  At any rate, it is present,
and
that is what matters at the moment.  I think that many people who argue
that
anybody can learn to be ***ually stimulated by anybody, are somewhate
bi***ual themselves, and falsly assume that everybody else is the same.

> > Where lesbians are concerned, somebody has already posted that a woman
> might marry a repulsive man for money, and manage the act, while failing
to
> otherwise participate fully. <
>
> I would not recommend a relation****p in which one could not enjoy ***. I
am
> asserting that, except for the aversion, enjoyable *** may be had with
> nearly anyone, and that all that prevents enjoyment is attitude, and
that
> attitude is socially conditioned.
>
If we consider the example of the woman who marries a repulsive man for
money, we agree that is not something we would require of anybody.  So if
a
lesbian marries a man because somebody whose own business does not
intersect
with hers, requires her to do so anyway, she is in the same cir***stance.
Where you may say that the lesbian could simply change her attitude and
she
would enjoy *** with her required mate, there is little difference between
that and the 20 year old who marries a 70 year old fat man, learning to
like
it by changing her attitude.  Tolerate, yes, she's already decided she
would
do that, but she is likely to continue seeing him as ***ually unappealing.

> > ...  And even if Bishop Robinson was somewhat bi***ual ... <
>
> Occam's razor should remove bi***uality from the mix. We do not need
three
> ***ual orientations. One is either especially attracted to men or
especially
> attracted to women. Despite the special attraction, all of us are able
to
> form close friend****ps with people of either ***, and all of us are able
to
> enjoy ***ual stimulation, even alone in a room by ourselves.
>
You are engaging in a false logic.  ***uality falls along a continuum.
Robinson was apparently somewhere away from the extremes.  Though he may
have been left of center of the continuum, at 20 he could muster up
arousal
at the drop of a hat, though he probably had other preferences in mind.
Even then, he should have been free to make his real choices.

I don't know anything about his real life, but I suppose he married for
social acceptability, maybe a Christian belief at the time, and even
affection for the woman as a person.  (More like one's affection for a
relative, perhaps.)