Ah, another Monday.
A fresh cup of coffee, the children playing happily in the background, the good wife brings me a bacon sandwich.
Well, this isn’t bad at all, even old Al could manage a non-commital grunt of possible approval at a time like this.
A quick look online to see what’s occuring in the world and…kujhgfrvjklhsgr
*Some time later*
Having replaced my coffee soaked keyboard and wiped down the monitor, I shall now address one of the most ridiculous articles I have EVER had the misfortune to clap eyes upon.
Twisted, sadistic individual I may be, but even I hesitate to ask you to read this:
There, you made it through. I’m proud of you.
So, Melanie Phillips is a little miffed that there may be more homosexual references used in exam questions.
Those two words cover my argument really.
“In geography, for example, they will be told to consider why homosexuals move from the countryside to cities.”
So what? A subset of the community choose to make particular choices when choosing a dwelling, discuss.
That sounds like a damn fine Geography lesson to me.
“In maths, they will be taught statistics through census findings about the number of homosexuals in the population.”
So what? A group within a larger group being used to illustrate statistical analysis, that makes sense, surely?
“In science, they will be directed to animal species such as emperor penguins and sea horses, where the male takes a lead role in raising its young.”
So wha…hold on.
What the hell has that got to do with anything?
I think Phillips needs a little refresher course in equations herself.
Male + Primary Care Giver = Homosexual
Does not compute.
Male + Primary Care Giver = Male Primary Care Giver.
Gay, straight or sleeping with the family cat makes no difference!
Well, the cat thing maybe but he was such a nice man.
Phillips goes on to say that:
“it’s all part of the ruthless campaign by the gay rights lobby to destroy the very concept of normal sexual behaviour.”
Now, it would be easy for me to take the low road here and claim that ANY sexual activity with Melanie Phillips could be classed as abnormal, because she is clearly some kind of mutant.
Seriously, look at her picture, by Floaty Beard, that woman abuses the right to be ugly.
But I won’t do that, that would be crass.
I will ask her instead what exactly IS “normal sexual behaviour”
I’ve no doubt she would define it as the act whereby a man and a woman might potentially conceive a child.
DEAR GOD, SHE HASN’T BEEN ALLOWED TO BREED SURELY!?
Sorry, i’m sorry. It just…oh can you imagine?
Back on topic, um…yeah, sex and stuff, who’s to say what’s normal?
There are probably folks out there who enjoy dressing up as the characters from ‘Allo ‘Allo and banging each other senseless of a weekend, it’s unusual but who the hell am I to judge?
From her initial jump-off point of homosexual references in schools, she moves on to defend assorted other bigots.
My personal favourite is her attempt to justify the actions of B&B owners Peter and Hazelmary Bull, sued for refusing to allow a gay couple to share a bedroom in their establishment.
According to Phillips, they:
“were but the latest religious believers to fall foul of the gay inquisition merely for upholding”
Come on woman, we’re talking about a B&B where the motto seems to be:
“The customer is always right, less’un he’m one of those dirty gay folk”
HOW ARE YOU DEFENDING THIS? HOW?
I have to go and scrub my eyes with wire wool and bleach (she really is sinfully ugly) but i’ll leave you with this little equation of my own, see if you can solve it?
Melanie Phillips + Daily Mail =