Over-active Mind
So my mind is going 90 miles an hour. I thought maybe if I blogged, I could organize my thoughts and possibly sleep peacefully tonight. I got so many things muddling around in my head that I cannot seem to stay focused on anything.
SEX....S-E-X....some one pointed out to me that I am dangerously obsessed with penis shots in television shows and movies. Believe it or not I am not offended, just worried. Is it a result of penis envy? Am I a pervert? Or is it possibly a symptom of my supposedly repressed sexual desires?
An opportunity has come up at work that would advance my career. Not that I ever really thought of my current job as a career, but I guess it is. Sometimes when you are not looking you tend to stumble into things that wind up being the best thing for you. But anyway....
There is a rumor that many (like 65+) technical positions are available in Little Rock, Arkansas. One lady in my department applied for a position and was made an offer 2 days later. She reports to her new job on Nov 21st. Once I heard of her ordeal, I immediately put in a transfer. That was almost 3 weeks ago. The truth is, most things do not usually work very fast at my company. But I thought that since they were rumored to be desperate enough to hire off the street, that I would be pretty much a shoe in for one of the positions. This waiting around has a very negative effect on me.
You see, once I decide to do something I have to follow through with my decision immediately or I tend to talk myself out of it. Or as time passes the circumstances change making my original decision obsolete. I am a person that tends to over think things so that is why I usually take a long time to decide something. The longer I wait for this opportunity to become available to me, the more apprehensive I become.
I have never bought a car. Every car I have ever had was purchased for me. I don't mean that I never paid for it. I just mean someone else negotiated the terms of the purchase for me. The car I currently own now, my aunt bought through the "A" plan with her company. All I did was find the car, call her up, and she handled everything else. Once the sale was complete, I picked up my car and made all the payments myself. That was almost 10 years ago and I am still driving the same vehicle. I am anxious to buy another car, but also nervous about making the negotiations myself. I don't want to get screwed over.
As you know, I have been house hunting for a few months now. I tried to talk Joe (gay boyfriend) into buying a house for me but he refuses. I explained that all I need is for him to do all the negotiating and crap. I'll just make all the payments. He still said no. He explained that this is one of the great initiations into adulthood. Screw that! I just don't want to be bothered with the headaches! Damn Joe!
But now that I am waiting to hear about Arkansas, I have placed my house hunting and car shopping on hold. No sense in buying a home when I am not going to be here to live in it. And I certainly cannot afford to pay for 2 places. I had thought about buying a little home to fix up and rent out to my mother. She is always having problems with the apartments she lives in. But again, that idea is on hold as well until I know something more about work.
And speaking of work, I received an email yesterday that there are 1000s of jobs scheduled to be "surplused" i.e. downsized. This means that the people in these current positions have a certain amount of time to find jobs else where in the company or they are layed off. That is one of the benefits of being in a union. Most companies just hand you your pink slip and you are gone. Our company gives you 90 or so days to hopefully find something else to do even if it is for less money and in a different area. This may be why I have not heard anything from Arkansas. If the rumor is true, then they are possibly holding those positions for those that truly need the position instead of just wanting it. But who the hell knows?
One of my co-workers made a statement the other day: Jeb Bush for 2008! Cause my ass has not been pounded on enough. He said he was thinking of having bumper stickers made. Needless to say he is a die hard Democrat as is my mother. When I shared this info with her, she cracked up laughing. I found it pretty funny myself.
I consider myself a conservative liberal. Of course "homophobic, narrow minded person" thinks I am just plain liberal. I explained to his annoying ass that I am conservative as far as my own personal rights but I am liberal in view of society's. In other words, I am pro-life for myself and pro-choice for everyone else. I feel it is everyone's right to choose who they love and how they live their life as long as it does not interfere with the rights of others.
This is why I am so for gay rights. I am a product of an interracial couple. During the time that my parents met and fell in love (late 60s early 70s), interracial dating was taboo and dangerous. Majority of society frowned upon the "mixing of races." They endured prejudice from all aspects. My father is from another country and he is a product of an interracial couple. He grew up in a society that embraced differences. Had my parents never met, I would not be here today to grace you with my wisdom and beauty. :p
One co-worker of mine believes that accepting gay marriage is one step away from accepting coupling with animals. The ridiculousness of this statement just boggles my mind. And this person has the ability to vote and influence the decisions made for society as a whole? This thought alone has kept me up at night. This person is entitled to their beliefs but how can they rationalize that statement?
I looked over at Oliver and asked, "You think we should get hitched?" After he meowed at me and left the room, I laughed hysterically at the absurd idea. First of all, he hogs the bed, he does not pay rent nor buy groceries, and oh yeah, HE'S A CAT! We are not even the same species. What kind of future could we possibly have? Besides he is my baby, not my partner. He is probably the closest thing I am ever going to have to a child. And I am not into incest.
Well, I don't feel any better. Sometimes after I blog I feel relieved and sort of peaceful. Like unloading all that stuff has removed a huge weight. But I am kind of depressed now. Penis obsession, no new job, house or car, possible layoffs, gays still have no rights and Oliver refuses to marry me. Who wouldn't be depressed after all that?
posted by Camlaw @ 11:54 PM
11 Comments:
GOD, way to bring sunshine into my day. Who crawled up your butt and died? :-p
Anyway, I agree wholeheartedly with your statement, " it is everyone's right to choose who they love and how they live their life as long as it does not interfere with the rights of others." But I don't believe people have a right to recieve tax breaks, etc. (i.e. my tax dollars) no matter how they live their life. I'd prefer that nobody-- including married straight couples-- get any kind of tax relief and that everyone was taxed equally as a percentage of their income (except those in poverty), but since our government has to get into everyone's business and try to encourage certain behaviors through tax breaks, I think for the benefit of society they should encourage straight marriage rather than gay marriage, since it encourages secure families that are a safe, healthy atmosphere for child-rearing. Not to say that there aren't ROYALLY SCREWED UP straight marriages, but couples are more likely to get married if you give them tax breaks for it. And married couples are more likely to have kids, and then stay together to raise those kids. Gays are free to " choose who they love and how they live their life"-- no one's stopping them. We're just not actively encouraging it through tax breaks like we are straight couples. A majority of voters have decided that it is in society's best interest to encourage marriage between a man and a woman.
By the way-- it is a liberal idea that the government should tax certain people more than others and give certain poeple tax breaks-- so if you agree with that, you're a liberal!
well not sure what political sic classes you took but you might want to try again....but I do agree that any one abouve the poverty level should pay like a set percent...like 2 % of thier yearly or just have it taken from the check then you dont see it and dont have to file at the end of the year...but your right our Government likes to put its hand in our buisness...but that is our fault for letting the irs get so much power...cause per the constitution they have no right to our income unless it is from the direct sells of alchol tobaco or firearms(forgive my spelling)...but I degress...the gov will not stop getting into our bussiness...just wait...they are aiming @ Gays att...what is to stop them from saying you cant have sex with your wife on Sunday or some such...I for one am not into the whole Gay rights movment but I am for American Rights period!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and just cause some one is Homosexual...does not mean they are not american....so this crap from the governmaent is just that Crap!!!!!!!!
Care to make a specific point about where I'm wrong and I need to "try again"? And the government does not tell Gays they can't have sex, so I don't see where your analogy about telling us we can't have sex with our wives on Sunday fits in..
for them off the short bus...I was trying to point out that the government if not told to stop where will they...I used a very common analogy from the puritans or some such were a sexual act on the sabath was by law forbidden...granted that was extream but it was just to prove a point that the Government is sticking its head in places were it does not belong...the government was setup to protect our right to life, liberty and the persuit of happiness...not tell us how to find it or what should make us happy...this country is full of a bunch of people with thier hand out cause they feel the government needs to give them thier happiness...that is Bullshit...if you dont get off your sorry ass and find it-sucks to be you...IF what you do is with someone that likes what you do...the GREAT and the rest of the world can kiss your ass...but when you tell people what they are supposed to be doing to be happy your out of line...and that is what prop 2 is about...if you cant see that...you are one of the many that belive everything they are told by the government...cause prop 2 stops ALL couples unless married...not just gay...you cant have common law...you cant have anything less than marrage...which is a violation of church and state...not directly but they went this way as not many churches will marry same sex couples....and then they threw in the must have one male and one female...
and this shit about your tax money...considering you dont have to pay it if you know the law/constitution...then you would see your still full of shit..
oh and the reason I brought up the small bus is as I had a high schooler look at it and he saw the points I made and the off base of yours with out help...so whatever man....and no I have no kids....but the small but was his comment
oh and the try again...was take another political si class and stay awake this time....
OK... I'm trying to decipher all of your spelling and grammatical errors to arrive at your point... What I'm seeing is a bunch of emotional, personal attacks ("your [sic] full of shit", "short bus", etc.) and not any new support for your argument. The government does not prevent the pursuit of happiness in the form of gays living together, having sex, etc., and it does not prevent unmarried heterosexual couples from doing the same. So the government in this case is not "telling people what they are supposed to be doing in order to be happy." It is, however, encouraging heterosexual marriage in order to encourage healthy, lasting family unions. This is not because of religious dogma, but because of hard evidence that such unions are more likely to be stable environments for child-rearing. And I still don't see why you're saying "stay awake in poli-sci class"... exactly where is my logic or knowledge of the law/constitution wrong? And show me how I'm "full of shit" if I think I have to pay taxes.
What you define as a "healthy" family is totally bogus. The main ingredient in ANY type of family is love. Whether that be a man with a man, woman with a woman, or a man with a woman. And your contention is that these laws that define the legal definition of marriage "encourages secure families that are a safe, healthy atmosphere for child-rearing" is merely a matter of opinion, not fact.
Two people of the same sex can raise a child with the same success rate as that of two people of the opposite sex. Take the "gay" factor out of it. Suppose two sisters raise their children together. Are you telling me that since there is no "man" in the home that their children are doomed to be unhealthy?
The definition of family versus marriage is separate entities in today's society. Trying to group them together to support a law that ulitmately supports a religious agenda, negates the current families formed outside these parameters. In other words, if my parents happen to be male and male, your definition of a "safe and healthy atmosphere" does not apply to us. Are we no longer a family because we do not fit your or the religious right's idea of one?
Families are formed by love, whether that love if from friends or a church or a couple of the same or opposite sex. Failing to recognize that does not promote healthy families. Just like defining what you believe as a marriage does not promote healthy families.
I have always stated that the legal definition of a marriage is a binding contract. Calling it a marriage or partnership or union does not change that fact. As long as two consenting adults enter this contract, it should not matter what their sex is. It should be recognized and it should be given the same rights as every other couple.
I agree that, as you said, love is a major ingredient in a healthy family. However, my contention that heterosexual couples are more likely to provide a safe atmosphere for child-rearing is not only my opinion, but is backed up by all the studies (at least the ones that don't have serious flaws).
http://www.aidsonline.com/pt/re/aids/searchplusresults.htm;jsessionid=DCYuiK9C0XEzWeuwpvprC22SAE112PU8mRLENJ6QZi2ZbvvChCao!-181702980!-949856144!9001!-1
Steady partners have an AVERAGE of 8 partners outside of the relationship each year. MOST NEW HIV infections among homosexual men occur within STEADY RELATIONSHIPS.
http://www.fathersforlife.org/dale/hparent3.html
Homosexual males are more likely to use drugs and have pornography in the home, and homosexuals in general are more likely to drink and smoke, be unfaithful, have their relationships dissolve (as compared with straight couples whether married or not), and if they raise kids, the kids are twice as likely to become homosexual themselves. This article also refutes the "homophobia defense" -- that all of the problems with gay relationships are caused by societal intolerance and discrimination toward them.
http://www.acpeds.org/?CONTEXT=art&cat=22&art=50&BISKIT=711636269
The American College of Pediatricians believes homosexual parenting is inappropriate.
"Childrearing studies have consistently indicated that children are more likely to thrive emotionally, mentally, and physically in a home with two heterosexual parents versus a home with a single parent. Therefore, the burden is on the proponents of homosexual parenting to prove that moving further away from the heterosexual parenting model is appropriate and safe for children."
"Violence among homosexual partners is two to three times more common than among married heterosexual couples. Homosexual partnerships are significantly more prone to dissolution than heterosexual marriages with the average homosexual relationship lasting only two to three years. Homosexual men and women are reported to be inordinately promiscuous involving serial sex partners, even within what are loosely-termed 'committed relationships.' Individuals who practice a homosexual lifestyle are more likely than heterosexuals to experience mental illness, substance abuse, suicidal tendencies, and shortened life spans. Although some would claim that these dysfunctions are a result of societal pressures in America, the same dysfunctions exist at inordinately high levels among homosexuals in cultures were the practice is more widely accepted.30 Children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, practice homosexual behavior, and engage in sexual experimentation. Adolescents and young adults who adopt the homosexual lifestyle, like their adult counterparts, are at increased risk of mental health problems, including major depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance dependence, and especially suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.
Again-- I don't condone banning gays from getting married. But I think that legal advantages given to straight married couples are designed to promote healthy families, so they should not be given to gay families, since they are far less likely to result in healthy families. The government likes to use tax breaks, etc., to encourage behavior that is beneficial to society-- by and large, heterosexual marriages are much more beneficial to society.
On the phone earlier, you mentioned other rights accorded to straight married couples such as the right to make medical decisions for the spouse if he/she is incapacitated, and the right to custody of children and joint assets if one partner dies-- I agree that gays should have these rights. But those are basic human rights and are a different question than whether they should get the "fringe benefits" that heterosexual married couples get, such as filing jointly & tax breaks. For that reason, there needs to be a separate designation for gay marriages-- like "union" or "partnership"-- in order to provide for treating them differently. I don't care what you call it-- you could call it "garriage" or "whatchamadoodlybop" or even "gay-marriage"-- I realize the word "marriage" is a just a word. But under our law, "marriage" refers to a man and a woman, so in order to have separate laws that apply to marriages between two men or two women, you've gotta call it something else.
One more thing-- no, I am not saying that children of gay couples are "doomed to be unhealthy"-- I'm only saying that statistically speaking, they are far more likely to be unhealthy. The laws should encourage behavior that is MORE LIKELY to benefit society, or the government should get out of the "behavior encouraging business" altogether.
Hi,
You've a very good weblog. Many people usually do not comprehend what mind power can do to one's good results.
Post a Comment
<< Home