The one with the 'award'

Award, pronounced awkward. - Welcome to the the "Very inspiring Blogger Award"

I'm pleased people visit my musings and ramblings, and I enjoy the feedback and interactions I have on here of course.

So I was surprised and at the same time miffed when I got a comment that I'd been listed, as part of the rules, for the VIB to pass on the baton, as it were.

On the Occasion of the 25th Wedding Anniversary

Eventually we were going to get there, MrsPdubyah and me.

5th November 1988, Paeroa Presbyterian Church. A date I chose, it's a long story and I'll scan some photo's and write a bit more about that.

Fast forward through the first house, then the #1 Child, the #2 Child. the 2nd house, and  3rd house, the half-dozen pet cats, the first days at school, the driving lessons, the leaving home. All those things.

Eventually you get  get to 25 years. Which is where the trouble starts.

I'm not sure who thought this up, but for getting to a 25 year marriage you have to exchange traditional gifts of Silver.

It's not clear if this should be solid silver, silver plate, or silver looking. I want to know who was on the committee that decided this, it's a gross oversight.

Then, oh yes then, look for a suitable gift. When was it that matching ceramic mugs were appropriate? or a Crystal Bell?

Who exactly gives their life partner, after 25 years of marriage (not counting the courting and preamble years) a Candelabra, Knives and Forks, Serving Spoons, Silver Platter or Photo Frame?

Which of you thinks that at 25 years you're a bit doolally in the head and have slipped into some kind of dementia where you need to surround yourselves with trinkets and old tat?

Of course yes in olden times you might have. But I don't feel like I've spent half a life with MrsPdubyah. Yes on the outside a bit more rugged, but mentally still in the game.

All that aside however I'm going to be in a world of pain if I don't get a suitable gift, if only I could remember if MrsPdubyah has pierced ears on not I could get her some ear-rings, and on reflection a little bell I could tinkle wouldn't go amiss when I needed a beer top-off.

Faith, Same sex marriage, and Children.

New Zealand is on track to remove barriers to same sex marriages. We have Civil Union legislation, but this is a sort of half-way house thing. Removing an arbitrary sex based barrier to marriage is of it's time.

However those of the faith and the religiosity have got their collective underpants all bunched and they're going to come out swinging on a number of 'points'.

And they are all nonsense. And they are all nonsense because there is not one logical argument that could be put forward that would or could justify their position. Not a one.

"Marriage is between a man and women" Since when? Since a when the 'church' decided to Ponce up some ceremony and add some bells and whistles is a when. The church is big on dogma and protocol. But I can't find any evidence that before the church decided to dress up a ceremony that marriage wasn't a thing. I can't find any evidence that before the church decided to restrict it's 'blessing' that all marriages were between men and women.

In different ancient cultures, marriage was more of a business arrangement, joining families together for mutual benefit. Under Roman law in the first centuries of the Common Era, there were proper opportunities for divorce and the dissolution of a marital union for both parties. However, as the Christian church grew, marriage became more ecclesiastically governed; the church dictated the rules of marriage.

Historically then a marriage was a means to ensure a continuance. That is all. If you had not confirmed or announced partner then you had no estate to pass. Marriage brought with it some assurances.The churches brought with it dogma, and protocol and restriction.

Same-sex marriage is rejected as un-Christian and immoral on the basis of a myopic reading of a very few Biblical texts. And the texts in question are scant indeed.

The most referenced texts are Genesis 19; the holiness codes of Leviticus 17-26, and in the New Testament, Paul's First Letter to the Corinthians 6:9 and his Letter to the Romans 1:26-27.

Not only does one have to "hunt" for references to same-sex practices, but there are no gospel texts that treat the matter.

There is nothing attributed to Jesus of Nazareth that has anything to do with same-sex orientation. According to the gospels, Jesus never commented on same-sex practices; that fact certainly bears repeating to anyone criticizing the gay community on Christian grounds.

Largely, same-sex practice is a topic of little interest to the Biblical authors.

It beggars belief that you would refer to an ancient book of myth and stories to cherry pick what your faith is. Sure the Bible might say "husband" and "wife" but it doesn't as far as I know define the gender of either in terms of what constitutes a "marriage".

The restriction or constriction is therefore one made up by the church and religion as a method of control.

Children

In New Zealand we have out share of conservative doom-sayers

Conservative Party leader Colin Craig said he was planning a "research-based" campaign on the advantages of heterosexual relationships and traditional family structures.

 "I'm keen to be part of a campaign to get out there on this issue. It would look intelligently at the differences between homosexual parenting and a Mum and a Dad. Does gender matter, does role-modelling matter?

I don't mind having it on record that the idea of two men having responsibility for a child is a little beyond me. I couldn't do it. I assisted with a more maternal and capable mother in raising our children from birth. But I am talking about baby children, not toddlers, or schoolers, or teens.  I don't have the same doubt about females raising children. Call me a bigot if you like, but I have first hand experience of a woman raising our child and she did a great job. I'd hire her again :-)

I have no idea what feeling or compulsions you have a person in relation to children and your level of altruism in wanting to look after, nurture and care for a child. I just don't.

I have my understanding. I have an idea of what is acceptable and required from my experience, and I have the insight from a number of people who I've associated with who've raised children. I have experience.

Just because I don't think I could does not mean I don't think you should. It might make you shudder, cringe and gasp. It doesn't mean that you can't raise a child as a parent.  To have any other position on this indicates you live your life in a cave. There are lots of children raised by single parents. There are heaps raised by same sex parents, mostly female I'd wager.

The world did not stop when Elton John and David Furness adopted a child. Money makes it better or acceptable? Get a grip.

Related articles

• Key will back early stages of gay marriage bill (radionz.co.nz)


• Same sex marriage bill delights gay community (radionz.co.nz)


• Gay marriage to be legalised in Scotland despite two thirds of people opposing change (telegraph.co.uk)


• Gay marriage in Scotland is a 'dangerous experiment', says Catholic Church (independent.co.uk)

The Other Bucket List

The list of things that you never want to do. the things you would avoid at all costs. Mine is different to yours of course, I hope. The   list is be about things that I have no personal interest in participating in as "things" They hold no allure, fascination or attraction to me, no challenge or reward appears offered for achieving participation. Call me a curmudgeon. There is a real bucket list of course. I'll start on that next when I figure out what it is that I don't want to do.

1. Scuba Diving.


2. One of those one hour trial lesson in a light aircraft.


3. Bungy Jumping - possibly the lamest of all the adventure / thrill activities.


4. Get a tattoo.


5. Manicure / Pedicure / Massage.


6. Swim with sharks - possibly the 2nd lamest of all the adventure / thrill activities.


7. Tandem parachutes - I've done single jump  and it's much much scarier.


8. Camping holiday.


9. Have a "hot lap" in a Ferrari or Lamborghini or pretty much any car really - going fast as a passenger - *gosh*.


10. Hot Air Ballooning


11. Own a restaurant that I had to work in - what kind of madness is a 7 day a weeks 14 hour a day job?


12. Own a pub that I had to work in. - what kind of madness is a 7 day a weeks 14 hour a day job?


13. Take a holiday on a Cruise Liner - gak!!


14. Skiing


15. Appear on a TV game show as a contestant

Inconceivable! Why I should avoid the newspapers.

I shouldn't read the newspaper, it annoys me.

Prisons. "Auckland's Mt Eden prison operator Serco has been accused of bribing inmates with bigger helpings of food and televisions in their cells to encourage them to behave" ..... And? Well the comments page is enlightening. People have issues that being in prison equals additional punishment. That being in prison isn't punishment enough, being segregated from the general population isn't a punishment, they should of course be fed gruel and water, and only if they complete their 20 hours of manual labour. It's a wonder. Sure there are bad people in prisons, they are in he maximum security ones, the ones that allow you a couple of hours outside your cell a day, every day for the next however many years. Sure there are career crims in prison, wherein it becomes some kind of badge of honour, I'm sure they're not happy. No I don't have an alternate, a method to rehab people or think they should be loose and running around. By popular thinking they're in the right place, away from the population to plot and scheme and get no further ahead in life.

Captain Obvious comes to visit with this headline comment "Macsyna King is laying blame for her twin babies' deaths with their father" No shit Sherlock, this is her book, her story, it's hardly going to be a confession is it. What were you expecting? I'm sure the book is a wonderful collection of colourful anecdotes, half truths, omission and fabrication, ably conducted by the Mr. Ian Wishart, who is doing it for altruistic reasons only, hardly covering his costs of course.

 It annoys me that today, for instance, the NZHerald didn't print the #gotakeashit hashtag that NIcola Grigg, the bint who is shagging Ritchie McCaw used in her tweet. So half a story. The other annoying thing is that they gave her column inches. What's with that? Seems though that she disappeared herself from twitter quick smart, too much adulation I should think.

that is all.

Faux outrage, Faux compassion and chipping in!

or slamming and damning, counselling and group grieving and how I learned to react in a group.

Led mostly by media snippets and reporting (often poorly repeated, and incomplete, inaccurate and angled for spin) the collective 'we' is often to quick to anger. Twitter is the new benchmark, Facebook pages would be next. You never hear of a TXT based outrage campaign though.

The hive mind is quick to pounce on indiscretion and verbalise their thoughts. Woe to anyone who swims against the tide. Someone often leads the charge and will whip a horse to death, but then we all have a 'thing' that does that to us (that's a whole new subject).

We're morally indignant about infidelity, as if we're all whiter than white, we're dumbfounded by misogyny, as if men have never leered at a woman of used a stick mag, and we can't belive that a school would add a computing device to the compulsory list for stationery.

We definitely cannot belive  that the Israeli's in Christchurch are tourists, although this seems to be a media hobby-horse and not a hive mind collective.

Anything the Government of the day announces can be negative, mostly negative. The twitterverse will be abuzz with the newly disenfranchised in minutes, spreading like a wildfire, it is to behold!

Similarly with a death. the hive mind seems to get it into its head to want to grieve. Mostly for people they never met, didn't know and didn't much care for before their death. particularly but not limited to children, young pretty females and young males. This is more a Facebook thing. But we're all hectored and badgered into having to be part of a group that mourns, without really understanding why. Hey it's a young person they died in some way or other and we should all feel some collective guilt.

Sure death is tragic, children dying is tragic, young people getting into situations where they kill themselves and others is tragic. It happens daily, worldwide, a lot. Old people die too, but then they had a life already get over it. I don't need to join a Facebook group or have some faux emotion based on an out of context picture in the press or on Facebook. Ge over yourselves.

As for counselling. What an industry that is, we have to take into personal consideration the thoughts and actions of everyone. This will and does and can lead to sheeplike behaviours and group feelings. Individually no, group yes. Naturally I'm not a psychiatrist or behaviours expert but I'm happy to bet cash on this being true.

So Faux Outrage and Grief, the latest big thing, or just the big thing.

Makes it sound like I'm not on any bandwagon, trust me I get on them, and then I get off most of the, some I just sit on for the ride.

Word War II wasn't about Jews and 9/11 wasn't about Firemen

In my opinion, the actions of School kids when confronted with Nazi Symbolism and images at a museum exhibition was totally predictable.

The reaction of the Jewish council - again predictable.

However the War wasn't about Jews. and Jews seem to have or want to hijack history and hammer relentlessly the holocaust, the holocaust. Sidestepping the gypsies, infirm, gays and anyone else caught up by circumstance in the aspect of the war that was concentration camps.

Don't worry about the carpet bombing of civilians, that's what? Unfortunate? Allowed? Don't worry about any other war crimes - hey they all pale into insignificance right, so we can ignore them?

But can't overlook the Jews. No Sir! Lest we forget it's all about them and only them.

Now I open myself up to all sorts of abuse and accusations with this opinion. And you have then not understood a word of it. The War happened. Lots of people died. Germans, English, Russians - a lot of Russians, Americans, French, Japanese and more than a lot more other nationalities also lost citizens, either conscripted soldiers or unfortunate bystanders.

For Jews to rail at ignorance of youth implies they only want the high ground. They don't do anything at or with schools to education or provide education - that of course would be indoctrination, but I bet dollars to cents that they don't have an active education lobby going on that would require teaching of the whole history of WWII. They only want the high ground.

Much like 9/11. Which has all become about Firemen. Brave as they were the willful destruction by terrorism wasn't about Firemen. But hey guess what every remembrance - I was tempted to say celebration - involves almost exclusively Firemen. Disproportionately represented yes - about them no.

Are these good things? Do we need "Leaders" in remembrance. Yes of course.

Do we need leaders in only one aspect - or leaders that re-write or concentrate only on one aspect of an event - no.

Are the kids insensitive - yes they are. But ignorance of youth is no excuse to high ground and make a stand. If it's offensive it's offensive - or do you allow a museum display as in context ? In context to who? and what?

Word War II wasn't about Jews and 9/11 wasn't about Firemen

In my opinion, the actions of School kids when confronted with Nazi Symbolism and images at a museum exhibition was totally predictable.

The reaction of the Jewish council - again predictable.

However the War wasn't about Jews. and Jews seem to have or want to hijack history and hammer relentlessly the holocaust, the holocaust. Sidestepping the gypsies, infirm, gays and anyone else caught up by circumstance in the aspect of the war that was concentration camps.

Don't worry about the carpet bombing of civilians, that's what? Unfortunate? Allowed? Don't worry about any other war crimes - hey they all pale into insignificance right, so we can ignore them?

But can't overlook the Jews. No Sir! Lest we forget it's all about them and only them.

Now I open myself up to all sorts of abuse and accusations with this opinion. And you have then not understood a word of it. The War happened. Lots of people died. Germans, English, Russians - a lot of Russians, Americans, French, Japanese and more than a lot more other nationalities also lost citizens, either conscripted soldiers or unfortunate bystanders.

For Jews to rail at ignorance of youth implies they only want the high ground. They don't do anything at or with schools to education or provide education - that of course would be indoctrination, but I bet dollars to cents that they don't have an active education lobby going on that would require teaching of the whole history of WWII. They only want the high ground.

Much like 9/11. Which has all become about Firemen. Brave as they were the willful destruction by terrorism wasn't about Firemen. But hey guess what every remembrance - I was tempted to say celebration - involves almost exclusively Firemen. Disproportionately represented yes - about them no.

Are these good things? Do we need "Leaders" in remembrance. Yes of course.

Do we need leaders in only one aspect - or leaders that re-write or concentrate only on one aspect of an event - no.

Are the kids insensitive - yes they are. But ignorance of youth is no excuse to high ground and make a stand. If it's offensive it's offensive - or do you allow a museum display as in context ? In context to who? and what?