On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Arlo Bensinger <[email protected]> wrote:
[Arlo] > Generally, I find having to "prove" to someone that I am "in love" enough > to get married problematic. Heck I can see why Arlo, I remember it was like pulling hen's teeth to get you to aknowledge the simply self-evident love of a dog. And you never did, that I can remember. But never mind. I like your friend's driver's license analogy about child-birthing. And that article Platt posted about the consciousness of infants being far more sophisticated than science realized just reinforces the importance and concern about child rearing. State licensing brings up a whole lot of issues tho. However I can legally enter into a partnership with just about anybody I choose, and it makes sense that this is a socially regulated and affirmed point of business for governmental oversight. So it doesn't make sense that the state should deny my right to enter into some life-long partnership with anybody I want. My cousin, my sister, my dad, my dog. If I want to form a contractual civic union I should be able to do so. But procreation is another thing. Breeding children with my sister or ma would be a mistake that society rightfully condemns and outlaws. So it's the procreation part that is a problem. Society used to regulate breeding through marriage. That's been out the window since the late 70's I guess, and people argue about weddings and label. The important part gets completely ignored. But, overall, I agree. Glad to have you aboard, Lu. > > yeah. ditto that for me. gav got his wish - more wimmens. ------------ The self is a point along a dynamic continuum, evolving toward Quality by Choice. ------------ Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
