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

"Marvin Edwards" <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:fyICb.628$mC1.66@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Gene Douglas" <genedoug@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:qbFCb.40340$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.

This is a rather polyanna description that oversimplifies the reality.
>
> > 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.

When you presume to judge, or favor allowing legislation to interfere,
then
you interfere.
>
> 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.

Not in the least.  You are simply firm in your assumed premise.  And
following the premise is the principle of GIGO.
>
> > 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.

Then if they won't, it's no particular problem.  The kids will be whatever
they will be.  I would think that there have now been so many kids raised
by
gays that it would be a simple matter to survey how many of those kids
turned out to be gay.  I suspect it has already been done.
>
> > 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.

Irrelevant to you maybe, but not to her.

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.

Does one "choose" to love someone, or is that a result, rather than a
cause?
If I love a kitten, am I ***ually attracted to the kitten?  When I seek
out
a ***ual object, I seek an object of a far different description.

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.
>
There is always the foolish guy, attracted to a pretty lesbian, who thinks
that if he shows her what a real man can do for her, he can turn her head
forever.  And who are you or I to say that if a relation****p isn't
completely satisfying, a person should accept it anyway?  If they have a
better idea in mind, they are (and should be) free to seek that better
idea
if they wish.