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

"Melanie" <chovhani@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:o04Db.2017$Ve.294633@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> No. Not a matter of moral judgement. A value judgement. <

Well, this is really a topic for another thread. A moral judgement is a
value judgement. Something is "good" if it meets a real need that we have
as
individuals, society, or species. We value what is good and we value those
principles which are most likely to benefit rather than harm.
Values/Principles/Rules/Rights are all made of the same semantic stuff,
just
molded a little differently. For example: 1) We value Truth, because it
enables us to deal more effectively with reality, which enables us to
better
meet our real needs, which is to say, to achieve good. Therefore Truth is
good, something to be valued. 2) As a short statement of principle, we say
"Always tell the truth". 3) As a rule we say "Do not lie". 4) By saying
"do
not lie", we define a right of a person not to be lied to.  But, like I
said, this really belongs in a different thread.

> 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) <

Okey-dokey.

> Normal mating? You make it sound like livestock. <

Nope, not me. Mating is often passionate, even among the other animals.

> 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. <

That's okay, I'll pass.

>... The "correct" response to a homo***ual relation****p ... <

Whoa! I was discussing the response to one's own ***ual orientation, prior
to choosing a relation****p. Once the relation****p is chosen, it is a
resolved matter, no longer open to discussion.

>  ... 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. <

Absolutely. No argument there.

> 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
...
<

Then he shouldn't. But what if he does want to marry her and raise a
family
with her? Is this wrong? There is a contingent which will argue that it is
wrong, that it can never succeed, that it is doomed to failure, etc.

> ... any more than for a hetero***ual who loves his gay friends to want
to
form a long term relation****p with them. ... <

But if they are friends, then they already have a long term relation****p.
Suppose the hetero***ual is open minded, and decides to have *** with his
gay friend. Suppose he enjoys it? Suppose he gets a better blow job than
he
ever got from his wife. And instead of cuddling, he gets to drink beer and
watch football afterwards? Why would he choose to live with a woman, when
he
can get great *** and actually carry on a conversation with someone from
the
same planet! ("Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus")

> 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. <

And I suppose you tell everyone that you are still "in love" with him.
[Just
trying to provoke an honest appraisal here, not to break up your marriage]

ME: ...  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? <

Infidelity. Perhaps my poetic liscense should be revoked. :-)