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

"Gene Douglas" <genedoug@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:qbFCb.40340$ro4.28794@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> As we also know, they are deprived of rights accorded to married people.
<

But none which they cannot obtain if they wish. A "living will", for
example, is better security as to how you will be treated in a hospital
than
marriage. Recent cases have parents fighting husbands in court over ending
life sup****t. Health insurance is a commercial product that is available
to
everyone, whether married or not, and you are likely to pay extra to
include
your spouse in your employer's plan these days anyway. A simple will
solves
the problem of dying intestate. Etc.

> And a civil union doesn't allow them to use the word, "married," ... <

Don't be silly, you can use any word you like. If you wish to call the
relation****p "marriage" then by all means do so.

>... which seems im****tant to many, and costs me absolutely nothing not to
interfere in how somebody else lives his/her life. <

But now you're inventing interference which doesn't exist.

ME:  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? <

Are you kidding? They are the only thing preventing you from having a
really
good ***ual experience with another man. Aren't they? But if they are also
making it impossible for you even to imagine the experience then you've
proved my point.

> At any rate, it is present, and that is what matters at the moment. <

Indeed. But the moment is swiftly changing. Children brought up under a
different set of social expectations will not have your hangups. You'll
need
to imagine how the world will appear through their eyes. Especially if we
tell them it really doesn't matter at all whether they marry a boy or a
girl. You are hoping they will feel what you feel. But they won't.

> 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. <

Very easy to dismiss that way, isn't it. But it would not be unusal for
someone, raised believing that homo***ual behavior is evil, to refuse to
objectively observe such feelings in himself. It would harm his
self-image.
Right?

> ... you may say that the lesbian could simply change her attitude and
she
would enjoy *** with her required mate, ... <

She would not marry someone she does not love. Therefore, we may assume
she
has no attitude problem to begin with. Whether she is ***ually attracted
to
the man is irrlevant. Whether she is ***ually attracted to other men or to
other women is also irrelevant. Having chosen to love the man, and
committing to love him through marriage, and assuming that he has ***ual
needs just as she does, then she will satisfy his needs. And I submit that
if he also loves her then he will satisfy her needs. On the other hand,
neither one may satisfy the other's every desire to the utmost extent. But
that is true of all relation****ps.