Последние новости

so i went to DC
2011-05-29 18:19 dog
my trip was good, and i feel it was very effective. not only did i decide on the law school i'm going to, i got to do a little bit of lobbying. i met with congressman conyers (after 2 hours of waiting and speaking with his lovely assistant carol) and got down to business... not sure if it's legal but i snapped a photo while i was in there


the man was obviously busy but we did get to discuss some important stuff. sharp mind for an old guy. we talked and it was crazy exciting finally getting heard by a congressman. i ALSO got to visit congresswoman sheila jackson lee, but she did all the talking. and said to look her up if i was interning in DC.

then, i went and protested at the white house. it was more of a memorial for dr. tiller than a protest, but some people still felt the need to fight.





and then the cops showed up and i paced backwards into the gift shop. didn't buy anything, though.

https://dog.livejournal.com/43419.html
2011-05-11 02:43 dog

https://dog.livejournal.com/42903.html
2011-04-30 16:28 dog
rusty bought me one of these and i am buying music on amazon to fill it... happy graduation, me!

i both love and hate this song
2011-04-22 23:09 dog

i blame it on my a.d.d. baby
2011-04-19 04:54 dog


i need to go SHOPPING!!! :O

https://dog.livejournal.com/38769.html
2010-12-08 09:07 dog
my angel secret jacket came today. it is so warm and cuddly... it will fit for a long time, i have decided.
just waiting on my dress. someone told me i dress very "professional but gothic." which is a good thing? it was a teacher that said that, so, cool.

https://dog.livejournal.com/38485.html
2010-11-29 02:33 dog
use of the vented elbow with the Bubbles The Fish II mask could result in improper therapy. Failure to use vented elbow with Baby Whirl could result in patient injury. Please read and carefully follow the instructions for use included with each aerosol mask.

https://dog.livejournal.com/37413.html
2010-10-25 18:30 dog
yay! hire lauren.

ahahahahahahahahaMANIACahahahaha
2010-10-15 01:28 dog
[i cut so no one can find me! MUAAHAHAHA]
"I write on behalf of [President of My University], notifying you that you are a top ranking student and will be recognized during [University]’s Charter Day Convocation, scheduled on [Time & Date] on the campus in [Auditorium Address]. The letter below indicates your recognition. We ask that you meet [Department Head/Advisor] in the University Conference Room for assembly. Your original letter from the president is in the mail. We look forward to your participation."

it makes me laugh. i can has happy death now?
the letter that came said:

"You will be recognized as THE highest ranking [emphasis mine] student in [My Degree Department]. This acknowledgement of your academic achievements is a testament to your hard work and dedication. We ask that you and your family join us at this celebration so that we may recognize you and your success. We congratulate you."


how symbolic would it be to kill myself at the exact time and date i was supposed to be recognized for being more awesome than everyone else in the department?

https://dog.livejournal.com/36513.html
2010-10-12 09:44 dog
sorry i haven't been replying much. i'm way more depressed than usual, and experimenting with vices to keep from doing something regrettable.

i had a root canal today. i rather enjoyed it.

I fail at breathing v2.8
2010-03-16 10:48 dog

Have you ever coughed so much (and so hard) that you threw up everything you've eaten for six days? Or is this experience uniquely me?

https://dog.livejournal.com/33486.html
2010-02-18 18:07 dog
no, you can't have my account. quit trying.

https://dog.livejournal.com/32984.html
2010-02-10 06:25 dog
for my reference: http://www.adams-brooks.com/miva/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=AB&Product_Code=64006&Category_Code=CR

also, neighbors' door:

it reads:
212,000 people in haiti are dead because you stomped an earthquake into their country. stop stomping, you're killing haitians
HAVE YOU NO SHAME??????????

https://dog.livejournal.com/32444.html
2009-12-27 21:07 dog
ok, so i'm still alive. still here.

i had my novasure on the 18th of this month and everything went well, then i left mom's house on the 22nd after ruining the axle on mom's SUV by getting hit in the face with austin trash. we made the drive up to southwest arkansas and i met russ' parents and grandfather and their cats and dogs and princess chihuahua. my breathing trouble returned on the 23rd mildly, then the 24th was hell and i thought i wouldn't make it through the night. every time i eat or drink i get so short of breath. i sat through christmas dinner hardly touching the food, tolerating some kids, and not breathing. tiny cottage house + 2 fires probably = no good for lungs. we went back to the house and again, i thought i would not survive the night. woke up on christmas morning and was showered with presents: 100$ gift card to victoria's secret, quesadilla maker, larrrrge jewelry box, 19" lcd monitor, hand made jewelrrrrrryyyyyy that everyone is jealous of, cute heels, hoodie and shirt, and super cute stuffed pig. anyway. christmas night, i'm positive i'm just going to stop breathing. it hurts. i can not breathe any more. i sleep maybe 2 hours total all night. use my nebulizer 4 times in a row, use my inhaler easily 100 times. in the morning i insist i need to go to urgent care. THESE PEOPLE ARE THE DEVIL! i stumblewalkfall into the door at 8:40a, and the front desk gatekeeper tells me to fill out the paperwork. at this point i have hypoxia so badly i can't read the words. i see the words clearly, i just can't understand them. so i do my best to put my name, etc, in there and then i stand up against the wall shrieking wheezing for about 15 minutes before someone in the overstuffed waiting room offers me her seat. we sit for a while, me thinking each breath will be my last because i am getting SO TIRED of pushing air in AND OUT of my lungs. russ gets up and asks the woman how long the wait is. she says it is one hour. i'm sitting in a waiting room filled with people who have sore stomachs and coughs. obviously not life threatening issues. they are all getting annoyed by the sound my breathing makes. which is ok, because i'll stop in about 5 minutes.

i stopped breathing and slumped down in my chair, i remember dreaming that i kept breathing and it was easier to breathe each time, but russ 'woke' me up by making me stand, and i started again. he called his parents to rush me to the ER. i fumble facefirst into the back of their suv, the whole time his mom is going "oh my god don't die back there baby" or at least i think she is. someone is saying that to me. i'm involuntarily flailing around, trying to grab and swing at things to make it easier to breathe. hanging off the "oh shit" bar and swinging backwards over the back of the seat, crying and wailing about having no air.

we get to the ER at 9:30, more forms to fill out, this time i flat out cannot read, and i do not know numbers, i can't tell them my address. rusty fills out my forms and they take me back to ER 5 and i lay down after struggling to change into the gown. 5 minutes goes by and i think i fell asleep or stopped breathing again, but a woman came in to ask me to spell my name and birthdate. 3 minutes later, i have my all powerful nebulizer treatment. my lungs are open enough that it no longer hurts to force fill them with air.

dr. turner orders chest x-rays, i don't know what's going on. i go in there and try to hang on to the bar and hold the breath. two more nebulizer treatments - my blood pressure is double what it is normally. clean x-ray, dr. turner orders a CAT scan of my lungs with contrast dye. two hours later, i'm in radiology getting the shit scared out of me. huge headache when the dye goes in, i swear i've peed myself, but the tech tells me i haven't. my mouth tastes funny, i can't breathe again, i fall asleep and wake up an hour later in my room with a nebulizer taped into my mouth.

dr. turner finds that my blood clot count is high, suspects it's blood clots preventing the exchange of oxygen... more tests. russ comes back to keep me company, and i'm floating in and out of knowing what's going on. a little bit later i find, no clots, but pneumonia. still. this is why i cannot breathe, since october. i STILL have pneumonia. stupid pig flu.

we don't leave the ER until 4:50pm. it's my bright idea to go and eat at a chinese buffet... i'm feeling alive and i can breathe, and they notice how i perked up since i first went downhill. i can think, i'm witty, i have jokes. lively.

last night, the food poisoning hit us all at about 1am. i have thrown up 23 times since then. there is nothing left in my body to throw up, i keep drinking so that i don't have to dry heave anymore. i called the restaurant and told them we all ate different items on their menu, but we all got sick. one of us is a vegetarian - she's sick, too. i simply cannot win. now i cannot breathe because i am vomiting through my nose. but it's not asthma, i guess i shouldn't complain...

https://dog.livejournal.com/32043.html
2009-12-16 18:35 dog
the onset of the breathing trouble was a month and a half, but it's spontaneously remissed as of this monday. i thought it was a fluke that i could breathe, but no, i can in fact do my regular workout, weight lifting and all. very strange. i think at least one bit of the medications i took helped, but i'll never be able to determine which one, because at one point i was taking 15 pills in the morning and 8 at night. i've resumed eating, but i still have severe congestion and coughing spells resulting in blood sputum. bah, it's improvement, i'll take it. on the negative though, my fibro is making walking difficult again.

so, was that the pig flu for asthmatics? 2 months of SHIT I'M GOING TO DIE. ?

going to get my hair done today :)
got paid yesterday, wooooo. i'll be able to pay my CC bill down below threshhold tomorrow.

https://dog.livejournal.com/31906.html
2009-12-11 06:24 dog
ok, so, my x-ray plastics came back. no lung cancer.
the bloat is another reason i suppose. it's the most horrible feeling. i can't eat anything more than cereal - even when i do, my stomach swells up to like i'm 9 months pregnant. it's painful. i can't breathe, i wheeze, and i have reflux that seeps over into my esophagus.

but i saw the scar tissue in my chest and sinuses. very cool.

the lulz
2009-11-14 01:35 dog
this was cute, i've never had this happen before. a pizza i didn't ordered showed up at my door. it had my address on it... but it was a case of mistaken identity. the pizza guy was wtfbaffled by my proclamation that i don't eat pizza (i do, but not right now with an IC flare up) and we tried to find the pizza's real mother... but not before i started craving pizza rofl. now i really want to order one.

HOLY FUCKING SHIT.
2009-11-07 12:16 dog
PAIN.

shopping in general
2009-11-05 06:14 dog
i went innovative grocery shopping today and ended up saving 14$ on stuff i needed but spending 40$ on stuff i didn't need. well, i needed some of the things, like razor blades, garbage bags, and deoderant, but juice, biscuits, and graham crackers were completely impulse buys. and i even forgot to get the things i actually intended to get, like sun chips, oranges and frozen lemonade. it's ok, i have enough instant chinese food to last til the 2012 end of the world, and i got a coupon for 10$ off fashion bug that if anyone wants to use THEY SHOULD COMMENT so i can give them the code. (i'm being serious, if you're going to place a 25$ order on fashionbug.com let me know so i can give you the coupon code and you get 10$ off, because i can't shop there. or private msg me your address and i'll toss it in the mail.

mom got me looking at aeropostale and though two years ago i would probably have killed my future self for wanting clothes from here, i find that i'm less defined by my fashion than by how i wear it - and since i've been extraordinarily frugal over the past 3 years when buying clothes, and whittling down my oversized collection of garb, it's time to start acquiring again, redefining self. i found some things i want online, like this shirt* and this hoodie** in particular, which match my current transition of style and favorite color set (cool themed colors), as well as this hoodie*** that is to-die-for adorable. if you put this stuff together with the pants i just bought**** i think this stuff would look great for my developing style.


*
**
***
****


so i'm at the grocery store and i'm being absolutely appalled again and again and again by the behavior of little kids who are being general terrors, hitting each other, knocking things over, and squalling so loudly you can hear them from across the store (literally), and at one point i think my noise began to bleed it was stressing me out so bad. i covered my ears and counted to ten, and some lady walking by felt the need to justify their terrible behavior which was nearly inducing an anxiety/murder attack for me. i didn't really know i was talking, but i heard myself say - rather loudly - that if i had behaved like that as a child in a store - AS A CHILD ANYWHERE - i would have gotten my ass warmed so hot Lucifer would've avoided me. i don't know whether it was the swearing or the reference to the devil that upset her, but she "felt sorry for" me and went on her way, BUT HEY. don't you feel sorry for me, i feel sorry for their mother/father who should be embarassed to go in public with kids acting like this! well.. should be. the fact that there were at least four PAIRS of kids acting this way in the store for the brief hour i was there did little to impress upon me the stress over which these parents agonize for having badly behaved spawns. can't we have a mandatory nanny 911 crew in this neighborhood?

is this really what they think???
2009-10-22 09:48 dog
my english teacher sent me this the other day and we are supposed to write a summary and response journal. after a few of these articles i was getting kind of irritated, as they all seemed to be about either black people (discrimination, ebonics, race-laziness, etc) or illegal immigration. i know i go to a historically black college, but does that mean we have to ignore the other pressing issues that a plethora of essay assignments could be written on? mini-rant aside, we finally got one that was related neither to race or immigration, but it was a mainstream traditionally controversial topic. what i was NOT expecting was the viewpoint of the author... he is anti gay marriage, but claims it it not discrimination to deny marriage to gays.

now, i have my views, and i'll share my own essay shortly, but i would like input from anyone, on their view on the case for/against gay marriage. particularly someone who agrees that discrimination is reserved for race issues, not sexuality. i need some other input using arguments that don't involve "wut abowt teh chillunz" because (to be frank) i don't care about children in homosexual environments - kids are naturally gay, they're not gonna catch teh gaez from their daddies/mommies. they are curious about their bodies and this is what drives them to engage in homosexual experiments/activities before maturity and before they learn to be ashamed about their preferences. (ah, innocence...)


Opposing Same-Sex Marriage Does Not Discriminate Against Gays
Timothy J. Dailey

In what some call a denial of a basic civil right, a Missouri man has been told he may not marry his long-term companion. Although his situation is unique, the logic of his argument is remarkably similar to that employed by advocates of homosexual marriage.
The man claims that the essential elements of marriage—love and commitment—are indeed present: “She’s gorgeous. She’s sweet. She’s loving. I’m very proud of her. ... Deep down, way down, I’d love to have children with her.”
Why is the state of Missouri, as well as the federal government, displaying such heartlessness in denying the holy bonds of wedlock to this man and his would-be “wife”?
It seems the state of Missouri is not prepared to indulge a man who waxes eloquent about his love for a 22-year-old mare named Pixel.

The Threat to Marriage

The Missouri man and homosexual “marriage” proponents categorically reject the definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Instead, the sole criterion for marriage becomes the presence of “love” and “mutual commitment.” But once marriage is no longer confined to a man and a woman, it is impossible to exclude virtually any relationship between two or more partners of either sex—even non-human “partners.”
[REALLY? do I NEED to say anything here? If we let two gay HUMANS marry, someone might marry a horse?? Last I knew, you needed a social security number to sign marriage certificates, so if you're handing those out to dogs now, I have a little furry person here who needs some welfare moneys...]
To those who object to comparing gay marriage to widely-rejected sexual preferences, it should be pointed out that until very recent times the very suggestion that two men or two women could “marry” was itself greeted with scorn.
Of course, media stories on same-sex marriage rarely address the fact that redefining marriage logically leads to the Missouri man and his mare. Instead, media reports typically focus instead on homosexual couples who resemble the stereotypical ideal of a married couple. Ignored in such reports is social science research indicating that such idealized “families” are utterly atypical among homosexuals. ...

The “Polyamory” Movement

The movement to redefine marriage has found full expression in what is variously called “polyfidelity” or “polyamory,” which seeks to replace traditional marriage with a bewildering array of sexual combinations between various groups of individuals.
“Polyamory” is derived from Greek and Latin roots, and is loosely translated “many loves.” Polyamorists reject the “myth” of monogamy and claim to practice “harmonious love and intimacy between multiple poly partners.” Stanley Kurtz describes the “bewildering variety of sexual combinations. There are triads of one woman and two men; heterosexual group marriages; groups in which some or all members are bisexual; lesbian groups, and so forth.”
The polyamory movement took its inspiration from Robert Heinlein’s 1961 sci-fi novel, Stranger in a Strange Land, in which sexual possessiveness (as in marital exclusivity) is portrayed as an evil leading to societal ills such as murder and war. The book helped spawn a number of ill-fated sexual communes, such as San Francisco’s Kerista community, in which members had sexual relations with each other according to a rotating schedule.
The Kerista commune collapsed in 1992, but the polyamory movement has taken hold in academia where, according to First Things, its proponents “are now so influential, if not dominant, in the academic field of marriage and family law.” Scholars enamored with polyamory argue in favor of “a social revolution that would replace traditional marriage and family law.”
Kurtz concurs that the “gradual transition from gay marriage to state-sanctioned polyamory, and the eventual abolition of marriage itself, is now the most influential paradigm within academic family law.” One prominent advocate of polyamory, David Chambers, professor of law at the University of Michigan, argues: “By ceasing to conceive of marriage as a partnership composed of one person of each sex, the state may become more receptive to units of three or more.”

The Frat House Concept of “Family”

This radical definition of marriage gives rise to bizarre conceptions of family that include virtually any relationship or social group. In 1990, a San Francisco task force on family policy led by lesbian activist Roberta Achtenberg defined the family as a “unit of interdependent and interacting persons, related together over time by strong social and emotional bonds and/or by ties of marriage, birth, and adoption.”
Polyamory advocates pay scant attention to the dangers posed to children being raised according to this “frat house with revolving bedroom doors” concept of marriage and the family. Yet, this nebulous, free-for-all model of the family looms ahead for our society unless a bulwark is created in the form of a constitutional amendment protecting marriage.
The slippery slope leading to the destruction of marriage as we know it draws ever closer with the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to compel the state legislature to grant homosexual sex partners the legal status of married people. This decision has emboldened public officials in various localities to grant marriage licenses to homosexual couples, igniting a national debate on the question: What is marriage—and where do we draw the limits on who can marry?

Same-Sex Relationships Are Not the Equivalent of Marriage

A growing body of research indicates that in key respects homosexual and lesbian relationships are radically different than married couples.

• Relationship duration: While a high percentage of married couples remain married for up to 20 years or longer, with many remaining wedded for life, the vast majority of homosexual relationships are short-lived and transitory. This has nothing to do with alleged “societal oppression.” A study in the Netherlands, a gay-tolerant nation that has legalized homosexual marriage, found the average duration of a homosexual relationship to be one and a half years.

• Monogamy versus promiscuity: Studies indicate that while three-quarters or more of married couples remain faithful to each other, homosexual couples typically engage in a shocking degree of promiscuity. The same Dutch study found that “committed” homosexual couples have an average of eight sexual partners (outside of the relationship) per year.

• Intimate partner violence: homosexual and lesbian couples experience by far the highest levels of intimate partner violence compared with married couples as well as cohabiting heterosexual couples. Lesbians, for example, suffer a much higher level of violence than do married women.



What About the Children?

In his exhaustive examination of human history, Giovanni Battista Vico (1668-1744), Professor of Rhetoric at the University of Naples, concluded that marriage between a man and a woman is an essential characteristic of civilization, and as such is the “seedbed” of society. Vico warned that chaos would ensue in the absence of strong social norms encouraging marital faithfulness and the loving care of children born to the union.
Since reproduction requires a male and a female, society will always depend upon heterosexual marriage to provide the “seedbed” of future generations. The evidence indicates that homosexual or lesbian households are not a suitable environment for children.
Data from the 2000 U.S. Census and other sources indicates that only a small percentage of homosexual households choose to raise children. One reason for this is that the raising of children is inimical to the typical homosexual lifestyle, which as we have seen typically involves a revolving bedroom door. With the added problem of high rates of intimate partner violence, such households constitute a dangerous and unstable environment for children.

Gay Households with Children

Homosexuals and lesbians are unsuitable role models for children because of their lifestyle. Dr. Brad Hayton observes that homosexual households “model a poor view of marriage to children. They are taught by example and belief that marital relationships are transitory and mostly sexual in nature. ... And they are taught that monogamy in a marriage is not the norm [and] should be discouraged if one wants a good ‘marital’ relationship.”

The Phony Comparison with Race

Many black Americans are understandably offended when gay activists, who have never been relegated to the back of a bus, equate their agenda with racial discrimination. In a statement supporting traditional marriage, several black pastors wrote: “We find the gay community’s attempt to tie their pursuit of special rights based on their behavior to the civil rights movement of the 1960s and 1970s abhorrent.”
A majority of Black Americans reject the facile comparison of sexual behavior with an immutable characteristic such as race, and disagree with the oft-heard contention by gay activists that homosexuals are “born that way.” A Pew Research poll found that by an overwhelming 61 to 26 percent margin, Black Protestants believe sexual orientation can be changed. The same poll reported that Black Americans oppose homosexual marriage by a 60 to 28 percent margin.

Gay Marriage Is Not a Civil Rights Issue

Defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman would not deny homosexuals the basic civil rights accorded other citizens. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights or in any legislation proceeding from it are homosexuals excluded from the rights enjoyed by all citizens—including the right to marry.
However, no citizen has the unrestricted right to marry whoever they want. A parent cannot marry their child (even if he or she is of age), two or more spouses, or the husband or wife of another person. Such restrictions are based upon the accumulated wisdom not only of Western civilization but also of societies and cultures around the world for millennia.
Neither can gay activists appeal to a “natural rights” argument: i.e., no reasonable person would deny homosexuals and lesbians their self-evident right to marry. Harry Jaffa cogently replies that such arguments actually argue against homosexual marriage: “Nature and reason tell us that a Negro is a human being, and is not to be treated like a horse or an ox or a dog, just as they tell us that a Jew is a human being, and is not to be treated as a plague-bearing bacillus. But with the very same voice, nature and reason tell us that a man is not a woman, and that sexual friendship is properly between members of opposite-sexes, not the same sex.” [Here is where I lose my ability to see eye to eye in a logical debate with this man: he is literally issuing an insult by saying that homosexuals are not "proper." With that, he may as well be reverting back to the times when woman had to wear petticoats and skirts in order to be considered "proper" women. Since we wear pants, now, I suppose we shouldn't get married at all since we aren't even women anymore. End rantification.]

Upholding Traditional Marriage Is Not “Discrimination”

Discrimination occurs when someone is unjustly denied some benefit or opportunity. But it must first be demonstrated that such persons deserve to be treated equally. For example, FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] and airline regulations rightly discriminate regarding who is allowed into the cockpit of an airline. Those who are not trained pilots have no rightful claim to “discrimination” because they are not allowed to fly an airplane.
On the other hand, discrimination would occur if properly credentialed pilots are refused hiring simply because of the color of their skin. In this case such individuals have been denied employment simply because of their race.
The issue of alleged discrimination was addressed by the Minnesota Supreme Court in Baker v. Nelson, when it rejected the argument that denying a same-sex couple the right to marry was the equivalent of racial discrimination. The court found: “In common sense and constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.”
Similarly, in October 2003, a three-judge panel of the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled unanimously against two homosexuals who argued in a lawsuit that marriage is a fundamental right, and that prohibiting it for same-sex couples violates constitutional protections for due process. The court found that the state’s ban on homosexual marriage “rationally furthers a legitimate state interest,” and thus does not discriminate against homosexuals by depriving them of their constitutional rights. The court further noted: “Recognizing a right to marry someone of the same sex would not expand the established right to marry, but would redefine the legal meaning of ‘marriage.’”
When gay activists and their supporters cry “discrimination!” they conveniently avoid the question of whether homosexual relationships merit being granted equality with marriage. Yet this question deserves our close examination, for the danger posed to our society by redefining marriage is no less than permitting unqualified individuals to fly airplanes.



------------------------------------------------------------
sometimes i just want to ask people if they hear what they're saying, and if so, does it make sense to them? i mean, really, all gay marriages will result in short-term, abusive, and polygamous mockeries of the sanctity of britney spears' right to be joined legally for 10 minutes?? hetero marriages are ridiculing their institution just fine by themselves... if i were gay i wouldn't even WANT to be a part of it! (aside from the right to claim my SO on my taxes, of course)
------------------------------------------------------------



Abigail Lourdes
October 22, 2009
Review and response: Opposing same-sex marriage

In Opposing Same-Sex Marriage Does Not Discriminate Against Gays, Timothy Dailey assesses the threat that would be allowing gay marriage. He likens homosexual relationships to humans who would like to assemble relationships outside of their species and alludes the idea that homosexuals are not capable of an ideal familial relationship. Closely related to gay marriage in the non-traditional marriage argument lies the case for polyamory which, Dailey tells us, is the practice of having more than one (sometimes a group) spousal relationship and can come in many combinations. While neither condoning or condemning the practice, he refers to professor of law at UM, David Chambers, to tell us that with the acceptance of this lifestyle would come the approval of marriage no longer consisting of one person of each sex. Dailey ascertains the impending decline in the mechanic of marriage which leads to a "free-for-all" family that children would witness as an unhealthy model for sexuality. In Opposing Same-Sex Marriage, he goes on to explain how the primary impression of parental influence being a gay relationship is unsuitable for children because children will then witness the temporary state of the partnership and be unable to form its own long term connection with a spouse.
Despite the fact that many proponents of homosexual marriage liken the situation to the civil rights violations of Black Americans, which in itself is controversial, Dailey informs us that upholding the legal definition of a "traditional marriage" is not inherently discrimination. Because no "natural" law is defined in favor of homosexuality as normal behavior, it cannot be called discrimination if they are not allowed to do an "improper" thing. He points out the court cases in which it is made evident that there is a difference between race and sex of course, and further explains that in order to accept gay marriage, the established right would not simply change, but need to be redefined in legal terms.
All of Timothy Dailey's supporting research points to the conclusion that it is not wrong to deny gays the right to marry. Everyone is entitled to an opinionated stance, but should that stance, however educated, be given credence over all others and used as authority on an issue, which seems to have happened in the case of anti gay marriage debate? The power of popular opinion is what drives the laws, regardless of individual decision makers' beliefs. People get married for other reasons than blind devotion, and love. If the institute of marriage weren't already being made a mockery of by divorce (sometimes instantaneous) or other types of termination in the relationship, how then can the situation be made worse by allowing the liberty to everyone who wishes to participate in it? Timothy Dailey has oversimplified the problem into an "us versus them" battle of generalizations and misconceptions without acknowledging the possibility of difference in culture or deviating moral standards, throughout geography and commonly in history.
Regardless of what personal beliefs on the nature or origin of homosexuality are, the fact remains that no one has definitively proven beyond a reasonable doubt that homosexuality is chosen or, like race, is present at birth. The two issues are synonymous only in the sense that they are equally victim to degradation. Perhaps gay people aren't forced to sit at the back of the bus, but when is the last time you heard a person - anyone - say, "That's black," as an insult or derogatory term (in the sense that "That's gay" was meant to demean)? Though these discrimination charges have equal footing, the arguments for and against gay marriage stand alone, without being likened to any situation involving race, and that issue should not be a crutch on which we benchmark the equality of all human rights.
He is right: this is not a civil rights issue. It is a human rights issue. By allowing the legal definition of a word to act as constituent for its applicability to the issue, you would be denying the relevance of copious legal definition changes throughout history. Early in 2000, the word rape was legally redefined in all states to apply to a situation without reference to the sex of victim or perpetrator. If this can be done for a summarily problematic role-defined situation, why not for marriage as well? The changing of the definition of rape did not halt identification of it or prosecutions for it. To redefined in legal terms the union of marriage would not be impossible, or costly, or prohibitive to those who want to obtain a heterosexual marriage certificate. The issue of marriage discrimination falls far from Dailey's example of flying a plane without a license - unlike flying a plane, there is no bodily danger to countless others if you do not know how to be married. There is no danger at all.
Dailey's argument operates largely on the assumption that gay people don't stay together. But perhaps because the homosexual community is full of uncertainty, and of people wondering if they really are gay, it is poorly representative of the affirmed, prolonged relationships. The heterosexual community doesn't have that problem to reflect its numbers as falsely unstable, and yet its sanctioned marriages are still wrought en mass with questions of fidelity, stability, commitment and divorce. His research into the Netherlands villages does not take into account the fact that a gay marriage is still fighting opposition, a challenge which no heterosexual marriage apart from interracial unions in the 1970s have faced. And yet, discrimination against interracial marriage - which at one point was also compared to unions with animals - was deemed to be unconstitutional and laws prohibiting it were removed. If these studies were applied also to the vastly larger heterosexual community, would it find that because of the larger ratio of straight people, was there a larger percentage of incidents involving infidelity, violence, and short duration? These are not problems which are limited to the homosexual community, and if it is acceptable for children to witness the struggles of a man and a woman experiencing these tribulations, then why is it not acceptable for them to witness diversity at the same time? The very idea that children cannot determine a healthy relationship from one that is faulty, regardless of parental gender, is insulting at best, to their self preservation instincts as well as their intelligence. I hope that people who use this particular argument will somehow one day realize that not every homosexual relationship is a short, abusive, polygamous farces designed solely for the invasion of the sanctity of marriage.
------------------------------------------------------------


that being said, i have to calm myself down and remind us that it is only imperfection that complains of what is imperfect. the more perfect we are the more gentle and quiet we become towards the defects of others. (-the lovely joseph addison) therefore, i will embrace our right to disagree, and satisfy the fact that i DO understand the fear from which the opposition is speaking, but i hope to help them realize their fear is uncalled for, no one is trying to hurt them, and this is an issue that genuinely won't cause nuclear war in papua new guinea, OR the moon to fall on top of hollywood.