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

Below

-- 

Melanie
"There are only four questions of value in life....What is sacred, of what
is the spirit made, what is worth living for, and what is worth dying? The
answer to each is the same....only love."





"Marvin Edwards" <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:EW0Db.450$Bg5.251@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Melanie" <chovhani@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:Ub0Db.919$Ve.171516@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > If it's beyond their control, yes. But "good" IS a judgement. <
>
> Yes. It is a matter of moral judgement. But so is the suggestion that
moral
> judgements are to be avoided. That too is a judgement. :-)

No. Not a matter of moral judgement. A value judgement.


>
> > With the world's population as it is we should be grateful that not
> everyone raises a family. <
>
> Amen. But I believe the U. S. and other industrialized nations no longer
> have population problems, and are actually a little behind in
replacement
> births. I think it was attributed to equal op****tunities for women. Our
> population increase is due instead to immigration.
>

And with the availability of excellent immigrants there's no need to
increase the North American birth rate for any reason. (Note: I'm an
immigrant. Bias possible)

>
> >  ... it would be equally tragic if if a homo***ual ends up believing
they
> are hetero***ual, when in fact they are not.  because either way they
are
> not enjoying knowing their authentic self, and that is the saddest thing
I
> can think of. <
>
> I agree that self-knowledge is very im****tant. But I don't agree that
the
> only correct response to a homo***ual orientation is to abstain from
normal
> mating. A person seeks to form a normal family for the satisfactions it
> brings to life. It brings companion****p, love, children, and
grandchildren,
> etc. I believe it is possible for a homo***ual to love someone of the
> opposite ***, even if they do not "fall in love" with them. And I
believe
> that love, rather than "falling in love", is the true basis for any long
> term relation****p.
>

Normal mating? You make it sound like livestock. I can show you some very
abnormal mating among sheep if you're interested. It's not just gender
issues they're relaxed on, it's species. They bonk goats quite freely.

It's not a question of abstaining - you don't "abstain" from something you
never sought in the first place. I thought the objective was long-term
relation****ps, not Sam nipping next door to shag Sally while Steven is
working late. The "correct" response to a homo***ual relation****p is
whatever the homo***ual decides it is, not what you, me, or anyone else
decides. A person who seeks to form a "normal" family (what's one of
those?)
for love, children, and grandchildren is free to do so. A person who seeks
to form any family arrangement, for whatever reason, should be free to do
so. Of course it is possible for a homo***ual to love someone of the
opposite ***, that doesn't mean he wants to marry her and raise a family
with her, any more than for a hetero***ual who loves his gay friends to
want
to form a long term relation****p with them. Falling in love is different
to
love (our language is lacking). We love cars, puppies, ice cream and
sunsets, but we don't marry any of them. I love all my friends dearly, but
I
married the one I fell in love with, which was quite a different matter.

> > Therefore what is of paramount im****tantce is the freedom for everyone
to
> know who they are without repression or being told they are deluded. <
>
> We both agree that there should be no delusions. There should be
> self-knowledge. There should be informed choices. The commitment to love
> someone should be a conscious decision, each person knowing the other,
and
> not a matter where they are swept up in an ocean of hormones, with tides
> that rise and fall, and often break on foreign shores.
>
>

Foreign shores?