So, did the world end because of the gay while I was at work? Any very neatest shit fits to share ?
My Facebook feed was full of rainbows and happiness.
My conservative friends and relatives:
I'm with my conservative family and friends, so I'm crickets, too. We're all being on our best behavior and not talking about anything in the least bit controversial.
In the wake of the US supreme court ruling that legalised same-sex marriage throughout America, many commenters and objectors have claimed it will have disastrous consequences. But rather than just dismissing them as irrational bitterness, it’s important to consider the genuine scientific basis for such claims
This is serious stuff.
Quote:
This wouldn’t be a problem if same-sex marriage were natural, like opposite-sex marriage. Opposite-sex marriage occurs all the time in nature. Numerous species are regularly seeing in naturally occurring registry offices signing naturally occurring forms to ensure their marriage is recognised by naturally occurring legal frameworks.
Quote:
Legalising same-sex marriage has one obvious result; more marriages. This means, more weddings. Weddings mean a lot of people gathered in one place, a situation which normally makes a place very warm, seeing as how people give off body heat. People also have to travel to weddings, often over long distances. This requires vehicles, the vast majority of which give off CO2.
...
Overall, opponents of same-sex marriage could make an effective and logical case against marriage simply by highlighting the dangers of climate change. None of them seem to be doing this though. Weird.
Quote:
One of the main arguments against same-sex marriage is that marriage is for procreation, and a couple of the same sex can’t reproduce. However, given that legalising same-sex marriage overturns the laws of nature, this means the laws of nature preventing same sex couples from reproducing are now null and void, so maybe same sex couples can reproduce.
Note how the author is clearly confused between the war of independence and the civil war, leaving us to ponder how much STEVE (ALL CAPITALS) JALSEVAC has identified his anti-gay cause with the anti-abolitionist cause of the Confederates.
__________________
... it's just an idea
Last edited by mickthinks; 06-30-2015 at 07:10 AM.
To be clear, that's a video of young people who oppose marriage equality whining and sniffling about how their peers judge them for doing so. And how they're too insecure to tell their gay friends about how they think gay people are less than.
My hometown has 2 major bridges connecting downtown to the south of the city. It is literally the only way to get there. They're planning to light one of them up rainbow (disappointed they're lighting Henley St and not Gay St). Sooo many people saying "I'll never cross the bridge again!!!"
You should be like, "OMG I know, I shouldn't be telling you this but you know Tim, I heard he crossed it the other day, they found him in the bushes, neck deep in cock!"
It looks rather suspiciously like yet another example of people whining about how they're the true victims of "intolerance" because the law [somewhat] limits their ability to force their intolerant beliefs onto others.
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
I think that part of the hysteria regarding same-sex marriage comes from the psychology of the Authoritarian/Evangelical mindset.
You see, if your beliefs are "clearly, self-evidently, and obviously true," then it stands to reason that anyone who disagrees is simply wrong. At best, they're deluded, and at worst, they're actively defending something they know to be wrong.
I saw this mindset in action all the time when I was a church-goer in my younger days. As best I could tell, the vast majority of the people in my church regarded it as self-evident that Christianity (specifically, their version of Christianity) was true. If you asked them how they knew they were right and that everyone who disagreed with them was wrong -- you'd get a blank stare. They'd look at you exactly the same way they would if you asked, "How do you know that you're alive?".
As far as they were concerned, it was obvious that their beliefs were true. As such, anyone who didn't share their beliefs was either ignorant or willfully denying (probably for nefarious reasons) the truth.
This mindset, I think, helps to explain why so many Evangelical Christians in this country seem to honestly believe that there are huge numbers of people in the U.S. who have -- somehow -- never heard of the "Good News" and that if only you tell them about the "Glory of Christ," they'll immediately fall to their knees and thank you for "saving" them.
That's why, even though I find them annoying, I try to tolerate missionary types with good grace. In their minds, they honestly believe they're doing me a huge favor by telling me about this Jesus fellow.
And I sort of agree with them. If I was completely convinced that everyone who shared my beliefs was going to be rewarded in Heaven and that everyone who doesn't share my beliefs was going to be tortured for eternity -- then I most definitely would regard it as my mission in life to save as many people as I possibly could by telling them the "Good News" that would save them from eternal torment. What compassionate being wouldn't?
But it goes beyond that, I think. It seems to me that if you're convinced that your beliefs are not just true, but self-evidently true, then you're inclined to believe that it's perfectly rational to impose those beliefs by force, if necessary. All in the name of the greater good. After all, if your beliefs are self-evidently true -- and if they define what is "good" and what is "bad" -- then only bad people would refuse to believe as they "should."
Some years ago, I opened the door to find two well-dressed people standing on my doorstep. It turned out that they were wanting me to sign a petition to get alcohol outlawed in the county. They started out by asking if I drink. I told them that I do not. Their faces immediately lit up, and they eagerly shoved the petition toward me, saying, "You'll want to sign this, then."
After reading it, I told them that I had no intention of signing the petition. "I don't understand," one of them said. "You said that you don't drink."
"That's correct," I told him, "and that's my choice. I have no business trying to force it on anyone else."
The two of them just stood there for a moment. The expressions on their faces clearly indicated that the words "Does Not Compute" were going through their heads.
The conversation went on for awhile, but it all boiled down to the fact that the two of them simply could not wrap their minds around the fact that while I do not drink, I had no desire to impose my personal choice on anyone else.
As such, even though it sounds ridiculous to the rest of us, I'd be willing to bet good money that an awful lot of the people who are so upset about the prospect of same-sex marriage truly believe that same-sex marriage is a threat to "traditional marriage." Why? Because they can't imagine that someone would hold a particular view and not want to impose it on everyone else.
So, when they claim that if same-sex marriage is legalized, people will begin to treat opposite-sex couples with the same sort of contempt that they've long been treating same-sex couples -- I think that they are being completely sincere. Well, some of them, anyway. Why? Because they honestly can't understand that someone would have strong views without wanting to impose those views on everyone else.
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
In reality, however, there was a subterranean argument that actually is logical and makes perfect sense. It was never just about man-woman marriages. The tradition that is disappearing is the belief that marriage is a duty, especially for women.
Quote:
But it’s telling that even as Douthat decries the new liberation from traditional marriage, he declines to spell out exactly what parts of traditional marriage he would like to keep. The reader has to figure out what he is for by deducing it from what he is against. He sneers at people who believe marriage is optional, suggesting he wishes it were mandatory. He complains about “thinning family trees,” suggesting he wants people to have more children—and, considering his well-known opposition to legal abortion, he sees force as an acceptable method to get his way on this. He begrudges younger generations who see marriage as “malleable,” suggesting his desire is for a more rigid institution. He grieves that modern Americans reject the “lessons of a long human past,” but leaves it to the reader to remember that the human past is one where women were treated as chattel to be passed from father to husband, legally and socially regarded merely as extensions of their husbands instead of people in their own right.
Reading Douthat, you do get a better idea of why conservatives see same-sex marriage as a threat to traditional marriage. It’s not because straight people won’t want to get married if gays are doing it, too. It’s because it redefines marriage as an institution of love instead of oppression.
It's a good thing we're lightening up on the ghey, the US needed all the dykes on the USWNT last night to beat that dude playing goalie for Germany. Sure looked Angerer last night.
I mentioned that Rapinoe had a girlfriend to the family and they started looking it up. Turns out Wambach, the coach, a couple others...ghey. They gave up looking after the 4th came up positive for ghey.
__________________
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for the night. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm the rest of his life.
My family tree more closely resembles a stick, mainly due to it being all to common for those on it to have only one or two children. There is a bushy branch sticking out where my parents had five though, and each of those five has had between two and three kids each. This is the main reason there are only 30-40 people at family reunions instead of the 250-300 at my wife's family reunions. Hell, over 100 people showed up at her granny's 86th birthday party.
__________________
Sleep - the most beautiful experience in life - except drink.--W.C. Fields
In Kentucky, Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis is another official ignoring the ruling and turning gay couples away from her office.
"It's a deep-rooted conviction; my conscience won't allow me" to grant gay-marriage licences, she told AP. "It goes against everything I hold dear, everything sacred in my life."
What a sad, empty life Kim Davis must lead. Oh well, enjoy the next three weeks until a mandate issues and you get sued personally, Kim!
And since her job requirements now mandate that she act against "everything I hold dear, everything sacred in my life," Ms. Davis will no doubt be resigning from that county clerk job forthwith.
Right?
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
That would seem the obvious thing to do when one's conscience does "not allow" one to fulfill one's job duties. Accepting a paycheck while not performing one's duties would seem to amount to theft, to say nothing of a violation of trust. Perhaps Kim's belief system, whatever it is, accommodates theft.
I disagree hole heartedly. Obviously the solution is gay bootstraps. The Gay Agenders should have their own system of government (separate and not quite equal, say 3/5ths of a governmentality) in which they can define what the colors of their fags, I mean flags, are and what "marriage" is and is not. Also obvious to the discerningly objective viewer is that they will need to make up a new word that is not nor resembles the word we currently use to define marriage - which is marriage. And merely prefixing the word "gay" (or any similar descriptor therein) does not constitute making up a new word for their abominable act which would otherwise destroy, nullify and pillage the wholesome institution of real marriage.
You just have to apply a little logic and everything becomes more clearer.
So, did the world end because of the gay while I was at work? Any very neatest shit fits to share ?
My Facebook feed was full of rainbows and happiness.
My conservative friends and relatives:
I'm with my conservative family and friends, so I'm crickets, too. We're all being on our best behavior and not talking about anything in the least bit controversial.
It annoys me when people post anything like that on social media, I think I get more annoyed with the people whom I tend to agree. Because it's all stupid half wit nonsense and probably no one is informed on what they're even sharing about.
Re: rainbows. It just dawned on me. Skittles. They've been in cahoots with the gay agenda all along. Now that I reflect,. tasting the rainbow has left me completely desensitized and prone to suggestion.
__________________
What are sleeping dreams but so much garbage?~ Glen’s homophobic newsletter
So, did the world end because of the gay while I was at work? Any very neatest shit fits to share ?
My Facebook feed was full of rainbows and happiness.
My conservative friends and relatives:
I'm with my conservative family and friends, so I'm crickets, too. We're all being on our best behavior and not talking about anything in the least bit controversial.
It annoys me when people post anything like that on social media, I think I get more annoyed with the people whom I tend to agree. Because it's all stupid half wit nonsense and probably no one is informed on what they're even sharing about.
I think my "Friends" were well aware of what they were "sharing about", celebrating a Supreme Court decision that said persons of the homosexual persuasion have one equal right that persons of heterosexual perversions enjoy, marriage. Why not let them be miserable for 39 years too?
__________________
Sleep - the most beautiful experience in life - except drink.--W.C. Fields
I was pretty annoyed that ALA scheduled Annual Conference in Chicago during Pride. The parade was going to cut me off from the convention center for a whole day and rooms were scarce and expensive. Then the ruling came down and I realized there was nowhere I would rather be to celebrate than in San Francisco during Pride. And the best part? Having to tell my 87-year-old mother to stop staring at the naked man in the crowd and watch the parade.
Here's proof that I was really there.
__________________
"freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order."
- Justice Robert Jackson, West Virginia State Board of Ed. v. Barnette
Re: More marriage for teh ghey
Linear Mode
