I’m just about sick of being examined. Yesterday was my first doctor’s visit in two years, and my first physical in about three years. Contrary to the sage advice of my friend Jenny, I did not have my pap smeared (ew, ew, ew). Rose-Hulman requires a battery of tests, however, including (and this surprised even my doctor), an exercise test, in which the doc measures your resting pulse, then you jog in place for a minute, then your pulse is measured again immediately after, then again two minutes later. But all in all, the exam went well. Apparently, there is nothing to be done about the icky sac of fluid on my knee; it’s been there five years now, and there’s apparently no damage to cartiledge or anything, so it just sits there, more disturbing than painful (unless pressed). Um, yeah. Ew.
What was disturbing about the exam was the height measurement. I had no real idea of how tall I am; I figured I was about 5 feet, 6 inches, maybe even 7 inches. It turns out that I’m 5 feet, 5.5 inches (1.66 m). Now, a half an inch doesn’t sound like much difference, but there’s a big psychological difference between 5 and a half feet and anything less. That makes you short. Damn.
I may be short, but that’s okay, ‘cuz short people kick ass too.
I visited the optometrist today for an eye exam, and to see if I needed new glasses. Turns out only one of my eyes has worsened in prescription, and that’s only a single level. So I used my visit to get a second pair of lenses in my old nifty Jeep frames to take to college as backup. I would seriously hate to get eleven hours away from home, melt my glasses to slag doing some funky chemistry experiment, and be without a pair for the length of time to mail a backup pair from home or find a doctor in Terre Haute that has accepts my insurance, etc., etc. I got out el-cheapo, even though I got all the scratch-resistant stuff and transition lenses on the second pair (shh, don’t tell Dad).
Oh, and Pirates of the Caribbean? Just as good and funny the second time, even if you’re sitting in the front row and the entirety of the screen just fits in the area of the magnified vision provided by your glasses when pushed high on your nose. It does prove frustrating when the glasses slide down, though, as they tend to.
Speaking of feeling short, I think I got the short end of a debate that’s been going on for the last little while with an old high school buddy that I shall call Cleric. If one were to sum up Cleric’s stance on political, social, or moral issues, one would be best suited to call them Conservative Christian. But he’s polite in an argument/debate, so I can deal with that. Nor does he preach or push, really, which is something I can’t even say I don’t do. Anyway, Cleric weighed in on the Reparations and neo-Nazis posts, as he has done on a few other issues, and a great, meandering low-key debate began. We both know that we won’t change each other’s opinions on anything, but he does often give me something to think about, so neither of us get particularly upset by what the other says anymore (at least, I try not to). Anyway, as sort of a joke (or, rather, in a very light-hearted manner), as well as to see if his response would fit the typical, conservative Christian viewpoint, I asked his opinon of the sodomy ruling. His response essentially criticized the idea of the privacy of the act excusing it–it sets a dangerous precedent for other things “consenting adults” may choose to do, like drugs or other potentially harmful activities. Actually, I shouldn’t say drugs, I suppose, because I fear a Liberatarian teacher of mine rubbed off on me somewhat (with regards to the whole marijuana idea)–if you choose to kill yourself in a manner that doesn’t harm others (unlike smoking in public, let’s say) in the privacy of your home, should the government interfere? Can they? Likewise, why the hell is suicide illegal? I don’t get that. If you’re at the point of committing suicide, are you thinking about the fact that when you die you will be committing a crime?
But the whole privacy precedent is potentially dangerous. So, geek that I am, I went and read some of the Court and Dissenting Opinons… or whatever they call it. Anyway, I made a rebuttal that mentioned that the emphasis seemed to be (acknowloging my utter lack of knowledge about laws and the fact that I read only part of the report) on the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments. And I think that the legal precedent set is important, although I think any other ruling would have been completely absurd. As I wrote in the e-mail: “[T]o condemn men who [want, either through choice or nature] to have sex with another man (and what would you have them do, never have sex in their entire lives?!) or people who wish to engage in oral sex (as that’s covered in [some of these “sex laws”] as well) is outside of the scope of the gov’t’s role.” The ruling going any other way is kind of a funny (in a horrific way) thought; what would the government do, start picking up any people who fit the homosexual stereotypes? It’s utterly absurd. But if the Court had to result to funky methods to achieve that ruling, something which is unnoticable to my legally-ignorant self or others… I don’t know. I would just hate to see this ruling overturned later on a technicality.
What I was orignally heading towards, though, was that Cleric also asked why homosexuals are pushing so hard for same sex marriages. He pointed out that in most states they can get unions and “they can even call it marriage”, but the legality of it, the wills, taxes, etc., aren’t handled the same. He also asked why “they want the rest of us to justify them”. And this is why I feel shorted. I replied with my own question and expounded upon it a little: “Why are they denied it?” I see it as no different than racism–you can stick your moral judgement on it, you can justify that with religion, but you are still condemning a group of people who are different than you to a “separate but equal” stance, which is, in fact, not equal, particularly morally. While it isn’t as bad as what blacks went through in this country, if we compare every instance of racism to the plight of blacks, then no other oppressed group would ever get any airtime for their problems. So I consider it a valid argument.
Not all of this was in the reply e-mail. Just the basic ideas and a couple of sub-points. His response? That my political arguments (regarding the Lawrence vs. Texas ruling, I presume) make some sense. I wanted an irresolvable argument in which he defended his viewpoints, dammit. Hell, he didn’t even say precisely what his opinions were!
Grr. I feel short. And shorted.