Text 20 Apr 176,782 notes

professordumbeldore:

professordumbeldore:

do you have 67 protons because you’re a image

If anyone else reblogs this I will cry for eternity 

(Source: year6luke)

Video 19 Apr 195 notes
via Blog.
Photo 19 Apr 107 notes noitemsfoxonlyfinaldestination:

creepyspider-stuff:

noitemsfoxonlyfinaldestination:

creepyspider-stuff:

noitemsfoxonlyfinaldestination:

the-unpopular-opinions:

Popular opinion:
Homosexuals shouldn’t be bullied.
Unpopular opinion:
However, homosexuality isn’t natural, and society shouldn’t accept it or make it a cultural norm any more than they should attraction to a table lamp.
The reason that sexual relationships in the animal world generally consist of male and female contact is because sex in and of itself is meant to be used for reproduction. Of course it’s also used for recreation nowadays as well, but I always have to question someone who would say something like “it’s natural for two people of the same sex to sleep together”, because no, it’s honestly not.
I view it as a less extreme version of something like bestiality. It’s a sexual attraction for something that we’re not meant to be sexually attracted to, but we are anyway, through some error in mentality.
This isn’t to say it’s as wrong as bestiality. It’s consensual, for one. Even if I view it as a mental illness or perversion, I will acknowledge that as long as two parties are consenting the act itself is entirely up to the individuals.
At this point people generally bring up the topic of men and women who are unable to have children, but I think it’s important to realize that if someone cannot have children that generally means that there’s something wrong with the individual. In no case will a woman be able to have a child with another woman, or vice versa with men, unless we’re counting the people who prefer to be called female or male. I’m talking about sex rather than gender.
Additionally, marriage has never been a ‘right’. No one is stopping anyone from sleeping with another man, another woman, or five men and five women and a car. The reason that homosexual relationships have never been considered for marriage is because marriage has always been used as a safety net for possible future children. Not only is homosexuality unnatural, there is no chance of the couple ever being able to conceive and therefore the state has never felt a need to interfere.
So, regardless, why am I against changing the definition of marriage?
According to studies by K. Freund and R.I. Watson, homosexuals- while accounting for 2% of the population- commit 33% of child molestation cases in the United States.
Homosexual relationships are by their very nature unnatural, and should not be encouraged or normalized.
And, finally, it’s pointless. Civil Unions would do, and adding more benefits wouldn’t do much besides make it more culturally acceptable. It doesn’t make sense.
Tldr;; I’ve always viewed homosexuality as something akin to a mental abnormality based on the biological purpose of sex and reproduction and I think that while obviously no one should be harassed for it, it shouldn’t be culturally acceptable.

you realize that like half of the animal kingdom has wild gay sex all the time you dumbass
it’s incredibly natural and has happened for years

every time someone pulls out the “animals have gay sex too” card i always tell them we are only getting gay humans to legally marry. not animals.

cool i literally don’t give two flying fucks about that useless bit of information
this argument was never about marriage, it was about if homosexuality is ‘unnatural’ or not

neither do i, i don’t give a shit about any of this in general..i just like to point out the stupid animal gay sex everyone loves so much..

but it’s literally not stupid?
unnatural literally means it does’t exist or doesn’t occur in nature
homosexuality occurs very frequently in nature

and yet you people use it all the time as your ace in the hole, and hope gay marriage is legal all because of that fact 

noitemsfoxonlyfinaldestination:

creepyspider-stuff:

noitemsfoxonlyfinaldestination:

creepyspider-stuff:

noitemsfoxonlyfinaldestination:

the-unpopular-opinions:

Popular opinion:

Homosexuals shouldn’t be bullied.

Unpopular opinion:

However, homosexuality isn’t natural, and society shouldn’t accept it or make it a cultural norm any more than they should attraction to a table lamp.

The reason that sexual relationships in the animal world generally consist of male and female contact is because sex in and of itself is meant to be used for reproduction. Of course it’s also used for recreation nowadays as well, but I always have to question someone who would say something like “it’s natural for two people of the same sex to sleep together”, because no, it’s honestly not.

I view it as a less extreme version of something like bestiality. It’s a sexual attraction for something that we’re not meant to be sexually attracted to, but we are anyway, through some error in mentality.

This isn’t to say it’s as wrong as bestiality. It’s consensual, for one. Even if I view it as a mental illness or perversion, I will acknowledge that as long as two parties are consenting the act itself is entirely up to the individuals.

At this point people generally bring up the topic of men and women who are unable to have children, but I think it’s important to realize that if someone cannot have children that generally means that there’s something wrong with the individual. In no case will a woman be able to have a child with another woman, or vice versa with men, unless we’re counting the people who prefer to be called female or male. I’m talking about sex rather than gender.

Additionally, marriage has never been a ‘right’. No one is stopping anyone from sleeping with another man, another woman, or five men and five women and a car. The reason that homosexual relationships have never been considered for marriage is because marriage has always been used as a safety net for possible future children. Not only is homosexuality unnatural, there is no chance of the couple ever being able to conceive and therefore the state has never felt a need to interfere.

So, regardless, why am I against changing the definition of marriage?

According to studies by K. Freund and R.I. Watson, homosexuals- while accounting for 2% of the population- commit 33% of child molestation cases in the United States.

Homosexual relationships are by their very nature unnatural, and should not be encouraged or normalized.

And, finally, it’s pointless. Civil Unions would do, and adding more benefits wouldn’t do much besides make it more culturally acceptable. It doesn’t make sense.

Tldr;; I’ve always viewed homosexuality as something akin to a mental abnormality based on the biological purpose of sex and reproduction and I think that while obviously no one should be harassed for it, it shouldn’t be culturally acceptable.

you realize that like half of the animal kingdom has wild gay sex all the time you dumbass

it’s incredibly natural and has happened for years

every time someone pulls out the “animals have gay sex too” card i always tell them we are only getting gay humans to legally marry. not animals.

cool i literally don’t give two flying fucks about that useless bit of information

this argument was never about marriage, it was about if homosexuality is ‘unnatural’ or not

neither do i, i don’t give a shit about any of this in general..i just like to point out the stupid animal gay sex everyone loves so much..

but it’s literally not stupid?

unnatural literally means it does’t exist or doesn’t occur in nature

homosexuality occurs very frequently in nature

and yet you people use it all the time as your ace in the hole, and hope gay marriage is legal all because of that fact 

via no.
Photo 19 Apr 107 notes noitemsfoxonlyfinaldestination:

creepyspider-stuff:

noitemsfoxonlyfinaldestination:

the-unpopular-opinions:

Popular opinion:
Homosexuals shouldn’t be bullied.
Unpopular opinion:
However, homosexuality isn’t natural, and society shouldn’t accept it or make it a cultural norm any more than they should attraction to a table lamp.
The reason that sexual relationships in the animal world generally consist of male and female contact is because sex in and of itself is meant to be used for reproduction. Of course it’s also used for recreation nowadays as well, but I always have to question someone who would say something like “it’s natural for two people of the same sex to sleep together”, because no, it’s honestly not.
I view it as a less extreme version of something like bestiality. It’s a sexual attraction for something that we’re not meant to be sexually attracted to, but we are anyway, through some error in mentality.
This isn’t to say it’s as wrong as bestiality. It’s consensual, for one. Even if I view it as a mental illness or perversion, I will acknowledge that as long as two parties are consenting the act itself is entirely up to the individuals.
At this point people generally bring up the topic of men and women who are unable to have children, but I think it’s important to realize that if someone cannot have children that generally means that there’s something wrong with the individual. In no case will a woman be able to have a child with another woman, or vice versa with men, unless we’re counting the people who prefer to be called female or male. I’m talking about sex rather than gender.
Additionally, marriage has never been a ‘right’. No one is stopping anyone from sleeping with another man, another woman, or five men and five women and a car. The reason that homosexual relationships have never been considered for marriage is because marriage has always been used as a safety net for possible future children. Not only is homosexuality unnatural, there is no chance of the couple ever being able to conceive and therefore the state has never felt a need to interfere.
So, regardless, why am I against changing the definition of marriage?
According to studies by K. Freund and R.I. Watson, homosexuals- while accounting for 2% of the population- commit 33% of child molestation cases in the United States.
Homosexual relationships are by their very nature unnatural, and should not be encouraged or normalized.
And, finally, it’s pointless. Civil Unions would do, and adding more benefits wouldn’t do much besides make it more culturally acceptable. It doesn’t make sense.
Tldr;; I’ve always viewed homosexuality as something akin to a mental abnormality based on the biological purpose of sex and reproduction and I think that while obviously no one should be harassed for it, it shouldn’t be culturally acceptable.

you realize that like half of the animal kingdom has wild gay sex all the time you dumbass
it’s incredibly natural and has happened for years

every time someone pulls out the “animals have gay sex too” card i always tell them we are only getting gay humans to legally marry. not animals.

cool i literally don’t give two flying fucks about that useless bit of information
this argument was never about marriage, it was about if homosexuality is ‘unnatural’ or not

neither do i, i don’t give a shit about any of this in general..i just like to point out the stupid animal gay sex everyone loves so much..

noitemsfoxonlyfinaldestination:

creepyspider-stuff:

noitemsfoxonlyfinaldestination:

the-unpopular-opinions:

Popular opinion:

Homosexuals shouldn’t be bullied.

Unpopular opinion:

However, homosexuality isn’t natural, and society shouldn’t accept it or make it a cultural norm any more than they should attraction to a table lamp.

The reason that sexual relationships in the animal world generally consist of male and female contact is because sex in and of itself is meant to be used for reproduction. Of course it’s also used for recreation nowadays as well, but I always have to question someone who would say something like “it’s natural for two people of the same sex to sleep together”, because no, it’s honestly not.

I view it as a less extreme version of something like bestiality. It’s a sexual attraction for something that we’re not meant to be sexually attracted to, but we are anyway, through some error in mentality.

This isn’t to say it’s as wrong as bestiality. It’s consensual, for one. Even if I view it as a mental illness or perversion, I will acknowledge that as long as two parties are consenting the act itself is entirely up to the individuals.

At this point people generally bring up the topic of men and women who are unable to have children, but I think it’s important to realize that if someone cannot have children that generally means that there’s something wrong with the individual. In no case will a woman be able to have a child with another woman, or vice versa with men, unless we’re counting the people who prefer to be called female or male. I’m talking about sex rather than gender.

Additionally, marriage has never been a ‘right’. No one is stopping anyone from sleeping with another man, another woman, or five men and five women and a car. The reason that homosexual relationships have never been considered for marriage is because marriage has always been used as a safety net for possible future children. Not only is homosexuality unnatural, there is no chance of the couple ever being able to conceive and therefore the state has never felt a need to interfere.

So, regardless, why am I against changing the definition of marriage?

According to studies by K. Freund and R.I. Watson, homosexuals- while accounting for 2% of the population- commit 33% of child molestation cases in the United States.

Homosexual relationships are by their very nature unnatural, and should not be encouraged or normalized.

And, finally, it’s pointless. Civil Unions would do, and adding more benefits wouldn’t do much besides make it more culturally acceptable. It doesn’t make sense.

Tldr;; I’ve always viewed homosexuality as something akin to a mental abnormality based on the biological purpose of sex and reproduction and I think that while obviously no one should be harassed for it, it shouldn’t be culturally acceptable.

you realize that like half of the animal kingdom has wild gay sex all the time you dumbass

it’s incredibly natural and has happened for years

every time someone pulls out the “animals have gay sex too” card i always tell them we are only getting gay humans to legally marry. not animals.

cool i literally don’t give two flying fucks about that useless bit of information

this argument was never about marriage, it was about if homosexuality is ‘unnatural’ or not

neither do i, i don’t give a shit about any of this in general..i just like to point out the stupid animal gay sex everyone loves so much..

via no.
Photo 19 Apr 107 notes noitemsfoxonlyfinaldestination:

the-unpopular-opinions:

Popular opinion:
Homosexuals shouldn’t be bullied.
Unpopular opinion:
However, homosexuality isn’t natural, and society shouldn’t accept it or make it a cultural norm any more than they should attraction to a table lamp.
The reason that sexual relationships in the animal world generally consist of male and female contact is because sex in and of itself is meant to be used for reproduction. Of course it’s also used for recreation nowadays as well, but I always have to question someone who would say something like “it’s natural for two people of the same sex to sleep together”, because no, it’s honestly not.
I view it as a less extreme version of something like bestiality. It’s a sexual attraction for something that we’re not meant to be sexually attracted to, but we are anyway, through some error in mentality.
This isn’t to say it’s as wrong as bestiality. It’s consensual, for one. Even if I view it as a mental illness or perversion, I will acknowledge that as long as two parties are consenting the act itself is entirely up to the individuals.
At this point people generally bring up the topic of men and women who are unable to have children, but I think it’s important to realize that if someone cannot have children that generally means that there’s something wrong with the individual. In no case will a woman be able to have a child with another woman, or vice versa with men, unless we’re counting the people who prefer to be called female or male. I’m talking about sex rather than gender.
Additionally, marriage has never been a ‘right’. No one is stopping anyone from sleeping with another man, another woman, or five men and five women and a car. The reason that homosexual relationships have never been considered for marriage is because marriage has always been used as a safety net for possible future children. Not only is homosexuality unnatural, there is no chance of the couple ever being able to conceive and therefore the state has never felt a need to interfere.
So, regardless, why am I against changing the definition of marriage?
According to studies by K. Freund and R.I. Watson, homosexuals- while accounting for 2% of the population- commit 33% of child molestation cases in the United States.
Homosexual relationships are by their very nature unnatural, and should not be encouraged or normalized.
And, finally, it’s pointless. Civil Unions would do, and adding more benefits wouldn’t do much besides make it more culturally acceptable. It doesn’t make sense.
Tldr;; I’ve always viewed homosexuality as something akin to a mental abnormality based on the biological purpose of sex and reproduction and I think that while obviously no one should be harassed for it, it shouldn’t be culturally acceptable.

you realize that like half of the animal kingdom has wild gay sex all the time you dumbass
it’s incredibly natural and has happened for years

every time someone pulls out the “animals have gay sex too” card i always tell them we are only getting gay humans to legally marry. not animals.

noitemsfoxonlyfinaldestination:

the-unpopular-opinions:

Popular opinion:

Homosexuals shouldn’t be bullied.

Unpopular opinion:

However, homosexuality isn’t natural, and society shouldn’t accept it or make it a cultural norm any more than they should attraction to a table lamp.

The reason that sexual relationships in the animal world generally consist of male and female contact is because sex in and of itself is meant to be used for reproduction. Of course it’s also used for recreation nowadays as well, but I always have to question someone who would say something like “it’s natural for two people of the same sex to sleep together”, because no, it’s honestly not.

I view it as a less extreme version of something like bestiality. It’s a sexual attraction for something that we’re not meant to be sexually attracted to, but we are anyway, through some error in mentality.

This isn’t to say it’s as wrong as bestiality. It’s consensual, for one. Even if I view it as a mental illness or perversion, I will acknowledge that as long as two parties are consenting the act itself is entirely up to the individuals.

At this point people generally bring up the topic of men and women who are unable to have children, but I think it’s important to realize that if someone cannot have children that generally means that there’s something wrong with the individual. In no case will a woman be able to have a child with another woman, or vice versa with men, unless we’re counting the people who prefer to be called female or male. I’m talking about sex rather than gender.

Additionally, marriage has never been a ‘right’. No one is stopping anyone from sleeping with another man, another woman, or five men and five women and a car. The reason that homosexual relationships have never been considered for marriage is because marriage has always been used as a safety net for possible future children. Not only is homosexuality unnatural, there is no chance of the couple ever being able to conceive and therefore the state has never felt a need to interfere.

So, regardless, why am I against changing the definition of marriage?

According to studies by K. Freund and R.I. Watson, homosexuals- while accounting for 2% of the population- commit 33% of child molestation cases in the United States.

Homosexual relationships are by their very nature unnatural, and should not be encouraged or normalized.

And, finally, it’s pointless. Civil Unions would do, and adding more benefits wouldn’t do much besides make it more culturally acceptable. It doesn’t make sense.

Tldr;; I’ve always viewed homosexuality as something akin to a mental abnormality based on the biological purpose of sex and reproduction and I think that while obviously no one should be harassed for it, it shouldn’t be culturally acceptable.

you realize that like half of the animal kingdom has wild gay sex all the time you dumbass

it’s incredibly natural and has happened for years

every time someone pulls out the “animals have gay sex too” card i always tell them we are only getting gay humans to legally marry. not animals.

via no.
Photo 19 Apr 9,049 notes ro-taniah:



Anonymous asked ro-taniah:



are you taking requests can i have a vriska ballgown or not either is good i just ahhh vriska





uvu~

ro-taniah:

are you taking requests can i have a vriska ballgown or not either is good i just ahhh vriska
uvu~

via yeah.
Link 19 Apr 3,262 notes http://shugarskull.tumblr.com/post/83176307662»

1053r5:

beersfordinner:

waterpopsicleformerlycryvanse:

muhfuckanevalovedus:

fishnfaith:

I hate spics and I hate niggers.

Call me racist. Because I’m proud to be one.👌

What kind of name is Leah Jean lmfao

idgaf abt her name tbh but im pretty sure she wit a…

Nah

Photo 18 Apr 2,463 notes dismers-wonderhouse:

The new Season of Steven Universe looks great!!!

dismers-wonderhouse:

The new Season of Steven Universe looks great!!!

via PAN-PIZZA.
Photo 18 Apr 26 notes

(Source: zombiesdontloveme)

Video 18 Apr 1,389 notes

(Source: spiraphobia)


Design crafted by Prashanth Kamalakanthan. Powered by Tumblr.