back to reality

September 2nd, 2009 § 2 comments § permalink

Erm. Just a quick post.

Can all these people making and watching these fucking reality TV programmes just stop it. Just fucking stop it.

Enough if enough. I don’t give two shits about someone trying to move house or renovate a house. It’s been done to death.

That bloody dinner party programme on channel four or wife swap. Fuck off. you were interesting for about two programmes and then you ran out of different types of people to put together that would annoy the crap out of each other.

Young, Dumb and Living Off Mum. Never mind programme makers, or the kids that are featured on the bloody thing, it’s the parents! “Oh, yes dear. Lets go on a programme that takes the piss out of you and shows what a useless spoilt turd you are.” It’s you, parents, that is showing that you should’ve been sterilised with a fence post! You made the little cunts like they are. Stop it!

If you’re married or are a partner to someone who makes these programmes or wants to appear on one of these freak shows, have a word. If that doesn’t work I’ve got a shiney sword you can borrow to push in brain via their ear. That should stop them.

And another thing. Just because you start running out of ordinary attention seeking fuckwits doesn’t mean that putting the word ‘celebrity’ in the title doesn’t make the programme ‘fresh again. Someone who was in a paper once because she snogged someone that was in a soap opera for ten minutes or an old cunt that was on the telly all the time in the seventies for an unfathamable reason and the overvoice needs to remind us how they are famous every time their name is mentioned and don’t know when to give it up are not famous. Their wankers.

And those cretins that are only known for being on other reality shows are not celebrities. They’re, they’re… they’re lucky no cunt’s punched them in the face with a Scania.

Then there’s the police ones. They wouldn’t be so bad if there wasn’t any moralising in them. We know it’s wrong to steal cars. We know that riding a scooter without a helmet while of your box on extasy with your prostitute mother hanging on the back trying to jack up is going to end in a big heap with blood everywhere.
Shut the fuck up and show the fucking car chases. And not the shitty one of a drunk bloke riding a bloody pedal bike at 2 miles an hour, either.


Nadine Dorries and gay babies

September 1st, 2009 § 1 comment § permalink

Nadine Dorries gets it wrong concerning the new law regarding names on birth certificates

A function to attend mid morning and then the rest of the day peppered with interviews regarding the new law about to come into effect with allows lesbian couples to name who they wish on the birth certificate of a child they may have conceived and given birth to via fertility treatment.

A child with two mothers, neither of whom may have any DNA connection with the child.

So, lesbian couples are now allowed to name who they want on the birth certificate. That’s fucking great. If I was a lesbian couple, I would put on it put Batman and Marge Simpson. That’ll be something for the nipper to talk about later in life, wouldn’t it?

Seriously though, if two women are having fertility treatment, then there are two lots of egg, two uterii (*shrugs* I don’t know) and it’s gonna be highly unlikely that the treatment will involve nothing from the couple themselves, is it?

What is the difference between the women and a male and female couple having no DNA connection to their eventual offspring? Sorry, did you say something? No? Wouldn’t that make adoption for any kind of couple undesirable, regardless of sexual orientation?

…until this week was the strong and legal requirement issued by government that a birth certificate required the names of a child’s mother and father, a man and a woman.

To rephrase, until this week was the strong (wtf?) and legal requirement issued by government (it’s the law, yes?) that a birth certificate has the names of a childs’ mother and a male name. That male name could be Fred Fucking Flintstone for all the law cares, if it does actually care.

The evidence to prove that the traditional family structure, of mum, dad and children is the one which works best for a strong society is overwhelming.

The evidence may *prove* that the traditional family that Nadine suggests works best, but then it would’ve been not long ago that the traditional family structure of mum, dad, children and grandparents works best. Before that, the evidence would probably suggest that ot would be better to have lots of uncles and aunties living in the family too.
The evidence may suggest that mum, dad and the kids works best because of the lack of evidence of other family structures. What does the evidence say about kids with two mums or two dads? Does it say they grow up ok, mentally balanced and productive members of society or would the kids be turned into Teh Gays? Or is it growing up with homosexual parents going to make the young ‘un a axe wielding maniac or compulsive shoplifter?

I support civil partnership. I voted for it and I think it is fantastic that gay couples can be afforded the legal protection they were once denied and lived without. I also believe that those relationships deserved the protection, status and emotional support and comfort all marriages benefit from and enjoy.

Isn’t it nice how those gays can play at happy families now. They can even have a ceremony where they get a certificate at the end of it and everything.

However, when it comes to the nurturing and rearing of a child, that is a decision that has to be selfless.

But kids… whoa! That’s taking things toooooo far! Cos straight people never do things selfishly. Never have kids to try and save a doomed marriage and condemn a kid to an environment of backbiting and sniping, at best, in the family home. Those gays, all they think about is bumming each other and marching about the place dressed up, or down, to the nines in one of those Gay Proud marches.

The legislation about to come into effect delivers the message that the family unit which has underpinned a functioning society for thousands of years is de-valued in the eyes of the government.

Thousands of years? Hahaha! Twat.
How about looking at it the other way…it’s not de-valuing regular, straight-up marraige but saying other types of unions between two people that love each other are ok. How about we introduce a Love Test for teh Gays, just to make sure they don’t just selfishly want a fashion accessory that’s a little different from the usual toy dog hanging off their arm?
Nadine’s not usually a ‘glass is empty’ person, is she?

There is no evidence that lesbian couples stay together longer than heterosexual couples.

Do homosexual couples need to stay together *longer* than heterosexual couples? How long is long enough? I was under the impression hetero couples stayed together for 30, 40, 50 even 60 years, but I also understand that hetero couples also break up after 6 months, 12months, 2, 3, 4 years and all the years in between, too.

No evidence to show they make better parents…

There was no evidence Nadine would make a good MP either. Oh, hang on. That’s not helping my point is it?

We have many kinds of family today. I’m a single mum. We have families which consist of step-parents and children and lots of people working hard to make their new families work.

I bet Nadine really hates it when people suggest that she is a crap mother or she’s not bringing up her kids properly because she is a single mother. Is there a difference?

Some of those people wanting to work hard to make their family work just happen to love someone of the same sex as themselves. Is that wrong?

Where am I?

You are currently viewing the archives for September, 2009 at Sim-O.