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

I think I can sum up here. Relation****ps are only part choice..when you
fall
in love, thankfully, it's a matter of the heart, not the head. I can't
comment on your "contingent" who say things are wrong, or who predict
failure, besides I've said what my feelings are on all that already. If
those in any partner****p are both happy, then it's right, never wrong.
Whatever. If either partner is unhappy, it's never right, it's wrong.

You seem to have some idea that homo***uality is contagious. No, it isn't.
You are what you are. You are born either hetero***ual, homo***ual, or
bi***ual. You can't change that anymore than you can change which side of
the planet the Sun rises on. Oh sure, you can PRETEND to be something
else,
that's quite another matter. And you can drive yourself nuts doing so.  If
it really were that easy to switch from one to the other, I'm sure the
thousands who have been persecuted over the centuries for being gay would
have gone to find a cure.

Yes, I am still madly "in love" with my husband, and I do tell people, for
example I'm telling you now. I happen to believe that falling in love is a
unique thing, that we are lacking in words to describe, and that is so far
above and beyond any other relation****p that we have, that it cannot be
compared. It is transcendant.


Infidelity is what it is, and has nothing to do with the subject at hand
actually.

-- 

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:oU9Db.3475$mC1.2410@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Melanie" <chovhani@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:o04Db.2017$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. :-)
>
>