Unique Wedding Ideas

It’s intriguing that such a breadth of religious-based energy is being focused upon undermining the evolutionary concept when, extrapolated with a modicum of objectivity, the very religious idealisms which they battle so hard to defend against contradiction are themselves the results of a less tangible form of the same phenomenon which they refuse to accept; a sort of conceptual evolution. What makes a religion successful, ie, proliferate fruitfully throughout generations? A combination of things; a conception of no-nonsense, unEdoding moral pragmatism, god- and hell-fear (in the case of theistic religions, and a powerfully effective invention), and a perception of spiritual fulfilment and wisdom. Religious brands which fail to meet these criteria tend to wane and die out, although successful concepts may adapt and branch off. Whereas natural evolution stems from the adaptation of individual organisms as dictated by their genes in the face of changing environmental phenomena, religious evolution is predicated upon the degree to which the individual dogma can synthetically overcome the intellectually self-aware Homo sapiens’ intrinsic fear of mortality and existential worthlessness, influenced by additional pre-existing political and social phenomena which would dictate the extent and variety of geographical propagation. Most successfully theistic religions, such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc, have overcome this stigma via the “Soul” and “Afterlife” concepts, while non-theistic religions such as Buddhism and Scientology utilise a different, more materialistic, tack by generally teaching that concerning the mind with such things is an inherently wasteful action.

Before I’m accused of being obsessed with offbeat stories of Americana to justify some personal enmity, bear in mind that I mention this story because the topic of opposition to gay marriage perenially rears it’s ugly, anachronistic head in this and most other Western countries. Whereas I could make broad, sweeping indictments on how embarassed I am to live in a world where gender neutrality regarding the right of marriage isn’t a foregone conclusion, I’d rather concentrate on each specific argument posited against in turn. Not just because expounding the nuts and bolts of a complex issue is the best way to understand it (as much as one can understand an incomprehensible position), but because it quickly becomes apparent just how little grounding any of the arguments have in reality.

“I know many people in other countries are scratching their heads and thinking ‘What in the world is the big fuss over there?’, but this country takes exposed breasts very, very seriously. We get very exercised about such things.” - Robert Thompson, Director, Centre for the Study of Popular Television (no doubt an international confluence of intellectuals at the vanguard of educational excellence)

1. What is the middle name of the first person you ever slept with?
Shit, good question. I have no idea if she even HAS a middle-name, even though I knew her since primary school. Oops?

2. What kind of underwear are you wearing and what color?
These red jockey things, nothing special. I don’t know how guys can wear boxers; they’re so annoying and uncomfortable. I suppose they don’t require much support, but that’s their business, not mine.

3. What is the song you want played at your Funeral?
Why the fuck should I care? It’s not like I’ll be there to bask in the maudlin appropriateness of it all. I suppose the stock response is “Knocking On Heaven’s Door”, but that would be rediculously trite (and presumptuous).

1. The word is “oriented”, not “orientated”. That seems to be the latest buzzword for people who want to indulge in official “speak without actually saying anything” doubletalk. The difference in meaning between the passive adjective and active transitive verb is negligible, but it exists, and you sound like a bureaucratic retard.

2. We are NOT a “Christian nation”. Get it out of your head right now. Either is America (although it’s probably closest to being one than any other country in the world). The existence of a religiously neutral democratic state automatically precludes identification with any sect, whether they compose of 99% of the population, or 1% of the population. To do otherwise implies a theocracy and trivialises church-state separation. Iran is an example of a Jafari Shia Islamic nation. Get my drift?