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

"Marvin Edwards" <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:7B5Eb.3171$Ts5.2804@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Ed B." <lavdad2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:1071693898.86842@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > 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. <
>
> The privileges based upon mating would not be included in a domestic
> partner****p. The one privilege that comes to mind is the ability to
annul
a
> marriage that is not consumated. But every other privilege, which I
presume
> are derived from the social and economic interdependency of the
partners,
> would apply to a domestic partner****p.
>
> > Yes, when they are contested we can go to court.  We may win.  We may
not.
> It depends on how homophobic the judge is. <
>
> The Supreme Court does not appear to be very homophobic. And any ruling
by
a
> lower court that is based in prejudice is likely to be overturned on
appeal.
> All of the laws forbidding two men or two women from making love as they
see
> fit are now gone. [brief pause for the "Hallelujah!s" and "Amen!s" to
die
> down]
>
> > 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? <
>
> I cannot imagine any hospital so backward and so ignorant as to prohibit
you
> from visiting your partner today.
>
> > 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!!!
<
>
> Did you not hear of the Supreme Court ruling? Have you never heard of
Will
> and Grace? or Willow and Tara? or any of the other mainstream media
programs
> which have either focused on or included individual programs involving
gay
> men and women? We are talking a different reality today than the world
in
> which you and I grew up, Ed.
>
> ME:  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? <
>
> What, I shouldn't allow you to call your relation****p "marriage"? If
that
is
> your subjective reality then I defend your privilege to embrace it. It's
> when you insist that I embrace your subjective reality that I think
you're
> being intrusive.
>
> ME to Gene:  Are you kidding? They are the only thing preventing you
from
> having a really good ***ual experience with another man. Aren't they?

As usual, you've deleted so much I don't know what the hell you're talking
about.
>
> > And that is the real problem.  You have never been able to come to
terms
> with your own ***uality.  Get help Marvin. <
>
> I think Gene is the only one of the three of us that is out of touch
with
> reality, Ed. I have a little more self-knowledge, that's all. I know
that
> Mrs Peel turns me on rather than Steed (just started getting the old
> "Avengers" TV programs on DVD). But I also know that, aside from the
belief
> that I "ought not", I could probably enjoy receiving oral stimulation
from
> anyone. The fact that for Gene this is beyond his imagination is what I
find
> a bit naive.

That just means you are bi***ual and can't admit it to yourself, and you
automatically assume that everybody is like yourself.
>
>  > 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 believe children must understand that same *** coupling is for persons
> with a homo***ual orientation. It is not how people normally mate. This
is
> not a taboo based in prejudice or superstition. It is an objective,
> biological, naturalistic view of mating.

You've never defined mating, as you are using it.  So I assume you tell
your
kids that same *** copulation is for homo***uals, and they may grow up to
be
one, or the other, but if they grow up to be homo***uals, then so be it.
>
> Gene: >... you may say that the lesbian could simply change her attitude
and
> she would enjoy *** with her required mate, ... <
>
> ME:  She would not marry someone she does not love.

That's a cop out.  You have specified that it is better (in your personal
judgment) that she marry a male.  How do you know that she could love a
male, in any way different than she would love her brother?  Suppose she
could not?  Would you require that she marry somebody she loves like a
brother, to satisfy Marvin Edwards' sense of propriety?
>
> > Say what?  Why wouldn't she?  Many women (and men too) marry someone
they
> do not love for many, many reasons. <
>
> That's not my point. My point is that a lesbian may in fact love a man.
This
> may come from respect and admiration. Or by his giving her emotional or
> spiritual sup****t. And she may choose, for those reasons, to marry him
and
> have his children -- even though she continues to find other women
> attractive.

If that is her personal choice, then there is no problem.  But if that
choice results from pressure and fear of community scorn, that is another
matter.  And your insistence that they be treated differently contributes
to
that pressure.
>
>
>