«How can you have an objection to something that says…»
«Because it’s humiliating. A new amendment we vote on declaring that I am equal under the law to a man, I am mortified to discover there’s reason to believe I wasn’t before. I am a citizen of this country, I am not a special subset in need of your protection. I do not have to have my rights handed down to me by a bunch of old, white, men. The same Article 14 that protects you, protects me, and I went to law school just to make sure.»
Sam Seaborn and Ainsley Hayes in «The West Wing»
One of the … pretty much (not «most») beautiful examples of the value of viewpoint diversity is the following scene from «The West Wing».
Because let’s be honest. It’s not usually the most usual solution that is the great … argument for what you are going for. Sometimes, people who are opposed to a «short term legal» solution might actually share your sentiment, yet come to a — on the surface level — completely different solution.
And yeah, isn’t life great, i.e. surprising? 🙂
(Addendum: Just one thing about «men having kids» — just drop the cute language for a moment, if men were having kids, it would — in part — depend on who would be present. Because I can pretty much guarantee, if anyone who depends on the man being strong is present, the — in that irreal scenario — pregnant men wouldn’t even flinch. Because that’s just how men are. But … how was it? That «not even here or there.». Right.)