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

"Marvin Edwards" <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:GlKCb.71$ei4.37@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Gene Douglas" <genedoug@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:nBJCb.40422$k75.7219@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > When you presume to judge, or favor allowing legislation to interfere,
> then you interfere. <
>
> And what is this imaginary legislation that you are saying I favor? I'm
> getting tired of drawing these false accusations to your attention.

As usual, you have snipped the relevant material, and I'm not going to
research a whole thread to retrieve it.  However, I'm glad you are on
record
as saying you don't favor any legislation that would interfere with gay
marriages.  Even though you referred to your vote sometime earlier.
>
> > ... The kids will be whatever they will be. <
>
> Oh? Then why did Bishop Robinson marry a woman? Wasn't it because of the
> expectations of the culture in which he was raised?
>
It would appear he was pressured to do so, and found unhappiness when he
did.  Are you saying that kids raised by gays would marry gay because of
some kind of pressure?  How would that work?

> > 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. <
>
> Yet another false accusation! Knock it off, Gene. The orientation of the
> parents is not at issue here. Gay parents are no different from strait
> parents in conveying the expectations of the wider culture to their
> children. The issue is what the expectations of the wider culture will
be.
> That is what law effects.
>
What law do you refer to?  And is it a law you favor?

> > Does one "choose" to love someone, or is that a result, rather than a
> cause? <
>
> The only correct answer to that is "Yes". Both are true. Which comes
first
> will likely vary from love to love.
>
> > If I love a kitten, am I ***ually attracted to the kitten? ... <
>
> Okay, I'm bailing at that one.
>
Good.  An attempt to answer it would either make a muddle, or would find
you
disagreeing with your past comments.