Wednesday, 23 October 2013
Anyway, now that we've got that shameless plug out of the way, how are you my dear readers? I know it's been a long while since I blogged, but I don't really have much to say that isn't under 140 characters these days. I'm sitting here writing this, on a wednesday evening at 10:50pm, with a menthol cigarette and a cup of chocolate milkshake (I'm so badass) wracking my brains about what to write. I gots the urge but I don't gots the inspiration. I think it's because by this time at night I'm far too tired to actually think straight. I'm full of ideas but the brain's gone to sleep. Which is handy in a not-at-all-handy-really kind of a way. So how about we cut this short (just like me) and keep it as what it essentially is, seeing as I can't think of anything interesting to say: A shameless plug to get more followers on twitter!
So yeah, follow me (literally, if you feel the need to, I could do with more excitement in my life!) and keep up with my day to day ramblings, my angry rants about the school run and other fun tit bits that I may randomly post. Believe me, your life will be all the better for it.
Friday, 14 June 2013
"It Is Not Marriage...
Calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses."
If calling something marriage does not make it marriage, then I propose that your heterosexual union is not a marriage. If you claim that calling something a name does not make it so, then surely it goes both ways? What makes your union a marriage that cannot be used to call a homosexual union a marriage? The only difference is that (only) one of you has a penis. Really, if you truly love each other, then I don't see any difference. Homosexuality has been rife ever since man first became man and look, millions of years later, we're still here. I really don't think that homosexuality is a threat to the ongoing progressions of our species. If it was, we'd have died out by now.
Wow. That's a lot of pressure for a newly wed couple. "Come on Dave, we need to save all of humanity..." Not exactly the sexiest example of pillow talk. First of all, human beings have been reproducing since before the very idea of marriage was invented. I'm fairly certain early men were sticking their little soldiers into their women-folk as often as they felt like it without needing a reason besides the fact that they wanted to. The act of sex comes about because of normal physical urges. Sometimes certain parts of the body just want to be played with for a little while. It's in-built and natural. There is nothing in nature that says "you have to shag because you are married." If that was the case then I would have never have met my parents as they would have been locked in their room 24/7 and I'd have a lot of brothers and sisters. My father would be disabled because of exhaustion, not a work accident. My friend and her husband are in a childless marriage as my friends husband is infertile. Does this mean that their marriage is fake? It feels real to them. They love each other and wanted to make it so that if anything happened to one of them, the other was safe from worries like homelessness and poverty. Marriage is basically a nice little word for "legal". Contracts have been signed, property has been shared and metal rings have been exchanged. Marriage is a man-made idea, it comes from humans, not nature. There are no monkies in the jungles of godknows where getting hitched. I promise you this. There are monkies shagging and having babies, but none of them are exchanging vows in order to do this.
It's against my religion. My holy words say that it's bad."
Good for you. It's not against mine. I don't have one. What else do your holy words say is bad? Shaving? Eating meat on a Tuesday? Do you follow all of the rules properly? Probably not but that's your choice. If you want to follow those rules then go for it, but they are YOUR rules, no-one elses. It's not up to you to decide how someone else lives their life. They're not hurting you, so why are you trying to hurt them? I'm not religious. I admire those that are, I'm sure your religion has been a great comfort to you in times of need, but you have absolutely no right to use it to cause harm on anyone. It's just plain spiteful. Despite my lack of religion though, let me quote from yours. "Judge not lest ye be judged." Yeah. Think about that.
"It Will Lead to Marriage Involving Animals, Siblings, Children, or Groups of People!"
I hate to burst your bubble here, but that already happens. There are people out there, who classify themselves as heterosexual, who are doing these things. I'm not denying that homosexuals do it too, but it's not limited to a specific gender preference. For instance, the 50 year old school janitor who likes to watch the little girls undress. He isn't a homosexual, quite the opposite in fact. So how is allowing gay marriage going to have any effect on this pervert? Quite simply, it isn't. And as it stands, gay marriage is illegal in your state, legalising it doesn't mean that you have to legalise paedophillia or bestiality. You can legalise one thing and keep the others illegal. It's not all one great big package, it's like a breakfast menu, you can pick and choose from the group. The thing that no-one is picking up on though, is that homosexual sex is (usually) consensual Both parties agree and no-one gets hurt. In bestiality or paedophilia, one party doesn't agree, it's non-consensual and as such as classified as rape and the non-consenting party has to live with the ordeal for years afterwards. No-one in a consenting gay union goes through any kind of ordeal and no-one has to live with the repercussions afterwards. That is why it's ridiculous to class it in with such other acts. The reason we frown upon incest is because it limits the expansion of the gene pool and after a few generations of inbreeding, genetic mutations can occur which can lead to the offspring dying early, being brain damaged or even just so freaking ugly that no-one is going to want to shag them. No matter how drunk. That is a very good reason to try and avoid shagging a family member, however unions of the same sex will not result in children. Not without the aid of medical science or the adoption of an unwanted child anyway, so the gene pool is left untainted and free from mutations that might pass down the family line. If given the choice between legalising a union that can cause defects in a future generation or legalising a union that will not result in a future generation (bearing in mind that some heterosexual unions cannot conceive a child either) then which one is the most logical one to pick? Yeah, gay unions are the safest bet and that is why they should be legalised, they are not harming anyone.
"It's just not natural..."
Excuse me, but are you wearing glasses? Do you enjoy air conditioning? Do you eat processed foods? Do you live in a house that is kept comfortable during winter with the aid of central heating? Do you wear polyester? None of those things are natural, they are all man-made. If you can enjoy those things then your argument is invalid. Quite besides which, actually homosexuality IS natural. Homosexuality is found throughout the animal kingdom and homosexual acts are often used as a way to blow off steam or solve problems. Really, if you think about it, it's only humans that have a problem with sex and how it should be used. Sex is a natural act and since before humans were human, man was trying to stick his little friend into anything and everything. It's another one of those pesky natural urges.
"It Offends God..."
Really? You don't think that an all knowing and all seeing deity has better things to be watching than a bit of man on man action? And if he did create the heavens and the earth and all things in them like you believe, then why did he let them be gay in the first place? Personally I don't believe in an omnipotent sky-beard, but I'm fairly certain that if one existed, he wouldn't be looking down on us going "oh dear, they're at it again... tut tut tut." He'd be like "right, that's bad, lets get that sorted with a good bit of smiting." Yeah, I've read the bible (which is more than some christians have) and I remember that he was really into a good bit of smiting now and again. And floods. He loved himself a good flood. If god really disapproves then he'll do something about it. Clearly, the fact that he hasn't means that he couldn't give a toss. And I don't blame him. Who one man loves is not a matter up for debate. It's between him and the man he loves who hopefully loves him in return. Is my friend destroying your life by loving someone? You don't know him, you've never met him and probably never will. He recently married (civil ceremony) his partner of 6 years and they are very happy together. Is their union affecting your life? Are you suddenly unable to use your legs? Have you gone deaf in one ear? Have you lost all of your money? Your house? Your partner or children all because my friend decided to let himself be happy? The answer is no, you spiteful biggot. His life has absolutely NO effect on your life whatsoever and your need to destroy his is purely down to a psychotic need to control everything around you. Just because you don't approve of it doesn't make it bad. Just look at music of the 1950's, the first talking pictures and the black rights movement. People disapproved of them at first and look at them now. The world is a better place for them being in it. Why are you stopping the world from being a better place?
Tuesday, 23 April 2013
Tuesday, 19 February 2013
I haven't blogged in a while. Not since shit started getting really real anyway. When I started this blog it was to be a written journey through my adventures in motherhood and crafting and somewhere along the way it got too personal on an uncomfortable level. I've deleted those posts because no-one needs to read such messed up headfuckery. What I'm left with now that they are gone is sparse and uninteresting and tainted by the posts that were and I'm in two minds whether to salvage what I have and build on it, or just delete the lot and start again. In a sense it parallels my life at the moment... I don't know how to go forward from here and I'm not sure that I really want to. I'm prone to feeling sorry for myself - I'm a drama queen, its what we do. But do I really want to lay here being all woe is me or do I want to get back out there, brave and tall (hah!) and get on with my life? I'm at a crossroads and I don't know which direction to take. So I ask of you dear readers... Do I salvage my blog and nurse it better or do I delete the whole thing entirely?