Welcome to Gaia! :: Forum :: Posts By User

They are sixth graders. confused

I'd question any authority that said Federally Controlled means Federally Representing i.e. Heralding.

Maybe not.

I still think it comes down to equality, I still think it comes down to letting people partake in one of the high points of their human existence.

There are few good reasons to deny it. Maybe none.

They have to.

We could have never so much have discovered the wheel, but we'd still have food, drink, rest, clothing, and union. (Amongst other things).

It's more than the denial of a title. It can bring about great evils too. I'm reading, now, about a Lesbian couple that could not get In Vitro, and the mental trauma this wrought. This, as an aside.

But you do realize, for every day it isn't protected federally, that's one more opportunity for a strike against it.

And what's more, we're making excuses by saying "Well if it's about love, it's about love!" That's true but as the same time, if it's real, the government would see that too.

A good theoretical example.

Someone I know advocates quite strongly for the cessation of the United States and the formation of fifty small countries (or around... eight country clusters?) Why? I don't know, he listed off a number of reasons and made a relatively strong argument.

My response? Familiarity. We've only come to know fifty states, in our life times. As have our fellow global citizens. How strong these small city-states would be... I couldn't tell you but as an argument for the United States, it's just a matter of tradition and... familiarity. Familiarity of a single culture. It is something sweet, if you will. Something we know, the only thing we know, and the elimination of that is frightening for most.

In turn... we'll hammer out the kinks of what we have. We work with what we know. So, I'm not denying that there are new ways that are better! I'm just saying it'd be too much of a struggle to promote other things.

But it's something that can be rather backwards, too.

It doesn't matter. And, in the same way, I'm not adverse to them, like they hate us, or like they hate gays, or whatever.

But whether or not they are against gays or marriage isn't the point. It's not about what you're "For" or what you "Want", it's more about, "What will happen with what you want."

Denying gays marriage, as I've said, is denying them the pinnacle of partnership. THE end, THE goal, THE thing to work for is a committed pairing. The State, through the act of marriage, recognizes this and shows it to the entire public. It's a legal Wedding Ring, if you will.

You might be wondering how this strengthens my argument. It's quite simple, corny, yet simple: what is life without love? I'm dead serious on that one. You have a species of organisms mulling around and getting into all sorts of problems because they are lonely, because they all long for someone. You have entire epics devoted to relationships, entire empires and cities built for loved ones... you have a foundation of the human experience. You have a component, a factor, a piece to almost every major religion and philosophy and lifestyle... and you want to shut out its most ultimate manifestation to an entire group of people.

That's simply not right. This isn't just denying some gays, marriage. This is denying some people something incredible, something that... I don't know. I don't even think I have words to describe it.

Familiarity is functional for good gov't. As an FYI.

Employers pay women less than men for past century.

Details at 9.

EDIT:

¿Qué?

I knew three things coming out of Kinner-narnen:
1. God is good.
2. Round pegs fit into round holes.
3. Taxes are bad.

Erasmus, I'm not quite so sure you understand what you're saying.

Would you deny a rising genius his change at Princeton because, "institutionalized education obfuscates his own personal studies"?

It's just as illogical: In the above example, Education and the conferment of Professional Degrees is THE capstone of knowledge acquisition.

Similarly, what's the capstone of one's sexuality? Monogamous union. If anything, you're belittling homo/bisexuality to something that just about these trite, trivial sexual unions.