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

Gene Douglas wrote:

> "Marvin Edwards" <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:76DCb.324$im.254@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
>>"Gene Douglas" <genedoug@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>news:uBuCb.5412$YQ6.745@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>>>So once the aversions are learned, and a person is 20 years old, that's
>>
>>where you begin. And if a gay has as much aversion to *** with a woman
as
> 
> I
> 
>>would have to *** with a man, you would be condemning him to a life of
>>misery by telling him how you insist he must live his life. <
>>
>>I'm not suggesting that anyone be "condemned" to anything other than to
> 
> make
> 
>>the choice they personally feel will best serve their own happiness in
> 
> this
> 
>>matter. As you know, gay men and women are free to live in committed
>>relation****ps today and do so.
> 
> 
> As we also know, they are deprived of rights accorded to married people.
And
> a civil union doesn't allow them to use the word, "married," which seems
> im****tant to many, and costs me absolutely nothing not to interfere in
how
> somebody else lives his/her life.
> 
>>As to the aversion, I believe that comes from social conditioning. How
> 
> else
> 
>>do you explain an aversion to gentle ***ual stimulation, something that
is
>>innately pleasurable? It is occurring only in the mind, no where else.
>>
> 
> But what difference would your belief make?  At any rate, it is present,
and
> that is what matters at the moment.  I think that many people who argue
that
> anybody can learn to be ***ually stimulated by anybody, are somewhate
> bi***ual themselves, and falsly assume that everybody else is the same.
> 
> 
>>>Where lesbians are concerned, somebody has already posted that a woman
>>
>>might marry a repulsive man for money, and manage the act, while failing
> 
> to
> 
>>otherwise participate fully. <
>>
>>I would not recommend a relation****p in which one could not enjoy ***. I
> 
> am
> 
>>asserting that, except for the aversion, enjoyable *** may be had with
>>nearly anyone, and that all that prevents enjoyment is attitude, and
that
>>attitude is socially conditioned.
>>
> 
> If we consider the example of the woman who marries a repulsive man for
> money, we agree that is not something we would require of anybody.  So
if a
> lesbian marries a man because somebody whose own business does not
intersect
> with hers, requires her to do so anyway, she is in the same
cir***stance.
> Where you may say that the lesbian could simply change her attitude and
she
> would enjoy *** with her required mate, there is little difference
between
> that and the 20 year old who marries a 70 year old fat man, learning to
like
> it by changing her attitude.  Tolerate, yes, she's already decided she
would
> do that, but she is likely to continue seeing him as ***ually
unappealing.
> 
> 
>>>...  And even if Bishop Robinson was somewhat bi***ual ... <
>>
>>Occam's razor should remove bi***uality from the mix. We do not need
three
>>***ual orientations. One is either especially attracted to men or
> 
> especially
> 
>>attracted to women. Despite the special attraction, all of us are able
to
>>form close friend****ps with people of either ***, and all of us are able
> 
> to
> 
>>enjoy ***ual stimulation, even alone in a room by ourselves.
>>
> 
> You are engaging in a false logic.  ***uality falls along a continuum.
> Robinson was apparently somewhere away from the extremes.  Though he may
> have been left of center of the continuum, at 20 he could muster up
arousal
> at the drop of a hat, though he probably had other preferences in mind.
> Even then, he should have been free to make his real choices.
> 
> I don't know anything about his real life, but I suppose he married for
> social acceptability, maybe a Christian belief at the time, and even
> affection for the woman as a person.  (More like one's affection for a
> relative, perhaps.)

His marriage was before Gay men could be ordained.  Perhaps the marriage 
was largely a cover so he could pursue his calling and pastor a 
congregation.  Maybe he thought he could handle it.  Maybe, later in 
life, he felt dissatisfied and sought that which he had been missing, a 
male life partner.


-- 
~)<  Love & Peace  Ed B.


"The consecration of Gene Robinson as bishop of the New Hamp****re 
Diocese of the Episcopal Church is an affront to Christians everywhere. 
I am just thankful that the church's founder, Henry VIII, and his wife 
Catherine of Aragon, and his wife Anne Boleyn, and his wife Jane 
Seymour, and his wife Anne of Cleves, and his wife Katherine Howard, and 
his wife Catherine Parr are no longer here to suffer through this 
assault on traditional Christian marriage." 	-Paul Emmons West Chester 
University