May 17 2012

Gay Marriage and Necrophilia

Common knowledge - why'd you have to put it on a sign? (Image courtesy of Forbes)

Everybody knows that gay marriage is just a hop, skip and a jump from necrophilia.

I mean, it’s so close to bestiality, murder and other types of mayhem.

At least according to the Bible-honking wing nuts, anyway.

My Mother Told Me You Are the Very Best One…

The fact is, most Christians think gay marriage is a sin because it violates what God tells them in The Bible.

But how easy it is to pick and choose based on their own lives.

Since these Christians are heterosexual, they can pounce on gays with teeth bared. In the meantime, they don’t even realize that Jesus never said a word about homosexuality – not a peep.

That means they’re going by what the Old Testament says – not the New Testament, where Jesus was known to hang out.

And boy-oh-boy, does the Old Testament condemn homosexuality.

It also condemns eating meat that comes from a mammal without “cloven hooves” that also chews a cud and eating fish that doesn’t possess both fins and scales.

Sorry, guys, that means eating rabbit, shark and calamari are out.

The Old Testament says you can’t light a fire on the sabbath. You’re cold? Tough shit – you can’t even flip the switch to turn on your furnace. You can’t work – not even in the yard – on the Christian sabbath, either. And if you’re a woman, sure hope you like the backseat: you’ll be taking it to your man for the rest of your married life.

So how come Christians get to pick and choose what to obey?

 

Because that’s what Christianity is all about.

 

Here’s a funny little volley. Funny if you’re not the one showing your ass, that is.

For the record, I'm going to fuck shit all up tomorrow: I'm proposing to both my male and female dog. I like to call it "homobestialygamy," and I've already picked out our wedding cake topper. On our honeymoon, we're going to fuck a dead opossum and my neighbor's wife.

 

Copyrighted. See page footer. Intellipissies is an opinion forum. Nothing Intellipissies writes should be considered professional, medical or legal advice. See disclaimer.

May 11 2012

Marriage is sacred… therefore it’s unconstitutional for it to be recognized by the government.

File:Rainbow flag and blue skies.jpg

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him (providing they are heterosexual) should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the (non-homosexual)world might be saved through him." John 3:16-17

 

Conservative Christians argue that marriage is a sacred sacrament meant to join a man and a woman together in holy matrimony. It’s not meant by God to include same-sex couples.

OK. Whatever. Fine by me.

In that case, as a religious union, it is unconstitutional for our government to legally recognize and/or regulate marriage.

So, straight couples, send back your certificates of marriage. You must now apply for a certificate of civil union. You can go back to your pastors and priests and have them reissue a document on behalf of your church. That’s totally fine, because you certainly have a right to your religion. Likewise, churches that allow for gay marriages can issue their own certificates of marriage to gay couples.

See, unfortunately for those who wish to control and impose their religious beliefs onto their neighbors, the First Amendment doesn’t work that way.

December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights was ratified and became a part of our nation’s constitution.  We were still all irked about the Royal Kingdom trying to control us when it comes to religion, so right off the bat, we tackled that issue and guaranteed religious freedom to the citizens of the United States:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

See how that works?

We’re playing a semantics game where religious conservatives are trying to impose their religion on others by naming a union and then claiming it for themselves.

So, we ultimately have three choices here as a nation:

  • Revoke all government issued marriage licences. All couples (straight/gay) would be issued civil union certificates. This is what the couples would use for all legal purposes. Then, people can have their religious marriage ceremonies in their own churches at will.
  • Recognize that marriage has multiple definitions and uses, much like many other words in our language. It has a religious meaning as well as a legal meaning.  (Much like an ass can be a buttocks, a kind of mule, or someone who is too stupid to understand the first amendment.) Then, allow all couples regardless of sexuality, to be married.
  • Eliminate all legal civil unions and treat each person individually regardless of their ability to find someone who likes them enough to join with them in union.

The fact is though, this whole conservative logic for trying to prevent homosexual couples from getting married is just a big cover for bigotry and hatred. These judgmental actions are not condoned by God.

I’ll explain.

A conservative Christian can think homosexuality is a sin all day long. They’re entitled. Still no one, not our government and not their God, give these bigots the right to dictate if two adults can be married.

See, not only are conservatives obligated as US citizens to allow all other citizens their First Amendment Rights, but the truth that people seem to forget is, they are also obligated by their God.

Besides for being flat out ordered by their God to refrain from passing judgement on others and to love their neighbors, it is also never the right of any Christian to control the behavior of another human being. See, God has his own First Amendment, it’s called: FREE WILL. 

So, whatever way you look at this, we are all free people.

So, mind your own business, because it’s the only business you and your God will be discussing when your Judgement Day arrives.

 

 

 

Photo Credit: Ludovic Bertron

Copyrighted. See page footer. Intellipissies is an opinion forum. Nothing Intellipissies writes should be considered professional, medical or legal advice. See disclaimer.

May 04 2012

The feds made a stupid Marijuana law last century and so now everyone has to suffer.

marijuana cures treats disease

Photo of Marijuana Plants by: Arne Hückelheim

Marijuana isn’t legal in the United States. It hasn’t been since the middle of last century when it was made illegal with the use of lies and propaganda for the benefit of corporate greed.

Sure, some states have passed laws making it legal to use medicinally, but that’s irrelevant, because our government says it’s illegal and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is committed to doing their job, even in the instances of marijuana… even in states where it’s used… even when people follow their state laws.

Marijuana is a relatively safe, natural and effective medicine, according to people with no financial interest in it not being one.

Marijuana is used in many states as a medicine, because it has a very powerful medicinal capability. It can, according to scientists around the world not affiliated with our drug companies, treat many issues that arise from debilitating diseases. I’d tell you that it can safely and more effectively replace many pharmaceutical drugs, but I don’t want to have to edit this if the freelance writers licensing law that the feds are hoping for eventually passes. Our federal government uses similar techniques in their own writing for truth evasion . The White House wrote, “To date, the FDA has not found smoked marijuana to be either safe or effective medicine for any condition.” That’s because they don’t want it to be, (at least not it it’s natural un-patent-able form) not because it actually isn’t safe or effective.

Take a look at just some of the diseases and conditions that people have successfully used cannabis for to improve the quality of their lives:

(Click links to see what studies/info I could find to back up these assertions.)

 

  • Migraines
  • Panic Attacks

All that from one type of plant you can grow in your yard. You know, you can even juice fresh marijuana to receive the benefits from it without ever getting high?

Oh yeah, and it also can provide a safe form of relaxation after a hard days work or be a tool for fun social interaction, you know, kind of like beer… which is legal.

Federal Marijuana Raids Unconstitutional?

1st Amendment and Marijuana

The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

To Rastafarians, followers of the religious and primarily black consciousness movement called Rastafari, marijuana is a holy plant which enables them to deepen their faith. In addition to Rastafarians, newer religious groups also consider cannabis a holy herb that aides in meditation and fosters spirituality.

While not allowing people to practice an aspect of their religion (that doesn’t infringe on the civil rights of another) is unconstitutional, the reality is no one gives a crap about religious freedom unless it’s a religion practiced by the rich, “normal” churches.

Besides, religious and spiritual pot smoking is seen by many as  a cover up for recreational drug use and a refuge for pot heads. I suppose it could be, just like how the Rabbinic Injunction that allows orthodox Jewish Mohels to put their mouths on little boys’ penises could be viewed as a refuge for pedophiles. Oh wait, that one probably is.

10th Amendment and Marijuana

Sixteen states and the District of Columbia have adopted medicinal marijuana laws. These state medical marijuana laws are virtually worthless though because the Federal Government’s Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) can prance into a state whenever they choose and raid dispensaries or even a medical marijuana patient’s stash if they so choose.

Some medical marijuana advocates argue that when the Feds crack down on marijuana dispensaries, it’s a violation of the 10th Amendment which says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  It actually is, if you know how to read a written statement without being a tool. You know those legal types though, they can make even the clearest statement ambiguous. It doesn’t matter though.

The point though is not that the Feds should mind their own business and stay out of the States’ affairs. (Even though they so clearly should.) It’s not that marijuana laws are a violation of the First Amendment. (Though they obviously are.) But none of that matters essentially because ultimately a federal judge judge can simply rule in favor of the Feds with their own interpretation of those clearly written rules in our Constitution.

The point is this:

We should be changing the Federal Law simply because it’s a stupid law. It makes people suffer and contributes to dangerous prescription drug dependence.

Why do I care?

It’s because I’m a stoner; isn’t that what you think? You think that I’m sitting here at my computer smoking a bowl right now wearing a hemp dress with a sun-lamp growing some of my faux-spirit enhancing ganja weed in the corner of my patchouli-smelling black-light-lit room. Right?

Tell you what… They could come to my house any day of the week and ambush me with a piss-test, which I could squat down and take right in front of them (I’ve delivered babies, I have no shame) and I will never pee dirty.

I have three children. I have too much to lose to not follow federal law.

I care because… I’m not a uncompassionate tool.

I care because there are literally millions of Americans (right now) that could physically or mentally benefit from the use of marijuana.

Even recreational use has benefits. If people don’t think it does, they should stop drinking beer. Or else, they can go ahead and drink beer; I don’t care. I’ll have a scarlet letter H, for hypocrite, sent out to their house pronto….

 

 

READ ALSO:

Juicing Raw Marijuana Leaves

More Conditions & Diseases

 

SEARCH TERMS TO REMEMBER FOR SCIENCE JOURNALS:

cannabinoid

sativa

tetrahydrocannabinol

Copyrighted. See page footer. Intellipissies is an opinion forum. Nothing Intellipissies writes should be considered professional, medical or legal advice. See disclaimer.

Apr 20 2012

The drama about 2-butoxyethanol, Charlie’s Soap & why moms are upset.

File:Cloth diapers drying in the sun.jpg

Not everyone has the same idea of "green living." ( Photo by: C. K. Klose)

Charlie’s Soap being thrown under the truck is not a fun topic to post about for me. People are getting all riled up about is a specific product made by Charlie’s Soap because it contains 2-butoxyethanol. As you read this keep in mind, we’re talking about the All-Purpose Cleaner.

I’ve used Charlie’s Soap All-Purpose Cleaner. It worked pretty well. Charlie’s Soap is a lot greener than just about every main stream grocery store all purpose cleaner out there. “Green folks” ought to stick together, not divide each other, but I think one person’s idea of “green” is not always the same as the next persons.

Charlie’s Soap All-Purpose Cleaner

Now, for starters, you may have found that the All-Purpose Cleaner is no where to be found online anymore. Someone on Charlie’s Soap’s Facebook time line asked what happened to it. Charlie’s Soap responded back, “Nothing at all. http://www.charliesoap.com/indoor_outdoor_cleaner.html
We found many had trouble understanding it’s function, so we changed its name … AND then we came out with a daily cleaner (Kitchen & Bath)”

Got that? The All Purpose Cleaner is now named the Indoor/Outdoor Cleaner. According to Charlie’s Soap, the name change is to make its intended use more clear. I think that is admirable.

 

Is Charlie’s Soap Safe and Environmentally Friendly?

Charlie’s Soap has always been considered a really great natural company among my crunchy friends. Charlie’s Soap in many ways helped pave the way for us crunchy moms. Charlie’s Soap has always been and is still highly biodegradable and rinses off of surfaces well.

2-Butoxyethanol “can enter your body through skin contact with liquid products such as paints, varnishes, ink and spot removers, and household cleaners. If your skin comes in contact with vapors of these compounds in the air, some can also enter your body through your skin.” Factors that determine whether 2-Butoxyethanol is a health risk are the amount of time you are exposed to it as well as how much you are exposed to. Other factors that must be considered when determining health risks include the other chemicals you’re exposed to and your age, sex, diet, family traits, lifestyle, and state of health. (SOURCE)

According to Charlie’s Soap official MSDS, 2-butoxyethanol is present at less than 4% in Charlie’s Soap All-Purpose Cleaner and does not possess the occupational health risk associated with exposure to undiluted 2-butoxyethanol.  The point crunchy moms and green folks are making though is that 2-butoxyethanol is not what they think of when they think of a natural product. 2-Butoxyethanol does not occur naturallySOURCE

 

Charlie re-affirms his soap is safe.

Charlie posted a blog in response to the drama online about Charlie’s Soap containing 2-butoxyethanol:

The bomb as we knew it is passe. Now we have DDT, BPA, formaldehyde, asbestos, petroleum, genetically modified whatever. We are inundated with scary things. Most of them are innocuous. Did you know that there is cyanide in almonds? Maybe you did, but did you know that apricot pits have five times the cyanide of almonds? Natural, for sure, but not deadly by a long shot. A good handful of them, however, can make you sick.A cursory glance at any latest fear and who benefits from it will give away the scam. But nobody investigates. And nobody wants to admit they were scammed. I’ll tell you this: our Indoor/outdoor cleaner, which contains 2-butoxyethanol, was used on my kids as bubble bath.

The difference though is that 2-Butoxyethanol does not occur naturally.  Therein lies the problem for many of us. It’s not a natural chemical like the natural cyanide in almonds.  He’s right that just because something is natural doesn’t make it safe and just because something is unnatural doesn’t make it unsafe. The thing is though, 2-Butoxyethanol’s  relationship with fertility and its effect on pregnancy and its cancer causing potential are still considered unknown. What’s worse, what tests have been done, don’t make me like the chemical much. I’m confident that Charlie’s Soap is pretty safe, but that won’t cease the drama surrounding it.

What I don’t think Charlie understands is what we crunchy-type moms are like these days. The effects of 2-Butoxyethanol are dependent on a lot of things, right? We moms already have so much to worry about, and with good reason. Our kids are exposed to toxins already in the water and in the air that were never there before. Our autism rate is 1 in 88. A majority of our children have chronic illness.  We have a pediatric mental health crisis on our hands.  Our children have more cancers than ever and we ourselves are struggling with infertility like no generation has seen before.

And no, Charlie didn’t do this. No, Charlie is not the enemy of treehuggers like me everywhere. But….

There are so many things that we can not control, that when we find something that we can control, (like what kind of soap to use) we are often willing to sacrifice all sorts of money (and even quality in order) to make sure we keep every single toxin that we can control away from our children, even if its presented at nontoxic levels.

 

Charlie’s Secret Formulas

Other people are upset because they now want to know the complete ingredient list for Charlie’s other products. On another blog post Charlie said:

Our family has been making and using our soaps and detergents since Taylor was 6 years old. Our four kids, Taylor, Jenny, James and Morgan — all healthy and strong and hard working — bathed in the stuff. Our employees have also washed their kids in Charlie’s Soap. We all have literally had our hands in the stuff since 1976. Our little company has complied with every federal regulation and warning concerning the chemicals we use in our soaps/detergents. Yet still there are demands that we reveal our special secrets to those who cannot figure out why our products are so good. I think not!

I certainly understand the purpose behind secret formulas, but another thing that Charlie’s Soap and many other manufacturers need to understand is that we are also dealing with a tremendous amount of allergies, dermatitis, asthma and other allergic responses in our children more than parents in any other generation has ever had to deal with. We need to know what is in stuff. For many of us, if a manufacturer is not willing to let us know specifically what we’re exposing our children, we simply will not use their product in our homes.

For crunchy moms today, federal regulations are a joke. We won’t allow stuff in our house simply because it meets federal guideline. Complying with federal regulations is great. Going the extra step to be biodegradable like Charlie’s Soap has is fantastic. Still, our own household  regulations (now that we have children living in them) are much stiffer than the FDA or the EPA’s mandates.

What will I do?

Charlie is not the enemy, so it breaks my heart to say this, but 2-Butoxyethanol, even at the less than 4%, is still not welcome in my house. Other Charlie’s products? CERTAINLY!!!  These days though, I usually sacrifice perfection and use a little baking soda here and a little vinegar there for most of my cleaning needs, so my business is not of much consequence to Charlie’s Soap. The big question is, what will all of you do?

Copyrighted. See page footer. Intellipissies is an opinion forum. Nothing Intellipissies writes should be considered professional, medical or legal advice. See disclaimer.

Apr 19 2012

Ideal Poultry: Free Chicks!

Look how happy that chick is - it was born to be packing material! (Image from Ideal-Poultry.com)

I love it when humans think of innovative new ideas – sometimes they’re downright brilliant.

For example, if you’re shipping ducks or Cornish hens to a purchaser, those birds will probably get cold… but not if you use baby chicks as packing material!

Fucking brilliant, I tell you.

That’s what the people at Ideal Poultry do. They stuff little male chicks around the birds people order to keep them warm – and there’s no downside.

Oh. Wait. There is a downside. The chicks die.

Got a problem with that? I do.

PETA has a petition you can sign to tell these assholes they’re wrong for using live animals as packing material if you’re so inclined.

 

 

Copyrighted. See page footer. Intellipissies is an opinion forum. Nothing Intellipissies writes should be considered professional, medical or legal advice. See disclaimer.

Apr 17 2012

Which Came First: Mithra or Jesus?

History's first recorded donkey punch

Jesus was seriously a great guy. He healed the sick, made the blind see and even came back to life – and let’s not forget, he walked on water and was the actual son of God.

That’s the kind of thing that only happens once, in all of recorded history.

Except it happened more than once… before Jesus was even a twinkle in Mary’s eye. In fact, it happened before Mary was a twinkle in anyone’s eye.

The Persian God Mithra

With roots in India, Mithra was Jesus before Jesus was Jesus. Does that make sense?

In 3500 BCE, Mithra:

  • was born on December 25th
  • had a virgin for a mom
  • was put in a manger after birth and surrounded by shepherds
  • came with 12 disciples
  • sacrificed himself for peace
  • set aside Sunday as the day of worship
  • was all about baptism
  • healed the sick and made the blind see
  • could walk on water
  • was resurrected after being dead three days

Of course, this is as silly as the Jesus story – but the fact remains that it’s in recorded history and it happened before The Bible was even written.

In fact, the whole Jesus story was floating around the Middle East for centuries before our bearded amigo was put in writing.

Plagiarism, anyone?

Copyrighted. See page footer. Intellipissies is an opinion forum. Nothing Intellipissies writes should be considered professional, medical or legal advice. See disclaimer.

Older posts «