May 2013
10 posts
2 tags
anglosexual:
misandryinhaiku:
“women are weaklings!”
i’m strong enough to carry
your corpse to the woods
this haiku is my favorite haiku
3 tags
the millennial problem:
gyzym:
two millennials are barreling towards adulthood at 95 miles per hour. one of them has been coated with the most extravagant paint money can buy, but their steering apparatus is locked up until that coat’s paid off; the other’s brakes have been ripped out mid-trip, the thief yelling, “what, did you think you were entitled to these?” over their shoulder. half the tracks have been torn away...
I listened to my first hockey game on the radio today. What an awesome one to start with- Hawks shut out the Wild 5-1 and are on their way to the second round! Hell yeah!
4 tags
1 tag
2 tags
1 tag
3 tags
1 tag
April 2013
20 posts
4 tags
3 tags
motif-xs:
David Bowie - Golden Years
3 tags
2 tags
2 tags
1 tag
1 tag
1 tag
1 tag
4 tags
six variations on the theme of coming out to...
gyzym:
one.
You wait on it for months, run your tongue over and over your teeth while you sit across from him: in cheap-tablecloth restaurants, in low-lit bars, in his mother’s house with your hands clasped together under the table. Sometimes your knee brushes the inside of his thigh while you’re making love and the faint sound of flesh on flesh leaves you so tender that you want to laugh,...
3 tags
1 tag
2 tags
2 tags
1 tag
“Amid heightened speculation that a male athlete in one of North America’s four...”
– The New York Times, “National Hockey League Announces Initiative to Support Gay Athletes.”
Historic. Good for the NHL.
(via inothernews)
This is awesome. Way to go, NHL!
(via wilwheaton)
This is awesome
(via videogameheart)
yaaa
(via erikawithac) yay hockey! :D (via aeide-thea)
2 tags
1 tag
1 tag
March 2013
59 posts
1 tag
Hollingsworth v. Perry.
JUSTICE BREYER: Assume that you could distinguish California. Assume that we accept your argument -- or Mr. Scalia's version of your argument. And that distinguishes California. Now, let's look at California: what precisely is the way in which allowing gay couples to marry would interfere with the vision of marriage as the procreation of children, that allowing sterile couples of different sexes to marry would not? I mean, there are lots of people who get married that can't have children. So take a state that does allow adoption and say, there -- what's the justification for saying "no gay marriage"? Certainly not the one you said, is it?
COOPER: Uh, y-y-y-you --
BREYER (interjecting): Am I not clear? Look: you said that the problem is marriage, as an institution that furthers procreation --
COOPER: Yes, Your Honor.
BREYER: And the reason there was adoption. But that doesn't apply to California. So imagine I wall off California, and I'm looking just there, where you say that doesn't apply. Now, what happens to your argument -- about the institution of marriage as a tool towards procreation? Given the fact that in California too, couples that aren't gay but can't have children get married all the time?
COOPER: Yes, Your Honor. The concern is that redefining marriage as a genderless institution will sever its abiding connection to its historic, traditional procreative purposes. And it will re-focus, re-focus the purpose of marriage a-and the definition of marriage away from the, uh, uh, raising of children and to the emotional needs and desires of adults, of adult couples.
(Crosstalk.)
KAGAN: Well, suppose a State said, "Because we think that the focus of marriage really should be on procreation, we're not going to give marriage licenses any more to any couple where both people are over the age of 55." Would that be constitutional?
COOPER: No, Your Honor. It would not be constitutional.
KAGAN: Because that's the same State interest, I would think. You know? If you're over the age of 55, you don't help us serve the government's interest in protecting procreation through marriage. So why is that different?
COOPER: You, you, Your Honor, even with respect to couples over the age of 55, it is very rare that both couples -- both parties to the couple -- are infertile.
(Laughter from the gallery.)
KAGAN (interjecting): No really, because the couple -- I can just assure you if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage.
(More laughter.)
2 tags
1 tag
1 tag
the frightening truth about desire
spellcoats:
it’s on but i don’t know whether i want to be her, fuck her or borrow her clothes.
— daphne gottlieb
1 tag
1 tag
1 tag
1 tag
3 tags
1 tag
2 tags
1 tag
2 tags
1 tag
