Most people would agree to marriage equality and
reform.
Well, equality we have: any couple can get married (couple
relating, of course, to sexual union; sexual union requiring male and
female...even plumbers recognise that). Reform? Why; what needs to be
reformed? Nothing that I can see.
When ‘reform’ and ‘equality’ are hijacked to promote the
legitimisation of sodomy, that’s a move to mask the depraved with the
honourable.
Marriage is regularised by the state, and so by
society, for the orderly having and raising of children, for the
children’s benefit, largely. If a couple doesn’t have children, then
they simply want to signal their exclusive sexual relationship.
I don’t see how sodomistic perversion needs or should have any place
in societies’ orderly structure as it has no relation to the having or
raising of children; indeed, as one commentator put it; it is more a
‘death-style’ than a life-style. Nor is it actually about sex, using
only one sex organ and one elimination organ (in many cases)
One hopes that with the inability of the rectum to host offspring,
that the practice of placing an organ or procreation inside an organ of
elimination would automatically entail the demise of the practice.
20130924
20130724
20130702
Not married?
The headline was "Australian paedophile jailed (sic) for 40 years.
Being as he and his pal didn't have the sexual connection to procreate, they paid someone else to produce a baby; then took it.
Then they sexually abused the boy, from the get go, it seems.
Even the ABC reporter who interviewed this 'innovative' pair (not a couple...no coupling equipment on them) said that she thought they were just hunky dory: even 'loving' of their boy.
Not so, of course...and just how deceiving looks can be.
But, at least they weren't married!
Being as he and his pal didn't have the sexual connection to procreate, they paid someone else to produce a baby; then took it.
Then they sexually abused the boy, from the get go, it seems.
Even the ABC reporter who interviewed this 'innovative' pair (not a couple...no coupling equipment on them) said that she thought they were just hunky dory: even 'loving' of their boy.
Not so, of course...and just how deceiving looks can be.
But, at least they weren't married!
20130629
Distaste? anti-gay?
The current fluff about 'gay marriage' talks about discrimination against 'gays' in not allowing them to be married.
What tosh!
Gays (I presume this means homosexuals) can get married, but they usually don't want to. Marriage is at heart a sexual union: sex is about difference; a fact well known to plumbers.
Homosexuals expressly disdain difference, and therefore sex; all they do is entertain each other with empty and pathetic games with their sexual plumbing. That's not sexual intercourse because it cannot produce offspring.
Now, I couldn't care less whether people want to play bottom games or not; but to pretend that bottom games could be the basis of marriage is gag me with a spoon nonsensical.
I also couldn't care less if they have a civil union recognised in law; it just ain't marriage. To call it such just underlines the juvenile game of pretend sex that they play.
What tosh!
Gays (I presume this means homosexuals) can get married, but they usually don't want to. Marriage is at heart a sexual union: sex is about difference; a fact well known to plumbers.
Homosexuals expressly disdain difference, and therefore sex; all they do is entertain each other with empty and pathetic games with their sexual plumbing. That's not sexual intercourse because it cannot produce offspring.
Now, I couldn't care less whether people want to play bottom games or not; but to pretend that bottom games could be the basis of marriage is gag me with a spoon nonsensical.
I also couldn't care less if they have a civil union recognised in law; it just ain't marriage. To call it such just underlines the juvenile game of pretend sex that they play.
20130624
No home rules
For some bizarre reason my family, sans me, watches the Channel 7 drivel 'My House Rules'.
I was constrained to watch a finalish episode tonite where the fake drama builds to eliminate a 'team': one of the tasteless teams of amateur tradesmen, and even more amateur designers who produce predictable flummery. The show is pure junk; but there could be spinoffs:
My car rules: a show about motor maintenance.
My housekeeping rules: a show about cleaning a house.
My brief of evidence rules; where criminals could prepare briefs against each other; the looser being the winner: the one with the longest gaol term.
Then, of course, my TV show rules: where we have amateur producers....oh, hang on, Channel 7 does that already with its predictable parade of moronic shows (except Lewis, Morse, Endeavour...not produced by ch. 7).
One of the contestants was brought to the home that had been renovated for them. The woman of the couple could only leer from room to room saying nothing but "oh my gawd' at varying speeds. And that's all she could say: no other response. Its like she'd gotten her whole vocabulary, emotion, and perspective from American TV shows: talk about living vicariously through the fictional lives of TV characters! It was so pathetic it was embarrassing!
I was constrained to watch a finalish episode tonite where the fake drama builds to eliminate a 'team': one of the tasteless teams of amateur tradesmen, and even more amateur designers who produce predictable flummery. The show is pure junk; but there could be spinoffs:
My car rules: a show about motor maintenance.
My housekeeping rules: a show about cleaning a house.
My brief of evidence rules; where criminals could prepare briefs against each other; the looser being the winner: the one with the longest gaol term.
Then, of course, my TV show rules: where we have amateur producers....oh, hang on, Channel 7 does that already with its predictable parade of moronic shows (except Lewis, Morse, Endeavour...not produced by ch. 7).
One of the contestants was brought to the home that had been renovated for them. The woman of the couple could only leer from room to room saying nothing but "oh my gawd' at varying speeds. And that's all she could say: no other response. Its like she'd gotten her whole vocabulary, emotion, and perspective from American TV shows: talk about living vicariously through the fictional lives of TV characters! It was so pathetic it was embarrassing!
Lewis 2
A nice touch in another Lewis episode, can't recall which one; but a character is referred to as having done some minor acting work, including some work on The Bill. Very droll to refer to one show from another!
20130615
Coupling?
I don't often pay attention to what an Anglican archbishop says, but Pete Jensen hit the mark in the Sydney Morning Herald:
This week he continued to argue forcefully that gay marriage was an impossibility because ''marriage requires a sexual consummation, and that is what men and women do.''
''How do two men have sexual union?'' he shoots back, when challenged on the definition of consummation. ''You have joined a couple of people together at a spot where they shouldn't be joined together, really.''
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)