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

Marvin Edwards wrote:

> "Gene Douglas" <genedoug@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:qbFCb.40340$ro4.28794@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 
>>As we also know, they are deprived of rights accorded to married people.
<
> 
> 
> But none which they cannot obtain if they wish. A "living will", for
> example, is better security as to how you will be treated in a hospital
than
> marriage. Recent cases have parents fighting husbands in court over
ending
> life sup****t. Health insurance is a commercial product that is available
to
> everyone, whether married or not, and you are likely to pay extra to
include
> your spouse in your employer's plan these days anyway. A simple will
solves
> the problem of dying intestate. Etc.

A marriage license gives mixed *** couples over 1500 different 
privileges not allowed for single people or same *** couples.  Yes, we 
can draw up 1500 different do***ents and obtain those privileges.  Yes, 
when they are contested we can go to court.  We may win.  We may not. 
It depends on how homophobic the judge is.  And even if we win it may be 
too late.  What if we want ot visit our critically ill partner and the 
doctor will not allow it because we are not a spouse or a blood 
relative?  We go to court, we finally win.  But our partner has already 
died.  Who do we visit?

We have been down this road before.  You continue to say what COULD be, 
what SHOULD be.  it is not that way Marvin.

WAKE UP AND FACE REALITY!!!

And drawing up those 1500 do***ents to get what we should be able to 
have with a simple marriage license you somehow think makes us equal and 
evens up the playing field.  Right!


>>And a civil union doesn't allow them to use the word, "married," ... <
> 
> 
> Don't be silly, you can use any word you like. If you wish to call the
> relation****p "marriage" then by all means do so.

Haven't you already said that that shouldn't be allowed?

>>... which seems im****tant to many, and costs me absolutely nothing not
to
> 
> interfere in how somebody else lives his/her life. <
> 
> But now you're inventing interference which doesn't exist.

Again Marvin, you are not facing reality.  There is all kinds of 
interference.

> ME:  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? <
> 
> 
> Are you kidding? They are the only thing preventing you from having a
really
> good ***ual experience with another man. Aren't they?

And that is the real problem.  You have never been able to come to terms 
with your own ***uality.  Get help Marvin.


> But if they are also
> making it impossible for you even to imagine the experience then you've
> proved my point.
> 
> 
>>At any rate, it is present, and that is what matters at the moment. <
> 
> 
> Indeed. But the moment is swiftly changing. Children brought up under a
> different set of social expectations will not have your hangups. You'll
need
> to imagine how the world will appear through their eyes. Especially if
we
> tell them it really doesn't matter at all whether they marry a boy or a
> girl. You are hoping they will feel what you feel. But they won't.

But you want to continue the old taboos.  You have said as much.  You 
have stated previously that children SHOULD NOT be allowed to see same 
*** couples as equal to mixed *** couples.


> 
>>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. <
> 
> Very easy to dismiss that way, isn't it. But it would not be unusal for
> someone, raised believing that homo***ual behavior is evil, to refuse to
> objectively observe such feelings in himself. It would harm his
self-image.
> Right?
> 
> 
>>... you may say that the lesbian could simply change her attitude and
she
> 
> would enjoy *** with her required mate, ... <
> 
> She would not marry someone she does not love.

Say what?  Why wouldn't she?  Many women (and men too) marry someone 
they do not love for many, many reasons.

> Therefore, we may assume she
> has no attitude problem to begin with. Whether she is ***ually attracted
to
> the man is irrlevant. Whether she is ***ually attracted to other men or
to
> other women is also irrelevant. Having chosen to love the man, and
> committing to love him through marriage, and assuming that he has ***ual
> needs just as she does, then she will satisfy his needs. And I submit
that
> if he also loves her then he will satisfy her needs. On the other hand,
> neither one may satisfy the other's every desire to the utmost extent.
But
> that is true of all relation****ps.
> 
> 

-- 
~)<  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