A couple months ago I was reading about a letter George Washington had written while visiting Paris. I can’t remember who the letter was to, or exactly what year, or where I even found the article about the letter; but the main point is that it told me something about the development of our culture. I can’t remember if it was the main subject of the letter, but the most interesting thing about it was that Washington was talking at length about the apples in France and how they compared to the apples in America. He included details about the taste and texture, etc., and concluded that he preferred the apples of America.

I think this is really great and fascinating, because you can really see the difference between the structure and pace of life between that time in history and now. President Obama probably hardly has the time to get enough sleep and join his family for dinner when he can, let alone have a detailed interest in food and time to write a letter discussing the finer points of something like apples (which a lot of people these days probably don’t have a chance to think about beyond the categories of red and green).

Washington actually had the time to experience and enjoy food, and was able to become familiar with the finer differences and tastes. His taking time writing a letter to some one (and I believe, if I remember correctly, he was president at the time the letter was written) comparing French and American APPLES shows how much more time people had in the past and how much more full their lives were. Washington was writing about something the way we would expect a foodie or professional chef or produce expert to write these days, not a politician. But Washington was able to participate in both areas of interest.

Sometimes I feel (at least from my point of view) that the pace of American culture and cultures around the world is much too fast for enjoyment and health, and getting faster and faster. This is always a concern for me because I feel like at some point we’re going to make life not worth living. If all our time is spent working, preparing, facilitating all of the infrastructure of our lives (jobs, insurance, children, child-care, home utilities, doctor’s visits, car maintenance/registrations); all these things we have to take care of. If life becomes to full with duties and time gets shorter and shorter, there won’t be any room to enjoy fine things in life like apples.

I was bored during my lunch break at work the other day this week, and was surfing random articles. I read a headline that said “Dating Question: Can a Guy Be Too Nice?” written by dating blogger Rich Santos for Marie Claire. This immediately caught my eye because I’ve always been very annoyed/passionate/fascinated by both the age-old complaint “Girls say they want nice guys, but they really want bad boys!!” and the tragedy that perfectly decent handsome guys are not attracting as many girls because they are just too innocuous.

The the main question that the article proposed to answer was: can a guy be too nice? The article went on to give four scenarios in which it is possible for a guy to be too nice, which I will boil down for you here:

#1: He’s So Nice, He Can Only Be a Friend

Main point the author made: A girl might not be willing to risk the great friendship that you have to date you because you’re such a nice, great person. Also, the guy may just be destined to be a friend.

 
#2: He’s So Nice, He’s Not Challenging Enough

Main point the author made: We like to feel that we’ve won some one over, not that they’ve just handed themselves over to us.

 
#3: He’s So Nice, He’ll Always Be There

Main point the author made: I didn’t really understand what the author was saying in this section (check the article if you’re interested) but he mainly indicated that if a girl knows she can always come back to you, then she is more likely to see how it goes with other guys, rather than stay with you.

 
#4: He’s TOO Nice, You Can’t Trust Him

Main point the author made: A guy can be too nice in a way that makes the girl thinks he must have ulterior motives, or that he some sort of psycho. (I have a feeling this is rarely actually the case – though possible. I think the author just ran out of ideas.)

 
I personally felt that this article was cheap, and badly thought out. I suppose that’s generally what you’ll find when looking at random articles on Yahoo, but I felt like it was kind of funny that whatever editor was in charge of this section thought that this was worth publishing. Whenever there are dating advice articles and the like, it seems like nobody is really trying to actually answer these questions. Part of the reason is that there are a lot of nuanced psychological factors at play when it comes to human relationships, and our mass culture, most of the time , is not really concerned with understanding any of it. I really want to understand it, so I’ll make my attemp with this topic.

 
To start with, can a guy be too nice? Yes. Guys can be too nice. Girls can be too nice. Anyone can be too nice. I think that we don’t notice as much when girls are too nice because, to generalize, guys really do want nice sweet girls to be with long term. All of the negatives of being too nice don’t register as much with certain guys because they don’t mind having a sweet person who is lovely and wants to help them, and do whatever they want to do. It ’s actually pleasant and desirable.

 
So why isn’t it the same for girls? First I want to address this idea that girls really want bad boys. Don’t get me wrong, there are some girls out there who just don’t get it, and they are attracted to bad guys (I would guess it’s the thrill of taming some unattainable, selfish, lone-wolf, wild guy or just the excitement that he might bring to their life) but I don’t think they understand that the guy is not going to magically change one day into a decent person. As for other girls – or at least from my perspective – a really nice, totally inoffensive guy with impeccable manners and who never has any self serving intents, does not turn me on. However, I do not want to date a talented gorgeous guy – who is also a selfish ass-hole who is deceptive and has horrible life values. There IS a middle ground. Well, I believe there is a middle ground, and there certainly is one if you make it.

 
So what is the problem with being too nice? Obviously it’s nice when people are nice, but why does it make it so hard to be romantically and sexually excited about some one who is too nice of a person? The author of the article touched on this for a brief moment and did not address it or expand on it. He remarked in section #1, and I quote:

 
“Also, sometimes the nice guy just has no edge, so he’s destined to be just a friend.”

Uh, YEAH. Thank you, that is the whole crux of the problem! Why didn’t he talk about that at all! What is it about having no “edge” (eugh, no one likes using that buzzword) that makes some one not sexually or romantically interesting nor highly desirable?? To clarify a little bit, you can basically say that the level of nice-ness a person has is inversely proportional to the level of edge they have. For example: Mother Teresa – no edge. Totally open, straight forward, giving person. Not concerned with sexual appeal, material things, or selfish desires. I’m sure those who knew Mother Teresa felt that they could trust her, knew exactly where they stood with her, and that they could look to her for help or emotional comfort. Now imagine the opposite.

 
I feel like “Edge” (when discussing it in romantic context) is linked to several issues of character and personality. It involves:

 
- a person’s desire to express their sexuality/sensuality, and wanting to fulfill sexual desires.
- one’s selfishness or concern for ones own general needs and desires.
- the ability to think for one’s self and stand by your own perceptions and opinions.
- a person’s willingness to experience risk.

 
All edge would be a horrible person that no one wanted to deal with. No edge would be… your mom… or God, or some sort of saintly, non-human, non-sexual entity. Ideally, if you want to be a sexy, desirable, intelligent, kind, interesting person, you must find a moderate balance of edge and goodness. If you are too easy to be with, always accommodating, always ready to change your mind or do something for the person you’re interested in – they are not going to feel like they’re having a real interaction. There is no excitement of what is going to happen because they know they can basically always get their way, and they’re not even sure of what your way is. They will have too much power ( this really goes for any relationship you have – romantic or not). Sexual chemistry is also lessened because there is no tension – the girl will feel that she has all the control, when it should really be 50/50 (neither of you knows if you’ll get together or not! exciting!). She has to feel that you feel that sleeping with her is something you WANT regardless of how she feels about it (because this is probably how she feels about you if she’s attracted to you). You should be a match for each other, like a good tennis match or fencing match (pick whatever sport you like). You’re evenly in control, so it is a real outcome when you finally both feel like you want to be together and date.

 
It always bums me out when guys think they should just start being a jerk and then girls will like them more. The only thing I ever think of some one who is acting like a selfish jerk is that they sure are confident, but wow what a f*cking jerk. Confidence and generally being happy with yourself are crucial to being attractive, but it’s quickly soured when you can see what little touch with reality some one has because of how cocky, selfish, or reckless they are.
This is getting long, so I’ll end with saying that if you just relax and be yourself, dress so your silhouette is attractive, go for what you want, but also are generally considerate about other people’s feelings/needs/desires, you won’t be too nice to date.

” ‘We’re here and we’re gay!’ It’s important to be proud of who you are, but you should really just be proud to be yourself. It’s much more important.”

-Rufus Wainwright

I can’t remember where I read this quote, but it made me feel like I’m not alone in that people are thinking about the ideals and open empathy that we need to really have a functioning, harmonious society. I have always thought that it is very important to understand that there are all kinds of people who believe in all different things, want different things, and that often these things are conflicting in their fundamental philosophy or everyday practice. I feel like the important thing to understand is that in our society, where we have created laws and systems to protect us and help us prosper, it is our responsibility to each other to create a world in which we are all complete free to do whatever we need to self-actualize and have a fulfilling life, as long as it does not infringe on others. What constitutes infringement can be difficult to define when you get into certain situations, but I generally think that definition should mainly include occurrences that directly impact another in some way, not simply the sensibilities or ideals of another, but some actual effect to their life or self.

A good example for this is the conflict between people who are accepting of homosexual people and their desire to live as they are – romantically attracted to the same gender; and people who believe that this is not natural and should not be allowed to exist in our society. The thing about this conflict that bothers me is that many who do not believe homosexuality should exist have many reasons why they have a negative view of homosexuality and feel that it should be curbed in it’s existence (ie: wanting laws passed so that homosexuals cannot be legally married as heterosexuals can), but none of the reasons I have ever heard given actually effect anyone else’s life, property, or mental/emotional health. I do understand that it is an important issue, to both sides, but there is simply NO reason to make a law that mandates that a group of people cannot live their lives as others do. This is a matter of drafting our societal structure to help us maintain civilization, not an opportunity for people to decide what is acceptable to exist.

I’m going off on a bit of a tangent- back to the reason I wanted to post this quote. So far BEYOND all of this “I want you to live like me!” bullshit we have some one (Rufus) saying that it is important to accept yourself and not be ashamed of any facet of yourself, but that really it’s about ALL those things that make you you, and all the things you love, think about, and do, not simply a demographic criterion, that make life meaningful and liveable. And the person making this statement is one of the individuals being discriminated against, but he still understands that life is about more than these general things about ourselves that don’t even scratch the surface of our lives. 

We will need to eventually get to a point as a society where we’re not sitting around trying to demograph, stereotype, peg, and change different people. Every single person wants something different when you really look at people, and it’s so important that our society comes to understand this, or we will remain in conflict forever and there will always be some group that is not completely free.

Alright, way past my bedtime. Hope my writing isn’t too terrible. Night!

I have been trying to amass a collection of quotes that, when I first read them, really seemed to be clear, make sense, and said something poignant about how life is and how we can live it happily and more easily. I’d like to intermittently post about them, but instead of just being like, “Oh my god this quote is amazing, this person is a genius!” I really want to explain why I think the quote is so nice and how it gives really good insight, or why it seems true to me. So here’s the first one I’d like to share:

“I am indeed rich since my income is superior to my expense and my expense is equal to my wishes.”

 -Edward Gibbon

I love that he said this because it is so TRUE. True true true. We have a really competitive culture. Our culture kind of makes it seem like there are only two options: you’re the best out of everything, or you’re crap. The expectation is that you are only successful or valuable if you are the #1 best, or you have the highest net worth possible, or if you have these token things that say “I am better than others, I am ideal, I am a success, I am acceptable.” This usually entails making a gross excess of money. Literally. There are individuals with billions and billions of dollars (Warren Buffet, Forbes 2008 #1 billionaire, net worth 62 bil.). Yes, they may have a much higher cost of living since they purchase fine things, and they may be supporting a family, and sending kids to college, but this does not require billions and billions of dollars. There is literally a gross excess that may never be spent and will last for generations.

Now, for one thing, this is a free country, and if some one really does love just making money – for some reason they find it interesting and satisfying, and they just get a kick out of commerce – they should be doing that. Ideally, since they’re making it simply for the joy of making it, maybe they would make sure to donate to a lot of charities (which a lot of billionaires do, thank god), and make sure all who are employed by them are compensated really well. But, it is a free country, and it is their money, so they can do with it what they choose. For all the rest of the people out there, who don’t find finance and economics emotionally satisfying, it’s important to be clear that making good money, and being “rich and successful” are relative things.

The way Gibbons phrased what he said is very practical and universally applicable. He accounts for the fact that we all do need some sort of cushion of security, “my income is superior to my expense.” You can’t simply run around spending everything you actually make because then you’d be in trouble if you became ill, or just wanted a break from work for a while, etc. And then he said the most important thing, so plain and clear and really focusing on the important part of everyone’s financial goals: my expense is equal to my wishes.

Equal to MY WISHES. You don’t need to make how much money your mother thinks you should make, or your brother, father, teachers, friends, colleagues, the E! network, the media, those who make more money than you do, or ANYONE thinks. You need to make how much money is necessary for WHAT YOU WANT. If you’re making enough to have security and room for the unexpected, and you make enough to do everything you really want to do, you are free. You are successful and wealthy in the most perfect way. That is SUCCESS. Feeling like you’ve achieved what YOU really want. That’s all anyone needs. And it is different for every person. Some people really want to do certain things and live a certain way, and they need millions or billions. Some only need thousands. What people want is a wide and varied spectrum, and you have to find your place on it. Really know what you love, and how you like to live, and plan your life accordingly. Don’t worry about what anyone else is thinking.

So I just really liked this quote because it is very clear and to the point, and is a release from some of the bogus social expectations of life.

I discovered alcohol.

It has just occurred to me, on this evening of the 22nd of January, two-thousand-and-nine, that I have not yet blogged about drinking and alcohol.

What an institution, that in a thousand billion years will NEVER become obsolete. Drinking is as old as time itself, and it is a grand tradition. I myself know nothing personally about the histories of alcohol, brewing, fermentation, and… other crazy ways of making a beverage that will f you up. I do have some field experience, though, and I must say, even being a relatively tame person who does not drink that often and who does not process alcohol well (I can hold my liquor with the best of them, but the hangover is very debilitating; and i’ve never liked beer – *gasp* sacrilege!), there’s nothing like an evening of drinking. In fact, I am drinking right now, and I can tell you my night is already 68% better than it would have been if I had drank the water I should be drinking right now instead.

Now don’t misunderstand me, there are are several very important drawbacks: terrible for your liver/health, addictive, dehydrating, generally a physically degrading practice, drinking is. You should never drink too much, neither at one time or on a regular basis. Over-drinking or chronic alcoholism are serious problems that are hard to deal with, and hopefully they can be avoided. But if you can manage to keep it sporadic, drinking is such a lovely pastime.

I think my most favorite thing about it is that it releases all your happy chemicals (like for serotonin production, etc.). It’s a depressant, and when I drink I am much less self aware/self conscious, I feel generally amused and pleasant, and I am not sweating the small stuff. This = things being at least 10 times more enjoyable than they would be otherwise. It’s always fun for me when I get together with friends and I know we’re going out to drink and dance, or when we’re chilling in and we’ll be finishing a couple bottles of wine watching some hilarious movie or something to that effect.

In the past few years I have really come to appreciate why there is a cocktail hour. After work drinks, or a drink when you get home after a long day seems to put you right. It’s a mental break from your usual state, and it’s important to try and relax. I have also always LOVED how it is totally accepted that everyone, older and younger adults alike, will be drinking or drunk at various holidays, dinner parties, and of course, weddings (hopefully it’s for fun though, and not because of some tension or general bad feelings in the group).

I love hearing friends who come from a mild-mannered background say something like, “I am at my parents for Thanksgiving! We’ll all be totally toasted by the end of the day.” Grandma and everyone. :)

Anyway, this is the part where I end this post because I am a terrible writer.

Some of my favorite things to drink:

red wine – fragrant and warming

margaritas! – no explanation needed

brandy sidecar

whisky sour –  if I’m in the mood

I’ve been in a poopy mood lately, and haven’t gotten around to blogging. Not that there’s been nothing to blog about – President-elect Obama, Prop 8 insanity, the meaning of life, pondering cholesterol and being stoked that I realized I should just eat vegan baked goods from now on, the law of attraction and positive thinking and all of that.

But, I’m just feeling cut off and unmotivated, so I’ll have to get to all that later.

I did just see something that will make for a nice short entry. There was this Ford commercial where the voiceover was comparing different aspects of the car to other things people want out of a major item like that, “Can a driver be a pilot?” comparing the driver’s seat to a jet cockpit, etc.

Then the voiceover asks, “Can luxury be performance?”

…… ugh

Performance IS luxury. It doesn’t make any sense to separate the two. The only reason luxury exists is because things were ever made to function at the highest possible quality the human race could manage. And those things are then usually beautiful because they are made properly (a dress, a car, a meal), and made with scarcer resources, so they become expensive and un-common, and are then considered a luxury. I feel like it messes up our society’s values when we don’t look at things because of what they are, but attach superficial status to everything.

If performance is not already intrinsically a part of luxury, then what is luxury? A car that drives like crap and breaks down every month – but don’t worry – it’s encrusted in diamonds, so it’s luxury!!

Something stupid.

I voted in the comfort of my home last night while I watched House. I am so glad I live in a country where I am free. It is incredibly important that people add their decisions to this system we have to have the nation we want and need.

I voted for Barack Obama to be the president. My reasons for voting for him are that I think he will think in a different and more beneficial way to set up the government so that it works better for what the general public needs. I am excited about the possibility of having a president who realizes that when people say things about all of the bullshit of our country like, “Well, that’s the way things are,” that we completely effect and determine the “way things are” and we can make things different if we resolve to. Senator Obama is also more aligned to my own personal beliefs. Senator McCain and Governor Palin have beliefs that I find to be limiting to people’s fundamental freedoms, and I worry they may not be able to understand the abstract concept that people truly believe different things, and as long as no one is infringing upon anyone else, people should be left to live the life they want and we should all have the same rights. I believe Senator Obama understands that.

VOTE! This affects you.

Sometimes I get really confused at how unintelligent the type of people who you’d expect to be very sharp are. I don’t consider myself super highly intelligent or anything, but I do really think about things and know that I am quite smart (I think…) – still, sometimes I feel like I see things WAY more clearly than a lot of people in positions of authority, importance, etc., and it’s the kind of thing that makes you wonder if you should be worried about our society (which, OBVIOUSLY, everyone should be).

I read an article on SFist today and then checked out the CNN article it references where former Hewlett-Packard CEO, Carly Fiorina criticizes SNL’s Sarah Palin & Hilary Clinton skit from this past week. Fiorina (a republican & aide to the McCain campaign) criticizes Tina Fey’s representation of Palin, and I quote her comments here:

“The portrait was very dismissive of the substance of Sarah Palin, and so in that sense, they were defining Hillary Clinton as very substantive, and Sarah Palin as totally superficial,” Fiorina told MSNBC earlier Monday. “I think that continues the line of argument that is disrespectful in the extreme, and yes, I would say, sexist in the sense that just because Sarah Palin has different views than Hillary Clinton does not mean that she lacks substance.”
-A. Mooney, CNN

Okay. Um, No.

sexism (n): 1) Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women. 2) Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

Fiorina says specifically that the portrayal and skit are sexist “in the sense that just because Sarah Palin has different views than Hillary Clinton does not mean that she lacks substance.”

So… because one woman is portrayed as being less substantial as far as attitudes and political experience than another… and one woman is portrayed as more substantial… both being compared on their personalities/experience… that is SOMEHOW discriminating on the first woman by GENDER?? NO! This is a type of logical fallacy. Being sexist often involves making fun of a person who is a woman, therefore anyone making any fun of a person who is a woman is being sexist? If I say, “Haha, she tripped, she’s clumsy, ” because I’m talking about a ’she’ it’s sexist? Give me a break. Fiorina’s criticism of the skit is completely bogus.
I will concede that the portrayal of Palin kind of showed her as this girly hockey-mom type who is kind of air-headed, but considering how they also had a satire example of a smart accomplished not-so-domestic woman right next to that, the comparison cannot be considered unfair as far as stereotyping of women. That point is not so much sexism as it is culturism, to me. I’ll have to write more about that concept later!

Anyway, I just wanted to point out how obviously inaccurate this woman’s criticism was. The other scary part is that when I was reading comments on these articles, 90% of the time people kept harping on party differences, how Fiorina needed to chill out, or how the McCain camp was playing the sexism card again – there was no sexism card to play, it wasn’t sexist!! Not very many people noted that you don’t even need to defend the skit because the criticism does not apply.

Here is the SFist article, the CNN article, and the SNL skit:

SFist “Fiorina Slams SNL Palin-Clinton Skit as “Sexist”"

CNN “Fiorina calls SNL impersonation of Palin ’sexist’”

SNL Palin-Clinton skit

I am going to invite people over to my house to watch once the presidential debates start. At least for the first and last, and maybe more than that. And there will be guac and probably alcohol.

I have a sub-heading on my book marks menu on my computer. It’s entitled “necessary”. I have a link to my bank there, my health insurance, my job related sites, the usps, the companies i pay my utilities to. I also have things like the IRS, and the LA Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk website.

I have the last two things on there because, in the past couple years, I have really developed a personal understanding of the fact that you need to use your ability to affect things if you have been born in a country whose most fundamental value is freedom. And you really do have a responsibility, if you’re lucky enough to live in a nation that says you should be able to be free (even though I believe that being free is an intrinsic quality of being alive), to participate in the processes you have to create the kind of protection and support that you want out of your government.
I was never super excited about politics growing up. It’s all on such a large scale, and the knowledge the public has obvious access to gets so vague that I never cared about it. Since Kerry vs. Bush I have really gotten more into it. I still am not naturally excited about it, but I want to know more about what’s happening with all the different issues that arise, and I want to be able to make a decision about what I think should happen and then officially give my opinion (through voting, petitions, and whatever else comes up that I have an opinion on).
Anyway, I’m getting sleepy now, it’s part my bedtime. My other point I wanted to make was that I think that anyone who doesn’t care at ALL about politics, voting, or participating and using their authority as a citizen of this country is an IDIOT, and a kind of a jerk.

So ANYWAYS, I want to have people over to watch the debates and be into it. And eat guacamole, and maybe pizza, drink wine, or margaritas. To be aware of what is going on, know what decision we want to make, and be alive!

ps. I am supporting Obama. I will vote for him in November unless something totally random and crazy comes about.

GOODNIGHT NEVERLAND!

I’m actually not really gonna talk about gay marriage in this post. I’ll sum my views up for that for now with this: I don’t believe being gay is wrong. I believe anyone should be able to marry anyone they love and care about, they should be able to say they are married and have those legal benefits, and we should not expect any religions or belief systems to change the definition of their beliefs. There’s a reason they came up with the “church and state are separate” thing all those years ago.

I wanted to talk about an episode of 30 Days I saw in re-run the other day. It’s the episode on the issue of gay couples adopting children.

A Orange County woman who had been adopted as a child and has adopted children of her own, and also has religious beliefs that say homosexuality is wrong, believes that homosexual couples should not be able to adopt children. She goes to live for a month with a male couple who have 3 adopted children. They live… somewhere in Michigan, something like that, and the woman and the couple, to me, seemed like pretty similar types of people. Relatively conservative and laid back, pretty average people, all beliefs aside.

Through the episode the woman spends a lot of time with the family, she meets people who support gay couples adopting kids, and she actually has to do some volunteer work for an organization that supports it as well. She has a very hard time with the volunteering since she basically has to go around promoting exactly what she really disagrees with. I can totally understand what a challenge that would be, it’s totally opposite of what she thinks is right.

Throughout the episode, pretty much everyone she meets she really likes, and really thinks that she respects the people she’s with – she just totally doesn’t believe they should be able to adopt children. She also even meets two young adults who had been adopted (I think by heterosexual couples) but spent most of their time in foster homes, and she hears what a horrible hard time they had, and she doesn’t believe it would be good for them to be left in foster care, but doesn’t think they should be adopted by homosexual couples instead.

There were two parts in the episode that really bothered me and made me sad. The woman was at a barbeque with all these people who are gay and straight but all support gays adopting. The woman is talking to this other older lady about her beliefs and how uncomfortable she is at the party. And she’s telling this older gay woman that she still respects her as a person and thinks she is a nice person, but just doesn’t believe she should be able to get married to some one she loves. That’s not respect.

Then toward the end of the episode the woman and one of the men of the couple she’s living with are discussing how the situation is uncomfortable because of their difference in beliefs. He tells her he doesn’t have a problem with her beliefs until it starts to step on his toes (I feel like he puts it this way for lack of better wording, they were all a little tense in the conversation). Pretty much anyone can understand that what he means by this is that he mainly has a problem with her beliefs when it becomes law and prevents him from having his family, or would cause the circumstance where his children would be taken away from him and his husband – those sorts of impositions. She then replies with, “Well what you believe, if you can adopt, doesn’t that step on my toes? It offends my beliefs.”

It’s this kind of thinking that SCARES me. Don’t get me wrong, I totally understand what this woman is saying, the idea that gays can adopt when her beliefs say it’s wrong does offend her beliefs and that’s not nothing – but it doesn’t stop her from LIVING HER LIFE. If beliefs become LAW then everyone has to live by your beliefs. She makes the point more than once that people will vote and they’ll see who wins, but that’s just absurd. This is a free country where we are allowed to believe what we want and live our lives how we want as long as we do not significantly hurt one another.

Again and again I hear things that fundamentalists or conservatives believe, and everything they want politically is something that will force some one else’s behavior: you must have the baby, you cannot get married, you cannot have children, etc. From the other side it doesn’t force anyone: I can’t handle having a child, I want to marry this person, I want to have children. Those things do not affect the other person directly. Yes they will happen and exist, but it does not impose directly on anyone’s life who disagrees with it. And frankly, laws and government are only supposed to protect us and make public life possible. What we all do in our personal lives is not a federal, state, county, or city issue. It’s between us in life, not through laws. Government and law should be the well planned, effective skeleton that holds up our country, not the meat of it’s life and culture.

Lastly, this woman said something that was very sad. She said she was having such a hard time because she didn’t hate the people she met or anything like that, they were great people, etc, she said something like, “It’s just so hard trying to talk to people who are trying to do the exact opposite of what I’m trying to do.”

They are not doing the opposite thing. They are doing the exact same thing. Trying to have a family and raise happy and healthy children, and have positive values. I can’t imagine how many people there are  out there who have the same beliefs as this woman whose behavior she would find totally deplorable. People need to stop looking on paper, and in books for some answer so they don’t have to think about anything. LOOK RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU! They are the SAME.