'Safe'
[NAFDA] Spike-centric discussion. Lusty, lewd (only occasionally crude), risqué (and frisqué), bawdy (Oh, lawdy!), flirty ('cuz we're purty), raunchy talk inside. Caveat lector.
when I go back nothing's changed
I know that feeling. Sometimes I think a vacation is one of the worst things, because you go off and have fun in some pleasant location then you have to come back to the real world. There was a cruise line a while back that had an advertisement where a couple was going through their daily routine and bemoaning how wonderful it was on the ship. I did not see that as an encouragement.
Yay pain under 3! I rate pain meds less by how they directly affect my pain levels, but by how long I can sleep without waking up from the pain and then how I feel the next day. So enlightening to get to a milestone and think "Wow, I totally couldn't have gotten near that yesterday. Go me!" And huzzah for modern pharmaceuticals.
IOmeN, a few hours with a good friend helped miles and I feel a little silly over being so peevish. I have a sore spot 10 miles wide over feelings of exclusion and that misfired in a painfully ironic way.
A friend from high school just posted this on FB.
GOD CREATED MARRIAGE...it was meant to be between a man & woman! If gay people want to get married, WHY do they need to do it the same way if they don't BELIEVE the same way as Christians do? Is it to prove a point that they can get married too, or is it just for the benefits???? I'm confused.
Where to even begin.
Where to even begin.
That last sentence seems like a good place.
Wait, so now you also have to be Christian too?
Oh geez, ND. Good luck with that one.
I slept last night. YAY! But woke up with the headache about an hour before I need to get up. Meds have been applied. Sleep may be reapplied. Work....well, we will see if that happens.
Oh geez, ND. Good luck with that one.
Yeah, pretty much. I haven't had to deal with that one. My first instinct is to engage, but then my saner self remembers that it would be a waste of my precious time.
ND, I'd be tempted to start by suggesting that, if marriage is such a purely religious institution, then creating a civil status of marriage -- with consequent benefits, responsibilities, etc. -- constitutes an establishment of religion. Which is prohibited by the First Amendment, and civil marriage is thereby unconstitutional for anyone.
I've found that a good way to confuse those people is to point out that civil marriage and religious marriage have been separate institutions for a while. In various places in Europe, for a long time, there were laws restricting Jewish marriage. Jews could only have government marriages in certain circumstances. But plenty of Jews got married anyway, in religious ceremonies. In doing genealogy research, I found that my great-great-grandparents didn't get married according to the Austrian government until they were in their sixties and already had something like eight kids, because that's when the government changed the law and allowed them to get married. So far, I've only seen one person actually take the bait and respond with, "Well, those marriages that were officiated by a rabbi but didn't have state recognition weren't REAL marriages."
Well, according to this dude they still weren't real marriages.