Thanks to a state Supreme Court ruling, Connecticut recently became the third state to allow gay marriages (an upgrade from previous legislation allowing civil unions). Over at the
Bristol Press, I wrote a column explaining why various organizations with the word "Family" in their titles are right:
gay marriage really is a threat to traditional heterosexual relationships like mine.
Not as much of a threat as that godawful photograph of me, though.
9 Comments:
Not a single comment! I must be losing my edge. (Sigh.)
As a friend of mine likes to point out, allowing Gay Marriage basically just reduces the competition (if the partners are your own gender), or clears out the distracting deadwood (if they were putatively of the other gender, but would obviously never be interested in you). Pretty much a win-win situation.
Not according to some local people, it isn't. I still don't know why it's bad that same-sex marriage is being "forced" on us; it's not like the courts are running around forcing people at gunpoint to get hitched.
Not a single comment! I must be losing my edge. (Sigh.)
Oh, it isn't that - it's just that after looking at the photo you mentioned I wasn't certain this was still your blog. :-)
I must say, your appearance certainly seems to change alot from photograph to photograph. The one here on your blog is only about two and a half years old, if memory serves, and even that is different than the ones taken at that H&R get-together you organized in NY back in 2005. The last one I saw of you appeared on that site where you did some work for a politician earlier this year; you looked different there as well. You must be some sort of shape-shifter or something. ;-)
BTW, this latest glimpse of you isn't what I would call "god-awful." True, the smoldering eyes look is gone, but in its place we have the face of a pleasant young woman who looks as though she is about to bust out laughing at any moment. That particular shade of blue seems to suit you, too.
I'm very kinetic, Smartass, which is why still pictures of me never look right.
At least the story made topped the "Most popular" list the day it came out. No doubt due to the subject matter; I haven't had time to build any reputation yet.
There is no room within Jen's cognitive array for anything resembling a rational discussion about pictures. All photographs of her are:
A: Godawful
B: Atrocious
C: Butt Ugly Hag Fuckety-Fuck etc.
or some combination of the above. The existence of a photo of her compels her to include her opinion of said photo into conversation at least twice an hour. Here is where paradox occurs: the photo's latent repugnancy is apparently an objective truth, yet can only be sustained by her consistant ridicule of it.
I have decided never to take a moderate to close-up photo of her again. It is simply not worth the 5 days (minimum) of hand-wringing self-debasement and abuse that each one brings. Somewhat distant photos of her standing next to something more impressive are okay.
The fact that I find most photos of her adoreable is irrelevant. If she does not resemble a vacant-faced porcelein representation of a 16 year-old then the picture is an abomination. Each pixel should be shat upon, eyes that gaze upon it should be burned out with industial solvents, and thousands of words must be set loose upon the internet to let the world know just how horrifyingly ugly she truly is.
I beg all of you: don't comment about her photos, no matter how much she baits you. Each time you do you add hours of misery to my life. I'd prefer to be kept awake by the wailing of dozens of souls impaled on spikes in the back yard than listen to her go on and on.
thousands of words must be set loose upon the internet to let the world know just how horrifyingly ugly she truly is.
And yet...and yet, if you were to agree with her even only a little bit, you would probably get a laptop sandwich for lunch, Jeff. ;-)
She has a move she calls The Laptop Sandwich.
Giggity giggity!
Giggity giggity!
Giggity giggity???? No, wait! I don't really want to know! ;-)
Post a Comment
<< Home