comparativelysuperlative:

theunitofcaring:

I really agree with John Roberts’ dissent in the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage today: 

It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” why would there be any less dignity in the bond between three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their children would otherwise “suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,” why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the opportunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of this disability,” serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships?

Every time someone writes that “the majority’s opinion would do X,” I always catch myself imagining that some future decision is going to cite the dissent and say “Yes. That. We hold that it does.”

Tragically this does not seem to be a thing, though I’m sure it happens sometimes. I guess courts prefer quoting people who don’t cast them as the villains. We could be powering the earth with the generators attached to the graves of distinguished former members of the Court!


Tags:

#marriage equality #in a broader sense #polyamory

carmarthenfan:

I have extremely mixed feelings about the language of the US Supreme Court ruling (people who don’t marry are not automatically incomplete lonely people ffs, this is not the 19th century), but I understand why they used the strong language they did.

Marriage rights are not the #1 most important issue in the world, but they are important and I’m really glad they made this ruling.


Tags:

#marriage equality #aromanticism #(I know there’s other reason not to marry and some aromantics marry anyway but I still think it belongs in that tag) #home of the brave #yes this

Please signal boost this for anyone that owns a dog, works with dogs or knows someone with a dog, this is SO IMPORTANT.

bpdramsaybolton:

edgebug:

we-have-all-got-battle-scars:

A lot of dog owners give their dogs peanut butter. It’s great as a treat given in small quantities and most dogs love the stuff. But PLEASE check the ingredients before giving it to your dog. There is a sweetener called XYLITOL, often found in chewing gum, dental hygiene products and it can also be purchased as a sweetener itself, and now they’ve started putting it in some peanut butters. It is EXTREMELY TOXIC to dogs and can be potentially fatal if not dealt with immediately when ingested by a dog. Check the ingredients, if XYLITOL is mentioned then PLEASE DO NOT FEED IT TO YOUR DOG! If you suspect your dog has ingested XYLITOL, which can often happen through dogs finding chewing gum in bags (they like the smell of mint), or if they do happen to have peanut butter containing it, call your vet straight away. I’m a dog trainer, I see lots of goods, but I also see the bads, and the last thing I want to see is dogs coming to harm because people are unaware of this so please if there’s one thing you do then reblog this or at least tell people about it. Thank you so much!

http://www.snopes.com/critters/crusader/xylitol.asp

THIS IS 100% LEGIT. Xylitol can cause a HUGE surge of insulin in dogs and in higher doses is toxic to their livers. Three grams of xylitol can kill a 65lb dog.

quarkity


Tags:

#death tw #dog #the more you know #we gave our dog an empty peanut butter jar to lick the remnants out of yesterday #luckily Wegmans regular peanut butter doesn’t have xylitol #(no we don’t have Wegmans in Canada) #(Wegmans peanut butter is cheaper and tastier than No Name so we buy a bunch whenever we go to America)

Schrodinger’s Kid?

deelaundry:

My younger kid:  “I don’t want to die.  I want to live forever.”

My older kid:  “It’s not that everybody dies, it’s just that everybody so far has died.”

Roughly (very roughly) 107 billion people have ever lived. Given a living population of 7 billion, this means it’s much too soon to use that saying that “life is a condition with a 100% mortality rate”. Empirically, life is a condition with a ~93% mortality rate.

Seven percent of all the people who have ever lived, it’s not too late to save.


Tags:

#death tw #transhumanism #if I ever decide to make a specific anti-deathism tag it will be ‘seven percent of all the people who have ever lived can still be saved’

ds9vgrconfessions:

Follow | Confess | Archive

[Why did Odo decide to take a male form? Did he just model after Mora, or is it how he most identified?]


Tags:

#Star Trek #DS9 #Odo #gender #personally I think that he was originally modelling after Mora and then got into the habit of it #I suspect me being strongly cis is due–at least in part–to a general tendency to form strong habits #and Odo has such a tendency #if he gets attached to things like patrol schedules or furniture placements that were originally mostly or entirely arbitrary #it makes sense that he would get attached to his originally-mostly-arbitrary gender