Below are the 6 most recent journal entries recorded in David's LiveJournal:

Monday, June 5th, 2006
10:49 pm	updated my bio today Well, things have changed, so I updated my bio. I got kicked out of law school, apparently after you have enough credits, they lock the door and make you go take a bar exam. They made me wear a dress and funny hat and walk out infront of people and stuff. It was mixed joy and sorrow thru-out the day. Joy to be finished with school, sorrow to be leaving the friends I made. Joy at the family that showed up for the ceremony, sorrow at the ones who wouldn't or couldn't. Joy at having the bar exams behind me and, uh... more joy at teasing my clasmates who still had to go take it? Anyway, the bar exams, yes... well I passed both of the ones I took. One with a very VERY small passing rate too (smirk of pride.) I will be swearing in to both jurisdictions this month. For any unfortunate souls that stumble thru here and wonder what it takes to pass an bar exam, I recommend two things, take the 3 day PMBR course, and the full BarBri course. They make their money passing bars, so let them do their jobs and they will get you thru it. Don't let the pressure get to you. Dump everything you have into the first try. You don't ever want to have to go thru it again. The wife and I took a Lindy Hop class this past month. It was fun, I enjoyed it immensely, which naturally means she hated it and we will likely never do it again. I give her a hat tip for trying it anyway. Maybe I can get her liquored up and talk her into attempting it publicly. Not sure if there is enough vodka in the world for it, but we can try. well... I don't want to over do so I will call it a night and try to pace myself some. Maybe I will update again in under a year! Current Mood: horny Current Music: silence (3 Comments |Comment on this)
Wednesday, July 21st, 2004
2:31 pm	TK power! What superpower(s) would you recieve after being hit with cosmic energy? Name DOB Favourite Color Your super power is super brain that allows telekenisis on objects that weigh < .06 lbs The color of your costume is Olive Green Your Battle Cry is "WHICH WAY DID THEY GO? WHICH WAY DID THEY GO?" Your side-kick is A 93 year old man named Melvin This quiz by eddiescott - Taken 9898 Times. </a> New - How do you get a guy to like you? (1 Comment |Comment on this)
Tuesday, July 20th, 2004
10:34 pm	Nature vs Nurture and Homosexuality Another question that springs up everywhere around the homosexual marriage debate is weather homosexuality is a choice or not or natural or not. It seems to be the contention of certain religious groups that if it is unnatural it can be outlawed or that if it is a choice they can choose not to be gay. This piece was written in reply to somone who asked if it was something we were born with or something we choose...   Yes and Yes. It is something we are born with AND something we choose. First of all, human sexuality is a composite of so very many different aspects that distilling it down to an either/or choice is an unrealistic oversimplification. There are so very many dynamics beyond genitalia that attract us to people or repel us from them. Even if the plumbing matches, you don’t find everyone equally attractive unilaterally. If those distinguishing aspects (humor, honesty, aroma, tone, habits) are present cross-gender-ly then degrees of attraction/revulsion are present cross-gender-ly as well. My understanding of the current paradigm for human sexual orientation is like a spectrum. It occurs in rare instances as a polar extreme of 100% gay or 100% straight, and in most other cases (approx 80% of people) in degrees of ambiguity, attaching attraction to non-gender traits. This then is the genetic basis for our predisposition towards gay or straightness. Now on top of that comes the socialization of the person in question. If you are inherently gay and raised that it is a sin or unnatural or social unconscionable, then your expression of your sexuality may not be homosexually characterized. In an effort to reduce the internal conflict you may like “manly” women or effeminate men or just remain celibate. The degree to which you are successful depends on the strength of the inherent and learned tendencies inbalance against each other. So if you meet a candidate for attraction that is an exact match for every requisite on your internal lists except for one some compromise can be accommodated. For example, an honest, attractive, hard working companion that has a bad laugh or crooked teeth, or maybe has the same genitalia. On the other hand, if you are raised in a society where homosexuality is required, then you will probably (90% likely) express your tendencies in the socially acceptable practices of homosexuality even if you are straight inherently. The net result of these models is that if you are in a society that is indifferent to your sexuality, there is no internal conflict or sublimation of nature to behavior and you just be what you are. The healthiest option is the one with the least conflict; it reduces stress, suicides, self-deceit, marital fracture and promotes health and longevity. Some people are so overwhelmingly gay that they cannot suppress their nature; others are so overwhelmingly neither that they act indiscriminately with regards to gender and select partners based on non-gender based traits, these are termed bisexuals. Furthermore, the act is severable from the inclination in most non-polar people. So you can be straight, commit what is outwardly a homosexual act and not consider yourself (or in fact BE) gay. This is further substantiation of the culture vs nature paradigm. Women can kiss other women, even have sex with them, and not be “gay” if they don’t find them attractive. Culturally, this is not as taboo in America as even just men kissing men. The reason for the discrepancy in acceptability is due to the socialization, not the nature. Homosexuality occurs in nature. Most mammalian species have some documented cases of homosexuality. The inclination is genetic, we can induce it in simpler species with genetic manipulation, but the expression of the inclination still remains an action, and any action will always involve a choice on the part of the actor. So it is both. We cannot at this point change the genetics of it in humans, so that avenue of eliminating the internal conflicts is not available. However, as a society, we can behave indifferently towards expressions of orientation and resolve it that way, promoting the greatest health and happiness of our society. If it helps, just think of it as god having picked for you before you were born and you living up to his ideal. (3 Comments |Comment on this)
10:30 pm	An American history of wedlock One of the current hot topics is Gay Marriage.  People often claim that the institution of marriage is centuries old, established by god, and unchanged until this newly proposed modification.  I wrote this piece to demonstrate that those issues are either irrelevant or untrue in the political debate about the constitutionality of homosexual marriages...   Why does the state entangle itself with marriage? I mean the reasons for the original racism are well established, but when those reasons were exposed and invalidated, why did the state stay involved? What is marriage? Marriage is a contract between the state and 2 persons. The state grants them certain powers and penalties, property rights and authorities over each other. There were many social purposes that were served by the institution that is marriage. Sex had huge consequences. Because of its inherent dangers, the institution of marriage was created to confine sex to a manageable state. There was no way sex was going to be stopped, so instead it was controlled. For centuries, this containment system for sex was quite functional. The state wanted to provide for clear property rights, inheritance rights, social support of children and their legitimacy. The institution of marriage was a tool to achieve that. Marriage was a social tool to bind families together and build community bridges tying members of society together and giving it a cohesiveness. There was no required love in the marital unions, it was all politics. Because it was political and not always (or even often) willingly entered in to, the escape was denied for those lacking political authority. Divorce could only be granted for adultery, and adultery was a crime so you weren’t so much divorced for it as executed and thus widowed. Otherwise, there was no escape except to abandon everything and flee to start anew. There was a whole host of carry on crimes attached to that, alienation of affection for seducing another’s wife, fines for damages to reputation, etc. Times being what they are and doing what it does, things changed. America came along and built the world’s first middle class. Previous ease of administration gave way to complexity as growing numbers of the population had STUFF! Property interests were one of the rights in marriage that the state held control over. Back when 5% of the population owned everything it was easier to ignore the 95% that didn’t have anything to pass on. With more people possessing property, there were more marriages to be concerned about the dissolution of and fewer causes to abandon your spouse and just flee (ignoring the problem). Murder became the increasing solution and the state relaxed its position against divorce to try and solve it. Enter the divorce for cause laws, if someone did something to screw up the marriage, they could be divorced and they paid the penalty. It worked, but only for a while. Eventually, women’s equality became an issue and suddenly, when the subjugated half became able to stand free and on their own, thus ending their oppression, marriages were breaking up all over. Prior to then, women couldn’t own property, were subject to the will of the husband in any legal decision and had no legal standing without a man to speak for them. Because women could act for themselves, marriages were breaking up and women were no longer putting up with injustices and abuse, the divorce for cause became problematic. People began entrapping their spouses into marital violations. Sneaking extra-marital persons into their bedroom to fabricate the appearances of adultery, misbehaving to the point of mental cruelty to get the other to flee or act harshly, spreading lies and gossip. Society responded by enacting the no-fault divorce, which brings us more or less to where we have been since the 1970’s. Some time between the civil war and the civil rights movement the state started regulating marriage directly. Prior to that it was the province of the church. No license requirements existed, no regulations were kept, and only the word of a person that they were wed was required. After the emancipation of the slaves, however, some people got upset at the prospect of races intermarrying. Churches had the right to refuse to wed people, but all they had to do was form their own church and they could marry. The response to this “danger” was for the state to enact the anti-miscegenation laws and regulate marriage, making interracial wedlock a crime (a capital one in some states at that!) Loving v Virginia was a 1960’s case that tore that philosophy down and declared unconstitutional all the laws prohibiting marriages based on race. Now keep in mind here, the only reason the state got involved was to legalize discrimination. The church brought it in to what was previously their ground, but they lacked the authority to enforce it. So here we are in the present day. Most of the things a marriage was required to control in a sociological sense is no longer meaningful. Legitimacy of children is determinable with a paternity test. Illigitmate children are avoidable with proper application of birth control or in worst cases abortion. Forcing people to conform to a social structure that was harmful has been gone for decades. Tribal unification against outside assailants and interdependence of neighboring tribes as support structures has no use on an individual scale in a global economy. Consequently, the “social foundation” that may or may not have been based on the creation of this country is not one that the present country requires to sustain its existence. Saying it has always been that way and therefore must remain that way weren’t compelling to sustain slavery or suffrage (two other institutions this country was founded on) why should it be so now? Now, to address the constitutional aspects. We are not a democracy, we are a constitutional republic. Our constitution prevents Mob Rule that a true democracy would create by protecting fundamental rights of individual citizens against that mob. This is the bill of rights, the ball and chain on the powers of the gov’t to prevent them from oppressing us. Everything from god to guns that the gov’t can’t take away is listed there. Some of the rights are implicitly read into them as required to make the guaranteed rights meaningful. We cannot stop the Nazi party from peacefully assembling to discuss their world views any more than we can stop the Mormon Tabernacle Choir from assembling peacefully to sing. The gov’t lacks that power, the citizens are protected in that. Property rights, freedom to associate and freedom of religion are all guaranteed in the bill of rights. So while it is true, you can elect a senator who proposes a bill to deny access to marriage for blacks, or men under 6 feet tall, or homosexuals; and it is further true you can vote such a law into power on a ballot; the courts will rule any such law as unconstitutional. You have a right to decide who can speak for you in a medical emergency. You have a right to decide who gets your stuff when you die. You have a right to decide who stands at your side in social situations and for recognition of achievements for your support. You have a right to pick who you invest these trusts in and for whom you are willing to shoulder the responsibility of being trusted. You have a right in choosing upon whom the 317 different marital tax benefits you will collaborate. The gov’t cannot tell you that you must marry or if you do marry that you must have children or that if you are not married that you cannot have children or that if you are married and want to get out that you have to stay. If Brittany Spears divorces after 17 hours of wedded bliss or Tanya Harding won her husband on Who Wants to Box for a Millionaire it in no way impacts your relationship with your spouse. Your commitment or lack thereof is between you and them alone. It is not impacted by how often your neighbors have sex or how frequently your president holds hands with his wife. The institution of marriage because of its intimate commingling with property rights and personal freedoms has been ruled a Fundamental Right. Fundamental rights are very special ones, and for the gov’t to restrict a fundamental right they have to show that their restriction is not only necessary to control a more compelling gov’t interest, but that the way they restrict it is narrowly tailored to fit exactly the part they have to control and is neither over inclusive or under inclusive in its impact. They lack any grounds to do so against gay marriages. Last thing, if you are saying that marriages are the foundation of this society, then granting rights and recognitions to those people who want to marry strengthens that foundation by including all members of society in their foundation. Excluding people from participating would weaken that foundation, so propagating those fractures weakens us. United we stand, divided we fall. Stop dividing us. (In other words, if you don't want gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex, otherwise leave them alone.) (3 Comments |Comment on this)
10:23 pm	what to do here... Well, I do some posting on political/religious/parenting debate boards and it requires I write some essays to explain my position. I am thinking (gasp!) that perhaps I should collect up some of those essays here and save me the hassle of re-writing them ad nauseum. So that is what I am going to do... For the record, I am an atheist, married 11 years, father of 2 and work in the computer field for a research facility, own 2 dogs, a victorian home and drive a small fuel efficient vehicle. Peace! ~ David (3 Comments |Comment on this)
Friday, February 20th, 2004
8:59 pm	First Entry Well, thanks to Patrushka for getting me here. I suppose I should write something witty and engaging and terribly pertinent.....but I am not that guy. I am David, full time computer tech, part time law student and eternal father of the most adorable kids in the world (okay, so I may be biased.) For hobbies I play internet games like MUDs, NeverWinter Nights, RavenBlack's Vampire City or the like and I enjoy a good read. By good I mean fantasy, sci-fi or critical thinking works. I also pretend to play bagpies in a band. I say pretend because with work and school my practice times suck. Ergo, my skills are equally suckage. But I can belt out Minstrel Boy and Amazing Grace so I get by. For the internet stalkers out there, I am 6'2" and until recently weighed 250 lbs but now am a trim, svelt 200. Brown hair (used to turn blonde in the sun but now I no longer see the firey orb so much) blue eyes and bearded. No mention of hair you say? Well, that would be because I change it too frequently to be able to describe with any degree of accuracy. Shave my head this week, flat top next week, ceasar not too long after, gelled and slick, long and shaggy, groomed, surfer, mullet, frosted....whatever. So there it is and here I am. Taa-daa. Current Mood: cheerful Current Music: Seven Nations (1 Comment |Comment on this)