Photoset
Photoset

athomewithlana:

actual gifset of gays destroying the sanctity of marriage and family

(Source: moonchild30, via apsies)

Text

Gay Marriage And Moral Seriousness

letterstomycountry:

Ari Kohen recently posted a video of Ann Althouse discussing Gay marriage with Glenn Loury.  Ari summarizes the video thusly:

Both Glenn Loury and Ann Althouse have gay sons. And, in this clip, both of them argue that we shouldn’t consider opposition to same-sex marriage to be akin to bigotry. Loury goes a few steps farther, in fact, and claims that a charge of bigotry really amounts to demagogic politics and that people who oppose same-sex marriage on religious or cultural grounds are morally serious and ought not to be dismissed out of hand.

Ari comments:

But it’s never entirely clear why Loury and Althouse believe that the views these people espouse are so morally serious or why we ought to refrain from referring to their condemnation of homosexuality as bigotry. From listening to them, my sense is that their argument rests on the presumption that religious people are morally serious and, as such, they reflect on the tenets of their faiths before coming to their conclusions about matters like same-sex marriage.

That’s all well and good, if it’s true. But it doesn’t explain why we shouldn’t think of it as bigotry. That someone believes something to be true and arrives at his or her belief in a serious manner doesn’t exempt him or her from being challenged on that belief, especially when that belief might impact the lives of others.

If Ann and Glenn have gay sons, then they clearly understand that being gay is not a morally culpable choice.  I’d go so far as to say they probably understand that it is no more of a morally culpable choice than being born with heterosexual proclivities.  They probably also understand that this isn’t a matter of “approving of one’s lifestyle.”  Being gay is, of course, not a lifestyle.  It is an inborn trait.  Again, I’m certain that Ann and Glenn are aware of this.  I’m certain they’re also aware that, while sexuality is mutable, it is not something that can be forced on people.  There is a fairly robust degree of certainty in the medical community that attempting to change someone’s sexuality by force has the potential to inflict extreme psychological damage on that individual.  So I assume that Ann and Glenn are not making their argument on the supposition that people who view homosexuality as a morally culpable choice are coming to a valid conclusion.

Yet that is precisely the conclusion that many people who oppose same-sex marriage have come to.  8% of North Carolina voters think that being gay should be a felony.  That’s roughly 1 out of every 12 people in North Carolina.  That’s significant.  Do Ann and Glenn give these people a people a pass because they came to this conclusion in a morally serious manner?  Surely they don’t support felonization of their own children.  But by their logic, we should respect these peoples’ opinions and not label them bigots because they came to their conclusions in a morally serious manner.

The text-book definition of bigotry is “a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions or prejudices,” or “one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred or intolerance.”  At common law, a felony was crime so heinous and injurious to society that those who committed it were deemed to deserve the penalty of death.  Today, a felon can be denied the right to vote, own a gun, access public housing, food stamps, student aid, public assistance, the right to serve on juries, and can be legally discriminated against by employers.  That is the cultural legacy that is being invoked when 1 in 12 North Carolinians believe that being gay should be a felony.  No one could possibly wish that on another human being unless they regarded the members of that group “with hatred or intolerance.”  That is bigotry.  And the fact that they arrived at that decision in a morally serious manner does not change the analysis.

I am sure that Ann and Glenn would respond by saying that they clearly do not support the felonization of homosexuality.  Fine.  But their reasoning about “moral serious” conclusions applies to those that do.  Their logic forces them to respect people that want to do serious injury to their children.  Which means that they either, a) have not given full consideration to the consequences of their thesis, or b) they are, by my own personal measure, derelict in their duty as parents.  That’s an upsetting accusation, no doubt.  But a parent’s first duty, I would think, is to not act in such a way that will do unnecessary harm to their children, nor to give cover to people who wish to do the same.  Giving people a way to morally justify beliefs that will harm their children fits that bill a bit too cleanly.

Video

barackobama:

jessicavalenti:

Rachel Maddow owns Republican pundit who says women don’t actually make less money than men. 

This was pretty beautiful. (If you’re wondering what the president’s done for equal pay, Lilly Ledbetter can tell you.)

(Source: jessicavalenti)

Photoset

absurdlakefront:

chasingdevon:

erosum:

Melissa Harris-Perry describes herself as “cis” (via “MSNBC Talks To And About Trans People For An Hour, Doesn’t F*ck It Up” on autostraddle)

She makes me want to watch cable (that’s not DVR) again! <3

Teach everyone, professor.

(Source: pipeschapman)

Photo
ladyatheist:

There, I fixed it. 
I noticed Mr. Zimmerman mis-phrased a few things, so I thought I’d help out. (Feel free to share.)
—————-
That’s better.

ladyatheist:

There, I fixed it. 

I noticed Mr. Zimmerman mis-phrased a few things, so I thought I’d help out. (Feel free to share.)

—————-

That’s better.

(Source: womanistgamergirl, via apsies)

Quote
"Patriarchy is not men. Patriarchy is a system in which both women and men participate. It privileges, inter alia, the interests of boys and men over the bodily integrity, autonomy, and dignity of girls and women. It is subtle, insidious, and never more dangerous than when women passionately deny that they themselves are engaging in it. This abnormal obsession with women’s faces and bodies has become so normal that we (I include myself at times—I absolutely fall for it still) have internalized patriarchy almost seamlessly. We are unable at times to identify ourselves as our own denigrating abusers, or as abusing other girls and women."

Ashley Judd, here. (via lexcanroar)

Bolding mine.

(via fridayfelts)

(via apsies)

Link

Without fail, every time I begin to stop hating my alma mater, an article like this pops up and the cycle gets restarted all over again.

I WILL say that the fact there seems to be actual acknowledgment and some amount of community outrage is a VAST improvement over the situation not that many years ago when instances such as this were actually made into jokes.

Link

Reading these tweets/comments/etc literally made me sick to my stomach.

I will never comprehend how so many people can be so…whatever this is. It’s disgusting.

Photo
squashed:

shortformblog:

The Gateway Pundit is shocked that Sandra Fluke is 30, suggesting that it’s clear evidence of some crazy conspiracy. Meanwhile, The Daily Beast correctly reported this fact nearly two weeks ago: ”Sandra Fluke, a 30-year-old Georgetown University Law School student, had been contacted earlier in the week by committee minority leaders after Democrats saw a video of her speaking about the mandate at the National Press Club on February 9,” Matthew DeLuca wrote at the time. Doing a quick search, the only sites we found incorrectly reporting her age were conservative media outlets … and HuffPo.

Do you know what’s actually stunning?
The fact that it’s 2012 now and we’re still tolerating this crap. Somebody wants to speak to Congress on an issue. Rush Limbaugh calls her a slut, a prostitute, and all sorts of other things. And whatever. That’s Rush Limbaugh. He’s a shock jock. Howard Stern for conservatives. We expect him to say disgusting things to get the attention he thinks will muffle his tears as he cries himself to sleep at night. So whatever. We’ve known the truth about bullies since elementary school. We’re used to that. People listen to Rush Limbaugh to reassure themselves that they aren’t the biggest douches in the world.
But other conservatives think that so long as they don’t use the language Limbaugh used it’s okay for them to do the same thing.

Coed? Oh. You mean a female student? The term you used to refer to as “coeds” when you were shocked and offended that they let women into your alma mater. The term that nobody uses anymore—except to sexualize or disapprove of female students.


30 Year-Old? You mean the age you are when you’re a law student when you spent a few years at an actual job after college? The age that isn’t remotely unusual for law students to be? But why is this a problem? Is it that you were expecting a frail young and extremely sexual creature and now you’re angry that you can’t dismiss her for that reason?


Women’s Rights Activist? So … right. If you’re testifying before Congress, you’re either an activist, a baseball player on steroids, or a shamed corporate villain.  Of course she’s an activist. What did you think? “High, I’m a wilting Georgetown law student. Is this the right room for torts class?”

And what’s the point of all of this shaming and stereotyping? It’s simply to ignore whatever Sandra Fluke had to say because of her gender and then act like the conservatives are somehow victims of a Machiavellian plot by Democrats to somehow let women talk.
So screw Rush Limbaugh. Screw Gateway Pundit and the entire conservative blogosphere. Screw all of you who think that Sandra Fluke’s age and gender are remotely legitimate reasons to disregard or diminish her message. And finally, screw the rest of us. Because it’s 2012. And we’re still putting up with this shit.

squashed:

shortformblog:

The Gateway Pundit is shocked that Sandra Fluke is 30, suggesting that it’s clear evidence of some crazy conspiracy. Meanwhile, The Daily Beast correctly reported this fact nearly two weeks ago: ”Sandra Fluke, a 30-year-old Georgetown University Law School student, had been contacted earlier in the week by committee minority leaders after Democrats saw a video of her speaking about the mandate at the National Press Club on February 9,” Matthew DeLuca wrote at the time. Doing a quick search, the only sites we found incorrectly reporting her age were conservative media outlets … and HuffPo.

Do you know what’s actually stunning?

The fact that it’s 2012 now and we’re still tolerating this crap. Somebody wants to speak to Congress on an issue. Rush Limbaugh calls her a slut, a prostitute, and all sorts of other things. And whatever. That’s Rush Limbaugh. He’s a shock jock. Howard Stern for conservatives. We expect him to say disgusting things to get the attention he thinks will muffle his tears as he cries himself to sleep at night. So whatever. We’ve known the truth about bullies since elementary school. We’re used to that. People listen to Rush Limbaugh to reassure themselves that they aren’t the biggest douches in the world.

But other conservatives think that so long as they don’t use the language Limbaugh used it’s okay for them to do the same thing.

  • Coed? Oh. You mean a female student? The term you used to refer to as “coeds” when you were shocked and offended that they let women into your alma mater. The term that nobody uses anymore—except to sexualize or disapprove of female students.

  • 30 Year-Old? You mean the age you are when you’re a law student when you spent a few years at an actual job after college? The age that isn’t remotely unusual for law students to be? But why is this a problem? Is it that you were expecting a frail young and extremely sexual creature and now you’re angry that you can’t dismiss her for that reason?

  • Women’s Rights Activist? So … right. If you’re testifying before Congress, you’re either an activist, a baseball player on steroids, or a shamed corporate villain. Of course she’s an activist. What did you think? “High, I’m a wilting Georgetown law student. Is this the right room for torts class?”

And what’s the point of all of this shaming and stereotyping? It’s simply to ignore whatever Sandra Fluke had to say because of her gender and then act like the conservatives are somehow victims of a Machiavellian plot by Democrats to somehow let women talk.

So screw Rush Limbaugh. Screw Gateway Pundit and the entire conservative blogosphere. Screw all of you who think that Sandra Fluke’s age and gender are remotely legitimate reasons to disregard or diminish her message. And finally, screw the rest of us. Because it’s 2012. And we’re still putting up with this shit.

Quote
"No, you can’t deny women their basic rights and pretend it’s about your “religious freedom.” If you don’t like birth control, don’t use it. Religious freedom doesn’t mean you can force others to live by your own beliefs."

— President Barack Obama (via ithedivine)

(via thewidowwinchester)

Video

huffpostcomedy:

funnyordie:

Women’s Health Experts Speak Out with Nick Offerman, Tim Meadows and Judd Nelson

Male experts agree: No one knows more about women’s issues like birth control than middle-aged men and the Republican party.

This is beautiful.

Chat
  • Woman: Can I have birth control?
  • Republicans: No.
  • Woman: I got pregnant because I didn't have birth control and I don't want the fetus. Can I have an abortion?
  • Republicans: No.
  • Woman: I gave birth to my child but since I wasn't expecting it, I can't afford daycare. Can I have help paying for it?
  • Republicans: No.
Quote
"He [Rick Santorum] is a staunch opponent of abortion, even in the case of rape. Even in the case of rape, telling CNN recently that a woman, in that case, should, and I quote, ‘make the best out of a bad situation, and accept the gift from God.’ Wow. I think women should say the same thing to Santorum, Andy, after from now until the end of his weaselly life, they see him in the street and kick him in the fucking balls. ‘Please accept this gift from God, Rick, this pointed-shoed gift to your plums. Why are you rolling around on the ground crying, Rick? Please make the best out of this bad situation. In fact, rejoice, because I believe another lady is coming over to gift you with another high-velocity nut shot. Praise be, Rick! God is graciously raining gifts into your groinal area, you fucking douche.’"

John Oliver on Rick Santorum, The Bugle 183 (via sixpencesoulcake)

Can this please be the new “glitter-bomb”?

(via thegreg)

Video

plantedcity:

A great, animated version of ‘Food Rules’ by writer Michael Pollan

From Vimeo:

Based on Michael Pollan’s talk “Food Rules” given at the RSA, this animation was created in the context of the RSA/Nominet Trust film competition. Using a mixture of stop-motion and compositing, our aim and challenge was to convey the topic in a visually interesting way using a variety of different food products. We made a little table top set up at home and worked on this a little over three weeks.