Dealbreaker

Dear homophobes who have "lots of gay friends whom they love and respect": Would it be a betrayal of my gay friends if I believed they should have fewer rights than I do as a straight person? I believe it would. Would they be justified in considering me less than a true friend, because I don't respect them enough to value their freedom? I believe they would.

If you don't believe in gay marriage, then all that should mean is you won't be getting one. If you call your gay friends sinners, perverts, deviants, freaks, or an affront to God, then let me tell you. Not only are you not friends, you don't know what the hell a friend is.

I cannot stand when gay-hating zealots suddenly call up the ideal of open-mindedness as a shield. No, you guys, I don't need to be accepting and open-minded when it comes to a view that you are actively attempting to shove onto other people. I can be accepting and open-minded and supportive of your personal choices, but once you start trying to limit the rights of others? Hell no, your view doesn't deserve my tolerance and good will just for being there. Pack up your sense of entitlement and get offa my yard.

All views are not equally worthy of respect, and views which do not allow for tolerance should not be heard later crying for it when they're criticized by the ones who ARE willing to "live and let live."

I am not intolerant for saying there is no supportable rational reason to limit the contractual rights of gay people, and your gay friends are not intolerant for deciding they don't want to be around someone like you who is constantly passing judgement on a life that you openly wish you controlled instead of them. You don't deserve tolerance, you don't deserve acceptance, and you don't deserve empathy.

"Empathize with stupidity and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." -Perosteck Balveda

Sincerely,

Those of us who actually know how to be a friend, those of us who know what "agree to disagree" means, and those of us who don't want to hear about tolerance from people who want their intolerance to have the weight of law.

Of shelters and purebreds

Most people get the whole notion of going to the local animal shelter to get a pet. They see it as the more compassionate option, because 60% of animals who enter shelters don't come out again, and not because they're sick or dangerous. There is just a serious lack of resources to offer them, either in a shelter or someone's home. So the idea is to go get one from a shelter because you're saving a life in addition to acquiring a great new addition to the family.

So why do these same people treat adoption of human children like it's some last resort that only failures as women and men ever resort to? Why are they compassionate enough to want to save an animal's life, but when it comes to a human, it's gotta be their genes or no dice. "My way or the highway," except by "the highway" we mean "life in the foster care system potentially being abused and neglected until they become criminals and have only prison to look forward to in their retirement years."

Oopsie babies are one thing. That happens, and if you wanna have it, do it. I just don't for the life of me understand what's going on in people's heads where they'll spend hundreds of thousands of dollars desperately fighting to conceive a child, like they're in fucking short supply or something.

Useful confusion

I had a flash of understanding today when advised to be myself when I'm talking at the door. Class clowns have an advantage with concepts like "anatta." We realize more quickly that there is no essential self to be. Who we are when we're alone is no one.