Oh and linkies if you wanna see it: news.icanhascheezburger.com/2011/02/18/
Oh and linkies if you wanna see it: news.icanhascheezburger.com/2011/02/18/
If I was the President of the US, I'd spend the whole day working out and implementing a national healthcare system. All people deserve access to healthcare without worrying about going bankrupt to pay for their care. If I was Prime Minister, I'd legalise marijuana, tax it and then I'd update the benefits and tax credits for working people, cause god knows the cost of living has gone up but not people's wages. :P
Just for fun (haha /cynicism), I googled 'homosexuality is not a choice' and 'homosexuality is a choice' just to see what came up in the first couple of pages. For the former, I came up with a site for religious tolerance (yay for that one!), the American Psychological Association, an Australian Pyschology educational site, a debate site and some sites supporting LGBT rights. For the latter, it came out with a Conservative Wiki, a debate site, and with the exception of the medical sites, those other ones I already listed who claim that homosexuality isn't a choice. So, on one hand we have recognised national health organisations declaring that it is not a choice and and on the other, a politically biased Wiki. Doesn't quite measure up somehow does it? I think I also googled something similar about it being a choice and it came with the site NARTH, who claim they can cure people of gayness with therapy.
Plus the fact that scientists are finding more and more common traits in gay men that aren't in heterosexual men. It's so stupid though, the more science comes up with evidence that homosexuality and bisexuality is genetic and not a choice, the louder religion argues that they can 'cure' you of your debased and evil predilections (their words, not mine), despite proof that such 'therapy' can actually do more harm than good.
This line of thought was of course brought about by someone's comment on the HYS (I really should stay away from that place, it's like a vice to me) that homosexual parents were more likely to turn their adoptees gay. ?? Oh please, give me a break. Where's the evidence for that? Where? What's that? You mean you have no evidence for it and it's just a bigoted opinion? Surprise, surprise. I once heard someone respond to a claim like that, that if all children had their parents' sexuality, there would be no gay people. Best comeback ever, and accurate.
Funnily enough, two years ago the Karolinska Insititute in Sweden did a study on homosexual/heterosexual brains and found that homosexual men have a brain that is identical in size to heterosexual women and were smaller than that of heterosexual male. Homosexual women had a brain that looked and was of similar size to a heterosexual male. Lesbians and hetero males have more nerve connections in the the part of the brain that regulates sex (I think it's called the amygdala),whereas hetero women and gay men have more neural connections. And from what I understand, these things are formed due to genetics in pregnancy. At least that's what certain institutes in the US (can't remember which ones exactly) have discovered through research.
Then of course, there's the age old question 'why would LGBT people choose to be that way knowing all the ridicule and persecution they face from others?' I've never, ever gotten a satisfactory answer from someone who believes it's a choice. In fact, more often than not I don't get an answer at all, they usually just dodge the question, at which point I stop debating and leave.
Anyway, I'll climb down off my soapbox now, I just needed to vent.
Doesn't mean that there weren't people opposed, but I found those people tended to make sweeping generalisations about gays/lesbians, which happens to be a debating pet peeve of mine. I hate generalised statements because they often paint people wrongly who don't deserve it. Comments like this would apply:
The UN convention on the rights of the child.
Article 21....Adoption....the first concern must be what is best for them.
Article 12.....Respect the views of the child. Children have the right to have their views heard.
Article 3....Best interests of the child. this should be the primary concern when making decisions that affect them.
Article 2.....Non Discrimination.....No child should be treated unfairly on any basis.
These should be respected when placing a child in the care of others. Their rights MUST come first. I contend that a same sex couple is NOT in the best interests of the child if we apply the above conventions.
This idea of some that gay/lesbian parents are incapable of providing a well-round, happy upbringing for a child who desperately needs a loving home......I can't fathom it. When you look at it really, homosexual couples can't be any worse than heterosexual couples at raising children and from what I've seen of it, are often much better parents than many heterosexual couples. There's loads of heteros out there who are terrible parents, can't or don't want to provide for the child, are too self-interested, or mistreat their children.
The laws made to govern us are secular for a reason, to prevent the forcing of religious views on others' whose views differ from their own. Forcing your religious views on others is just plain and simple intolerance and disrespect for that other person. Something that ties into this would be Catholic hospitals in the US, which I had a little rant about a few days ago, but that's beside the point here.
Gay and lesbian couples are no worse at parenting than any heterosexual couple out there and they should be afforded all the same rights to adopt that are given to heteros. it's called tolerance and equality. I just can't get along with anyone who says that homosexuals are abnormal and would be bad parents based on that alone.
Edit> I've just seen a comment that takes the cake, a claim that any same sex couple wanting to adopt are selfish. OMG, wth?! I swear my jaw just dropped. Unbelievable, how in god's name does wanting to provide a child with a loving home make them selfish. Dear Jebus, sometimes I despair of some sections of humanity. *shakes head*
Distinctive. I pride myself on being my own person and I typically shun being lumped into conformist things. I don't think people take enough pride in being themselves and often try too hard to be like everyone else because they think others will like them more if they do.
Do all fast food chains count? Excepting Subway, which can be healthy enough, I hate fast food. I haven't eaten fast food for 5 years and have no intention of touching it again. Aside from the fact that the food itself makes me feel sick to my stomach after eating (hell it's gotten to the point where just smelling it can make me feel slightly nauseous), it's sooooo unhealthy and I have no desire to put all that processed, sugared-up crap in my body.
David Cameron just called the Labour backbenchers 'dupes'. Hehehe, love PMQ's and Commons debates.
My dad used to take me shopping with him every weekend up till I was about 8 or 9. I'd help him get all the food for the week and he'd usually buy me a small treat and rent me a movie. I never thought about it much when I was younger, but now I'm older and more mature, I realise how much I appreciated just spending this time with my dad.
If it's intentional, then I'll opt to grab my stuff that means something to me and my pets. Usually the intent of someone who sets fire to your home on purpose is to kill and wreck havoc with the lives of others, so really they don't need to be walking the face of the planet. I have no patience for people like that.
I suppose I do. I didn't much care for my maiden surname though, it was so stupidly simple, only three letters and still people always managed to mis-spell it!
If I could change it without pissing anyone off, I would, to Nimeth just cause I like it! Plus it's unusual and I like being unusual and different.
This one's a toss up. Haggis I found to be pretty gross, as well as Marmite. I've generally hated those for a while, mostly because I don't like the taste and I'm not fond of the texture of haggis. Though I did have a really gross packet of crisps this afternoon. Walkers are doing new flavours for the World Cup, so I tried the American Cheeseburger flavour. Not nice at all, mostly tasted of ketchup, mustard and pickle. I hate ketchup, mustard and pickles, so yeah, pretty much put me off. To be fair, I've tried the English Roast Beef & Yorkshire and the Japanese Teriyaki Chicken flavours and those both actually tasted ok.
And if you've seen Shawshank Redemption, the bit where he puts part of that opera on the record player, that song is even much better in it's proper context. Still good in the film though!
Too bad it costs a fortune to get decent seats at the opera or I'd go see one in person. :P Though taking hubby would probably be out of the question as he got distracted most of the way through Act 1 and left to do something else. *rolls eyes*
Wheel of Time:
The Way of Kings:
Feeling kinda crappy today, got a nasty cold I think. My nose has been driving me crazy all day with congestion and sinus headaches. Trying to distract myself by watching updates on the hung parliament. Labour and Lib Dem talks have fallen through, so no Lib/Lab pact. Looking like Cameron will be PM. Just a question of whether he gets his Con/Lib pact or forms a minority government.
In this case, I wouldn't mind so much if the Lib Dems do offer to form an alliance with Labour. I still prefer a Tory/Lib Dem alliance if I had to pick. I'm sure Brown is a nice, decent guy with his heart in the right place, but frankly, as PM, he just couldn't do the job.
More positive news, Nick Clegg is playing these negotiations well, making the Tories offer some kind of referendum on electoral reform after a whole weekend of saying they wouldn't.
Good news for a Monday!
I think animal rights activists have better things to be getting on with than this. You know like stopping animal abuse and promoting animal welfare and stopping the profligation of unwanted pets. Fighting to change the term owner to guardian is just ridiculous, especially when there are more important things at stake. Plus I have pretty much zero tolerance for this kind of PC bullsh*t.
(I work at a fish and chips booth at a 19th-century London convention.)
Customer: “Hi, I want some chips.”
Me: “Sure, that’ll be ***. Here are your chips.”
Customer: “No, I want chips.”
Me: “These are chips.”
Customer: “No, they’re french fries.”
Me: “In England, they’re called chips.”
Customer: “So? We’re in America.”
Me: “You’re at a convention set in London.”
Me: “So, they’re called chips in an attempt to be authentic.”
Customer: “The f***? I’m an American and in America they’re called french fries!”
Me: “So why aren’t they called American fries?”
Customer: *stares blankly*