antiteen:

friend: *turns on country music*
me: can you chill

fitzandmontgomery:

Lucy only had her nipples covered in the sex scene.

And she could, “Only do that with Ian.”

UGH BLESSSSS MY OTP

redbloodedamerica:

i-am-dallas:

mediaresearchcenter:

Do you agree?

I used to be against the government forcing anyone to do anything, then, about 6 months later, I grew up. I now realize that the argument that a business owner should be allowed to discriminate against people because of their race is the same argument that churches make when they refuse to wed someone because of irrelevant reasons about their sexual proclivities.I do not agree that religious conviction should permit someone to discriminate against the public, especially seeing how marriage is a protected right. And I ESPECIALLY don’t agree that anyone who receives 5 billion dollars a year in tax breaks should be allowed to discriminate, regardless of the reason.Sorry, but you don’t live in a solipsist universe. Other people exist. Don’t like it? My suggestion for you would be to either close down your church (which, as an atheist, I’d love), or move out of the country (which, as a patriot, I would also love).

If you’re in agreement with the government forcing anyone to do anything, are any of us truly free?
Would you be okay with an African American band being forced to perform at a backyard KKK rally?
Would you be okay with a Jewish catering service being forced to cater a Nazis skinhead party?
Would you be okay with an atheist DJ being forced to perform at a religious event?
Marriage is a religious or spiritual ceremony/custom, so therefore it is a right under the Constitution;  but there is no right in the United States, or on the face of the planet for that matter, that declares anyone HAS to do something against their will.  That is slavery whether your agree with the reasoning behind the decision or not.  No, every American has the freedom to refuse service to anyone for any reason they seem fit, even if that reason is bigoted, racist, homophobic, religious, or otherwise.  The Civil Rights Act is not permission to stomp personal liberty to fight injustice.
Again, you are letting your bigotry for organized religion get the better of your reasoning and have taken opposition to another form of intolerance to an irrational, reckless extreme.
high resolution »

redbloodedamerica:

i-am-dallas:

mediaresearchcenter:

Do you agree?

I used to be against the government forcing anyone to do anything, then, about 6 months later, I grew up.

I now realize that the argument that a business owner should be allowed to discriminate against people because of their race is the same argument that churches make when they refuse to wed someone because of irrelevant reasons about their sexual proclivities.

I do not agree that religious conviction should permit someone to discriminate against the public, especially seeing how marriage is a protected right. And I ESPECIALLY don’t agree that anyone who receives 5 billion dollars a year in tax breaks should be allowed to discriminate, regardless of the reason.

Sorry, but you don’t live in a solipsist universe. Other people exist. Don’t like it? My suggestion for you would be to either close down your church (which, as an atheist, I’d love), or move out of the country (which, as a patriot, I would also love).

If you’re in agreement with the government forcing anyone to do anything, are any of us truly free?

Would you be okay with an African American band being forced to perform at a backyard KKK rally?

Would you be okay with a Jewish catering service being forced to cater a Nazis skinhead party?

Would you be okay with an atheist DJ being forced to perform at a religious event?

Marriage is a religious or spiritual ceremony/custom, so therefore it is a right under the Constitution;  but there is no right in the United States, or on the face of the planet for that matter, that declares anyone HAS to do something against their will.  That is slavery whether your agree with the reasoning behind the decision or not.  No, every American has the freedom to refuse service to anyone for any reason they seem fit, even if that reason is bigoted, racist, homophobic, religious, or otherwise.  The Civil Rights Act is not permission to stomp personal liberty to fight injustice.

Again, you are letting your bigotry for organized religion get the better of your reasoning and have taken opposition to another form of intolerance to an irrational, reckless extreme.

cobra-23:

andthebluestblue:

stop saying “his or her”

use their

piss off prescriptivists
acknowledge nonbinary identities
make your sentences less clunky
advocate for common usage which is what leads to grammatical acceptance 

Oh fuck off you whiney bitch.
Him and her are real.

xion1212:

I don’t believe in government regulated marriage . It’s not a s sexuality thing , I want straight marriage to loose legal status aswell .

communismkills:

I mean, it’s funny though. If you want the prime example of the most historically oppressed group of people, you don’t have anything on the struggles of the Jews. Jews clearly win the Oppression Olympics.

"But but but but but they don’t know what it’s liikeee to be Hispaaaniccc or blaack. You’re whiiiiiiiiite."

And who again, killed the Jews in Spain? Who enslaved them in Africa? My memory seems to be failing me here.

I’m just saying, when you go out and say “ur just white u dont kow wat oppression is”, well.

equestrianrepublican:

image

>post picture of 12 year old communismkills

>called out

>STAY IN YOUR FUCKING LANE

This is why no one fucking likes feminism…

nattikay:

fandomsandconservativelogic:

auta—i-lome:

infinitysisters:

calisummer52:

quadworkorange:

what

The amount of hands is not enough

Except that I hate to say, if “a romantic relationship” is what you define as marriage, you’ve either never been married, or if you have, it didn’t or hasn’t lasted longer than 10 months.

^
Romance is neither the end goal nor the ultimate driving force of marriage. The attitude that it is is what the guy on top is criticizing


This. And honestly, I think this attitude is why there’s so many issues with marriage in modern society, why less and less people are going through with it and more and more couples are getting divorced. Marriage is becoming more commonly viewed as just a “legalized” romantic and/or sexual relationship.
It’s not.
Marriage is not all about romance, and certainly not all about sexual attraction. Those things can be part of it, sure, but if they’re the sole driving factors of the relationship, you’re probably not going to get very far.
Marriage is about commitment, loyalty, love (not just of the romantic variety), selflessness, service, and family. Yes, family…also seemingly a less popular lifestyle nowadays. But families are the most basic functioning unit of society. Strong families lead to stronger communities, and families are most stable when they have a mother and a father who both remain loyal and love each other and their children. This is such and important principle that is so horribly underrated in our society and the gradual destruction of this structure is the root of so many modern issues.
Does that mean every married couple has to have children? Not necessary. For some it may not be the right path for them in this life, and others may just be unable to due to fertility problems and the like. But that doesn’t make their marriage any less about commitment, loyalty, etc.
It’s not about romance, sex, or “fun”.
It’s about selfless love, service, and commitment from both sides. For life. (and beyond.)

nattikay:

fandomsandconservativelogic:

auta—i-lome:

infinitysisters:

calisummer52:

quadworkorange:

what

The amount of hands is not enough

Except that I hate to say, if “a romantic relationship” is what you define as marriage, you’ve either never been married, or if you have, it didn’t or hasn’t lasted longer than 10 months.

^

Romance is neither the end goal nor the ultimate driving force of marriage. The attitude that it is is what the guy on top is criticizing

This. And honestly, I think this attitude is why there’s so many issues with marriage in modern society, why less and less people are going through with it and more and more couples are getting divorced. Marriage is becoming more commonly viewed as just a “legalized” romantic and/or sexual relationship.

It’s not.

Marriage is not all about romance, and certainly not all about sexual attraction. Those things can be part of it, sure, but if they’re the sole driving factors of the relationship, you’re probably not going to get very far.

Marriage is about commitment, loyalty, love (not just of the romantic variety), selflessness, service, and family. Yes, family…also seemingly a less popular lifestyle nowadays. But families are the most basic functioning unit of society. Strong families lead to stronger communities, and families are most stable when they have a mother and a father who both remain loyal and love each other and their children. This is such and important principle that is so horribly underrated in our society and the gradual destruction of this structure is the root of so many modern issues.

Does that mean every married couple has to have children? Not necessary. For some it may not be the right path for them in this life, and others may just be unable to due to fertility problems and the like. But that doesn’t make their marriage any less about commitment, loyalty, etc.

It’s not about romance, sex, or “fun”.

It’s about selfless love, service, and commitment from both sides. For life. (and beyond.)

(Source: thedrtomm)

high resolution »

(Source: americanconservativeandpatriot)

jerityou-thenerd sent: How do you think they should handle the anti-gay priests?

communismkills:

This question actually has me blinded with rage.

The government should not “handle” priests who are against gay marriage. The government should not be arresting people for refusing to perform a religious ceremony that goes against their fundamental beliefs.

I don’t want to live in a country that throws people in jail for their religious beliefs, and neither do you, I hope.

plays
Anonymous sent: Does anyone else find it funny that a college liberal is one of the most stereotypical things a person can be yet they all think they are the most unique individuals to walk the earth?

jewishpolitics:

HA! That’s it in a nutshell. 

anti-radfem:

Christina Hoff Sommers is literally queen.

elephantsandtoasters:

artwerksinc:

bloodyjacktheripper:

maxxxie74:

I’ve given up trying to correct people.

FUCK YES

I always use the phrase, “Murdered seven different ways from Sunday”, when people try to pronounce my last name.

I have a fairly regular name: Daisy, but I live in France where everyone goes: Desiree? Dazie? Daghjdskgjc?

elephantsandtoasters:

artwerksinc:

bloodyjacktheripper:

maxxxie74:

I’ve given up trying to correct people.

FUCK YES

I always use the phrase, “Murdered seven different ways from Sunday”, when people try to pronounce my last name.

I have a fairly regular name: Daisy, but I live in France where everyone goes: Desiree? Dazie? Daghjdskgjc?

niaflukasiak:

I seriously hate when people call age gap relationships disgusting, if you dont like it turn your fucking head away and shut up