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

"Marvin Edwards" <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:oU9Db.3475$mC1.2410@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Melanie" <chovhani@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:o04Db.2017$Ve.294633@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
(...)

> > Normal mating? You make it sound like livestock. <
>
> Nope, not me. Mating is often passionate, even among the other animals.

Though "normal" is generally from behind.
>
> > 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.

Then... it's normal to bonk goats?
>
> >... 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.

(Except that it should be discouraged, as in preventing the word
"marriage"
from being allowed in any civil union law.)
>
> > 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.

If he does, that's his choice, not for me or you to determine.  So there
is
no problem.  No law interferes with his rights, for example of
inheritance,
to be included on a health insurance policy, and so on.  And if some want
to
argue that it will or won't succeed, it isn't the business of  "some."
>
> > ... 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.

I think being open minded has nothing to do with arousal.  Perhaps a
couple
of teenagers want to substitute it for masturbation, without actual
attraction, but that doesn't make them gay.  However, I believe 99% of het
teens would still be more inhibited than that.

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")

That would be his choice.  However, I'm sure if he is het, he would not
regard that kind of *** as an affectionate act.  And if he does, he isn't
het.  He would still look at the girls and wish he had one.  And as he
gets
older, using any old object as a substitute for masturbation would not
suffice.
>
> > 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]

Actually, this is a part of the mechanism, determined by evolution to have
a
survival value.  PET scans can determine that, when a person is shown a
picture of a person they are in love with, four areas of the brain "light
up."  When they are shown a picture of a ***ually attractive person, fewer
areas light up (I forget the number.)  When they are shown a picture of
somebody they love, such as a relative, fewer areas light up.

In other words, it's built in, and results in millions of marriages every
year.
>
> 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. :-)

The hormones are there, all the same.  It's just the way we are
constructed.
>
>