Politics
Pro-LGBT posts
Quotes
Disney
Memes
Opinions
Guffaw inducing posts
Pictures
Rants
Republican hypocrisy
"The Last Airbender"
"I Love Lucy"
"Harry Potter"
ENJOY!!
By trying to help make one group of people feel accepted, you are systematically repressing everyone else who you feel has too many rights as it is. I’m not ashamed of who I am or what I stand for, so I will be damned if I let you take rights away from me.
That’s why I’m a Republican.
Dear lord, what the fuck? How in the world are we “systemically repressing” you by passing ONE law that allows homosexuals to get married? HOW IN THE WORLD DO GAYS HAVE “TOO MANY RIGHTS AS IS?” ARE YOU KIDDING ME? If gays and other social minorities are not subjected to daily abuse and discrimination,then we won’t need to outline those rights in laws because everything would be fine and dandy right? I’m assuming you feel the same way about ethnic minorities and women too? Right? Since we passed laws to make them “feel accepted” right? (Civil Rights Act of 1964, Fair Pay Act of 2011, Voting Rights Act of 1965, 19th Amendment, and so much more) Using your logic that you provide in this lovely opinion you’ve provided, I would assume that you want to repeal all those laws because they are systemically repressing you, right? Let me make this clear, we are not trying to take any rights away from you. We are just ensuring that everyone else has theirs.
Also, you need to take a shower. I can smell your privilege seeping through your skin.
30th April 2012
Reblogged From zacchaeus
Notes: 730
Protester BEAT DOWN by angry student (UCI)
I would not have approached it this way. Why would you antagonize the same students that you are trying to rally? I certainly wouldn’t join if you if you were yelling in my face and disrupting my learning process. I mean we are already paying enough just to go to lecture. Why make it worst? This was why I didn’t want to go protest yesterday because of the behavior of the students (also, I woke up late and I was scared of being arrested). Anyways, now people have this preconceived notion that we are just a bunch of rabble-rousers. I know you guys are angry at the 81% fee increases! SO AM I!!! Believe me, so am I! But in my opinion, I would not have approached it this way. I would have peacefully and calmly went up to the professor and asked for time to speak in front of the lecture hall or something along those lines. Not just randomly bust in and disrupt lecture. With this method, I doubt you’ll rally support and maybe even receive some backlash( like in this video). If you don’t get professor approval, then so be it. Move on to other lectures. There are dozens of other lecture halls on campus. Also, some commentary on the student that hit another student with binder: ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! I know you are pissed that a bunch of protesters just interrupted your class but that doesn’t justify what you did.
Anyways, both sides were at fault yesterday. Students shouldn’t be turning on students. Students should be standing in solidarity against the fee hikes. The behavior witnessed yesterday, in my opinion, was not conducive to the cause that we are fighting for. It doesn’t rally the student body. It divides them.
#end rant
As I passed him, he yelled “THAT’S SO GAY!”
Fuck you, society. Fuck you.
The caption is misleading. How do you know he’s not a volunteer or just a mere passerby taking a picture the First Lady?
Also, just because the presumed homeless man has a cellphone doesn’t mean every single other homeless person has a cellphone. I have so much more to say but I rather not because who wants to read an essay?
Fucking privileged people assuming shit. So fucking annoying.
(Source: fuckyeahmeanwhilein)
AJE: World’s carbon emissions hit record rise
Carbon emissions in the earth’s atmosphere have reached a record high, according to the International Energy Agency. Scientists warn that climate change will lead to unprecedented catastrophic consequences, if global leaders do not take decisive action to reduce the harmful emissions soon.
It is already too late. We past the point of no return. Even if we stop ALL carbon emissions tomorrow, then it would still take about 100,000 years for the current levels of carbon dioxide to fall back to pre-industrial levels. There is still going to be significant warming occurring in the upper latitudes of the planet. This means that the polar ice caps will melt completely which will subsequently increase the ocean levels by five meters. A five meter ocean rise will probably inundate low lying coastal towns/cities and displace about 30 million people. Not only will that happen but it will shift the ocean currents due to the fresh water runoff of the polar ice caps. A change in currents would cause Earth’s energy transport to shift its distribution of heat causing extreme temperature differences between seasons. Increasing carbon dioxide uptake causes a process which is known as ocean acidification. Ocean acidificaiton can be detrimental to sea creatures that are vital to sea life like phytoplantkon and zooplankton. With them gone, the whole sea food network collapses. The list of consequences goes on and on….
I can rant on and on about how carbon emissions will affect our planet but I know no one will read this so what’s the point?
(Source: mohandasgandhi)
I want to do this…
..and then lecture them on how using these phrases perpetuates a heteronormative bias within U.S society.
What is civil marriage? What is its purpose, its history? The first question we’ve got to answer is why is the government involved in any way in the first place.
The short answer is that civil marriage is primarily for the protection of women and children. That is borne out by the legal ramifications of dissolving a marriage today — namely, alimony and child support.
The problem with same sex marriage, then, is that there are no parties in need of protection. In what way does a man need to be protected from being abandoned by another man? It’s a little silly, isn’t it? Furthermore, there is no prospect of children from such a union so, again, no need for a government sanctioned marriage.
(One might ask, “But, what about adopted children?” or, in the case of a female same sex union, children conceived with outside assistance. But, such cases really do not distinguish themselves from the case where a single person adopts a child or a single woman has a child without being married.)
So, the problem with government sanctioned same sex marriages is simply that they do not fulfill the purpose of the government sanctioning marriages in the first place. And, let’s be perfectly clear here: the issue is entirely about government sanction of the marriage. There are many churches and other places of worship that will perform a marriage ceremony for two people of the same sex. There is no law against two people of the same sex exchanging rings and vows and calling themselves married, or even legally changing their surnames. It is a free country, you know.
As an aside, I have heard troubling stories of problems arising from the lack of a legal marriage between two people of the same sex. Probably the most distressing is where a person is kept from visiting their partner in the hospital because they are not kin. Without a doubt, this is outrageous and should be stopped. I in no way want to punish people who are committed to each other. (In fact, I think most hospitals now accomodate this situation.) Still, hospital visitation is not the purpose of civil marriage, which is not the right solution to this problem. (… For that matter, one might ask what if you had no family? Or even no family near by? Would a patient have to suffer or even die alone while his best friend was kept out? This may be a problem for people other than just gay couples.)
Government sanction. Government approval. That is, I’m afraid, what this debate is really about. Over and over we’re told, the government has no business making judgements or decrees on morality. But, the knife must cut in both directions. Same sex marriages do not fulfill the purpose of civil marriages. The main reason to legalize them would seem to be to propagate the moral judgement that such unions are morally acceptable. I can understand that having them not sanctioned, as things generally are now, may cause some homosexual people to feel slighted. But, are we now making laws just to sooth people’s hurt feelings? The irony is that we’re all supposed to live and let live, be tolerant, etc. But, by pressing for government sanctioned, same sex marriage, the gay activists have forced a sort of judgement of the undeniable differences between gay unions and straight unions. The male-female relationship is, by historical presumption, imbalanced and calls for the female to be protected from abandonment — the same sex union is not. The straight union is, shall we say, “pregnant” with the possibility of children — the gay union is not.
The above really settles the question in my view. But, let us address one more aspect of the issue. Same sex marriage proponents often ask, “How would you be hurt if some other people are allowed to be legally married?” And, the example that comes first to my mind would be, say, a small business owner who gets slapped with unexpected, new dependents from newly married employees. Health care costs are a big drain on businesses and a small business may or may not always offer them. A small business owner that is trying to do the right thing and help his employees with families by offering such benefits might be very unhappy to find out he’s now paying out even more. … And, let’s go one further and say that this small business owner doesn’t approve of same sex marriage. That’s not going to matter — if the marriages are legal, he’s going to pay the same darn benefits or be sued. So, here’s a case where a person is coerced to subsidize something that he disagrees with. That’s “hurt” where I come from.
"First of all, I think the definition should be expanded to include the protection of all parties, not just women and children.
“The problem with same sex marriage, then, is that there are no parties in need of protection. In what way does a man need to be protected from being abandoned by another man? It’s a little silly, isn’t it?”
Okay, hold it. This is incredibly gendered. You’ve used the “men can take it because they are simply men” argument which rather weak because it doesn’t hold for every single case (and it shouldn’t). By insinuating that “men can take it,” it perpetuates the stereotype that men are inherently logical and strong-hearted and while women are inherently emotional and can’t fend for themselves.
“Over and over we’re told, the government has no business making judgement or decrees on morality. But, the knife must cut in both directions. Same sex marriages do not fulfill the purpose of civil marriages. The main reason to legalize them would seem to be to propagate the moral judgement that such unions are morally acceptable. I can understand that having them not sanctioned, as things generally are now, may cause some homosexual people to feel slighted. But, are we now making laws just to sooth people’s hurt feelings? The irony is that we’re all supposed to live and let live, be tolerant, etc. But, by pressing for government sanctioned, same sex marriage, the gay activists have forced a sort of judgement of the undeniable differences between gay unions and straight unions.”
Hurt feelings? Oh please, it’s all not about “hurt feelings.” It is something greater than that. By denying the rights to a segment of the population perpetuates the pervasive ideology that heteronormative marriages are “better” and that homosexual love is not the same as heterosexual love. And please don’t tell me that the government hasn’t enacted laws that mended hurt feelings. Using your logic, that means the Bush-era tax cuts, which clearly “mended” the hurt feeling of the upper class, were not right? Hurt feelings/emotional grievances are addressed on a day-to-day basis within the everyday happenings of the government. I have more examples but I think you get my point that assuming that the government doesn’t govern based on emotion is a logical fallacy.
“Celebrate the similarities not the differences”
Ever heard of that phrase? I guess not since you want to keep the status quo. What gay activists are trying to push is not the idea that there are no fundamental differences between homo/hetero relationships, but rather, the idea of accepting and embracing them. Gay activists are trying to alter the normative perception that gays are somehow different.
“The above really settles the question in my view. But, let us address one more aspect of the issue. Same sex marriage proponents often ask, “How would you be hurt if some other people are allowed to be legally married?” And, the example that comes first to my mind would be, say, a small business owner who gets slapped with unexpected, new dependents from newly married employees. Health care costs are a big drain on businesses and a small business may or may not always offer them. A small business owner that is trying to do the right thing and help his employees with families by offering such benefits might be very unhappy to find out he’s now paying out even more. … And, let’s go one further and say that this small business owner doesn’t approve of same sex marriage. That’s not going to matter — if the marriages are legal, he’s going to pay the same darn benefits or be sued. So, here’s a case where a person is coerced to subsidize something that he disagrees with. That’s “hurt” where I come from.
Here we go again with the logical fallacy. Here is a counterexample that uses the same logic that you’ve employed; I don’t support the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq yet I have to foot the bill with my tax dollars. Hmm…how about my tax dollar that go towards the bailout of the corrupted corporations/investment firms? I don’t agree with that yet I’m force to pay them. Now that’s the “hurt” where I come from.
