HOME | DD
kevinkidwell — Equality
Published: 2013-03-27 00:07:51 +0000 UTC; Views: 5779; Favourites: 287; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
"Equality is not about what is best for some, but what is best for all." - Kevin Kidwell (me)With all of the equality trials and what is going on today and tomorrow, I was inspired to come up with a simple poster by a thought of mine. It may not be an original thought, but the quote came from my mind.
If this is shared, please comment with a link to where you shared it!
Related content
Comments: 70
YEP.
"The primary source of societal illness is inequality." - Me
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I think people are using the word "equality" improperly. I say this, because any time someone says "I'm for marriage equality!" I ask about polygamous Mormon marriage. I usually get something along the lines of "No! No! I didn't mean it like that! I mean't equal marriage for couples!". Well, that's not REALLY equality then, now is it?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
There are many arguments for gay marriage. Some are pretty good. 'Equality' isn't one of those. Equality means equal access to a particular right, not having the substance of the right adapted to your circumstances.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And yet, it's what it is. As long you are not related, why not two persons, adults, mentally equilibred and all, who love each other in an egal relation regardless of the genders should not tie down if that's what they want?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Nobody wants them to not be able to live and love and be well together. The issue is about the role in government in letting the free citizens of a society decide who receives special incentives.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Weddings are kinda private matters, no special stuff given out and all, technically. It's an arrengement of private goods, inheritanmces, etc. A contract held before the law before two persons.
So...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So... what? Gay people can have wedding ceremonies no matter what the law says. Things like inheritances and hospital visitation can be done through currently existing paperwork without needing to fundamentally change society's definition of marriage.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But whyu calling it a wedding - and it would be a secular, civilian wedding, so no forcing onto religions if that scare you - is a problem? Why not calling it a wedding, instead of being so scared of freaking homophobes?
the definition of weddings - again, secular, civil wedding - can bne changed for human rights and nobody would be hurt. They have the rights of beeing wed in the full, honestm, frank way, homophobes be damned.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You're confusing marriage (the state institution), with weddings.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, you may be confusing secular-civil weddings with religious ones/ceremonies. Or maybe it's a conflict of local uses of English and local laws wordings.
I don't know the laws in US, but you can have a wedding without any religious involvement using the services of a civil servant like a mayor here and in europe.
And they are both weddings. In fact, if I was PM here, I'd be tempted to make the only official weddings civil-secular ones, hetero or LBGT ones - get a religious ceremony if you wish, only the first legal and formal civil ceremony maters legaly, as allegatedly it works in France.
Gays-etc deserve the same full rights and ceremony and legal bidings of weddings, on the secular-civil side at least; hopefully, some relgious paths would open to celebrate gay weddings under Gods too, but that's their things.
End of the line, the bullshit from the rightwingers to oppose gay weddings have to be ended. Vive le marriage gay.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, you're still confused. There is no opposition to gay weddings. The issue is about extending the civil institution to gays when the institution was created exclusively to incentivise heterosexual marriages.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And this have to change, there is no reason civil, secular weddings or however you call them have to be blocked to gays. No reasons.
Appeal to tradition and past is not a good defence, things change. In your country, as that pic shown, blacks hadn't the same full rights as whites in a not so distant past. Now, the LBGT HAVE to get the same rights.
End of the line, no discussion on this.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Of course there are reasons. A state marriage license isn't a "right". For example, the libertarian position is to get government out of marriage altogether. Would that be removing people's rights? It's absurdity. If you think there are no reasonable secular objections to unprecedented expansion of the institution of marriage (in most places against the will of the people) you're willfully ignorant.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
To0 remove the state of wedding would be ridiculous, as the theocons would have a field. Libertarians of course don't realise such details of their ideas.
Yes, it is a right, as the state is also defender - should be in a real democracy - of the rights of the peoples. Like it did against anti-civil rights foir blacks thugs in the 60s, even if weak.
In democracy also, there is the issues of fighjting Tyranies of the Minority.. and Majority. And going agaibnst the will of a majority for human rights, like it may have been the case in the 60s for blacks, can be for the good of everyone.
You are using falacious arguments in trying to justify homophobic bigotry, it seems. This discusion is closed.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Right, and Obama was a homophobic bigot up until a few years ago. These dehumanizing tactics to win completely unrelated political debates is the practice of the intellectually weak.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Obama is no socialist to say the least. The Democratic party is quite weaksauce as in just the leftier side of a political mass of ideas quite on the right, which dont make it any strongly progressive. The man had Bourassa grade hesitations, harumph.
And you ARE trying to justify homophobia with the 'taxpayers cash' fallacy, hypocritically. It's clear. In my case, I'd be glad to pay for, say, gays coming from Alabama to name one of your southern states for a wedding here.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Morality do not require a god, sidenote.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
HAHAHAHA, Cody, I'm a guy, and I forgot something, Art is a dominantly Liberal world, a conservative among artists, (me) is one in a million, I would get nowhere debating with you backwards fools, good day.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If egal love is backward..
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Great job and welcome to All-sketched-out. I believe you know foxx.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The modern idea of "equality" comes from the contention that all human desires and beliefs are reducible to "personal preferences", which are magically self-existing and resists examination and evaluation, "therefore" should be seen as equals.
But if "equality" exists, then there is no right to promote equality as superior to anything, as it's presumed more equal than the alternative.
If there is a right to promote "equality" as superior to other things, then "equality" is meaningless, as some human "preferences" are apparently more equal than others.
You people are sheep, marching in neat lines to the tune of the day.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Equality is a poor ideal.
For example, should all convicts get an equally long sentence? Should we all be in jail since some are? That would be equality.
Should everyone get paid the same wage whether or not they're skilled or even employed? That would also be equality.
Should all products cost exactly the same? Again equality.
No, equality is not best. In most cases, it's not even moral, fair, or realistic. People today seem to attempt to eschew responsibility for their actions under the guise of 'equality'. Should someone who's irresponsible get the same treatment as someone who is? No, of course not. If you shoot my friend, I'm not going to treat you the same as my mother, yet the ideal of equality would demand that I do so regardless of their actions.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I have understood this is about so called "Gay Marriage" in US?
We in Finland are now also trying to get people's voices heard about it. We have this campaign called "Tahdon" (means both "I do" said when marrying, and "I want") and we are gathering names on Citizens' iniative -thing.
To have our govermental system to handle the initiative it needs to have 50 000 names of +18 year old Finns. In only 22,5 hours there were already 100 000 names!
Now it has been a bit slow (the number is +140 000), but still everyday new names appear on the initiative.
These may sound small numbers, but in small country like Finland that is about 3,5 % of people of voting age. And this initiative has been going on only for a week!
New names will be gathered until September 19th, so we still have time to make it go up to even 1 000 000
I dare you to try deny equality then!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
...and when that time comes, it will become apparent that 1 000 000 people live in Finland who has lost all sense of reality. Well played.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I think it can go the other way as well but then again I'm not entirely sure if the quote makes sense at all. I never thought equality is about the best for whomever, but simply about equal treatment for all no matter what.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
One phrase causes such a delightful septic tornado. Beautiful. Simply beautiful.
Oh, and I also think that it's full of crap, but I won't spoil this delightful scene with my own half-assed arguments. Never had a rhetoric class.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
How can a phrase so hollow be so full of shit?
You? Equal to Aristotle? Caesar? Nietzsche? Even that whore Marx? And they would be the same as criminal scum? Leeches of sloth and usury? Rapists of innocent children? They be as able as those who have no feet to stand upon, no hands to craft with, or who are insane or demented?
No. Your equality is not equality. It's a delusion, a blasphemy and a disgrace to all that is good: A demand to plunder all excellence, a selfish desire to subvert all norms, to manually balance the pyramid on its tip.
You want able people to cripple themselves, obliged to service the disabled, worthless lot of your aberrant utopia, pushing back those who would normally excel, as if the feeble deserved more from the mighty because of that natural difference.
No, I will not tolerate this agenda! Rather persecution, torture... rather even death!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I agree some people do not deserve equal rights, simply because they are unable or unwilling to share an equal part of the socio-economic burden. People who cannot or will not perform, and/or who act in ways that are actually, truly, detrimental to society or individuals (bullies, criminals, illegals), if you will, should indeed not have the same rights as those eager to upkeep or improve their world.
However, homosexuals, just for being gay, are not unable to contribute to society and economy. I believe that all those able-bodied and willing who share the same burden, deserve the same rights. As long as gays have to work to pay the rent, and pay taxes, they should get to marry.
So I believe rights should be distributed by behavior and performance. Gay people, black people, short people, fat people, however, are not unabled or unwilling to perform just for what they are, so unless a gay/black/short/Jewish/whatever individual is being useless, there is no reason to discriminate against them.
This should not be religion-based, but fact-based, meaning that someone's actual behavior, performance, and impact thereof, should be measured when distributing rights. Not how they affect the minds of religious people, since religion is, just like soup flavor preferences, a personal matter that is not to be imposed on others.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh, I personally don't care if gays are allowed a civil marriage. It's just a legal bond. In case of religions, it's all up to those. You know, they have their doctrine to follow, and if your actions would violate that, it's completely reasonable that you aren't allowed a ceremony.
Raising a child is a whole other issue in my opinion, as the child would more likely find sexual abnormalities not only natural, but also normal, which, though being a slight fallacy, extends the bounds of over-acceptance, and widens up the rift for the pedophile, zoophile, dendrophile, necrophile or even lithophile agenda in the long run. And this is not slippery-slope, these are actual possibilities, which are well within reason by the same mechanism as an arse is loosened up by the consecutive insertion of bigger and bigger butt-plugs.
In case of (any) religion, they involve an ontology – a life-philosophy – and as such, it provides a holistic matter of wrong and right and life and death for the individual. It is something a truly devoted person would not hesitate to even die for if necessary. I think this cannot be brought into an adaequate analogy with "soup flavors".
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And I'm not opposing anyone being as religious and devout as they want to be AS LONG AS they don't force their religion and norms on others. Your choices of lifestyle are yours to make, and likewise every other individual also gets to make their choices and demand others stay out of it. The moral values of the religious are theirs to uphold among their own, just as I would never expect a very religious man to hold a gay wedding ceremony. Everybody should just live their own life according to their own choices, and let others live theirs.
As for sexual anomalies and over-acceptance, I think you do stretch it. Homosexuality may be morally wrong to some, but does not effectively harm anyone as long as all intercourse is based on mutual consent. Pedophilia and zoophilia for example, always do cause harm for the lack of informed consent of one party, and often the element of rape/complete lack of consent. However, only the consent of those involved, should matter.
As for fucking trees, stones, and corpses, honestly, while I find those personally disturbing and wrnog, it comes down to: if it doesn't feel violated, it isn't being violated. These things have no sexual awareness and no concept of dignity or morals. It is other people who project those notions on them. Factually though, there is no possibility of harming them because they are not alive, and in the case of trees, they are alive but not aware, so who cares as long as they are not harmed in a way that disrupts their biological existence. Some human cum in a tree hole won't rot the tree, I'm sure. Some uninvolved people will be offended, but nobody gets to demand not to be offended by actions that were never targeting them. Everything offends someone, so as long as no factual harm is done, why make exceptions? If we were to care about not offending anyone, we'd all need to stay inside and not make a sound.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The problem is that from a religious point of view, something socially irrelevant might be extremely disruptive on a more subtle level – such as the deadly sins in Christianity, which put man and the world to ruin. If we associate homosexuality with sodomy, and sodomy with lust, the advocation of homosexuality is a form of satanism, thus a mortal threat to all of humankind. Because of responsibility for the work of their maker, Christians would thus actively protest against the acceptance of homosexuality.
Regarding pedos, goatfuckers and the sort: Actually, giving consent is usually the privilege of the guardian. Thus, if I have a child, I have to decide what is good for them. So, for example, I could wed them with a grownup, or another guardian-consenting party. The same can be said of a retard. Or a dog. Though these critters all have some rights, their consent is decided – at least partially – by their caretakers, "in prospect of their healthy development".
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So let them protest; Christians aren't the only ones with a right to live their lives in peace. No one's personal opinion should be made law unless it benefits society as a whole. Non-Christians also need to have the same liberties, including the free decision what happens in their bedrooms. Their singling out the gay is absurd to begin with as there are other just as mortal sins that they either don't protest, or commit themselves. So what credibility can they possibly have? Why is buttfuckery singled out like this?
Also, their fear of having buttfuckery affect their lives and the Kingdom of God and all that, is baseless and irrational. They read it in a book and then what? More reason not to make it law. With all respect, religion is little more than superstition taken too seriously. Would you want your life dictated by someone else's superstition? Saudia Arabia, where they have pre-teens behead (suspected) adulterers, is an example of what happens when religious fanatics manage to shove their beliefs down the throats of law and government.
Regarding consent and guardians, sexual intercourse, regardless of current law and reality, should be based on the informed consent of those actively involved. The law mostly agrees with this, as I am not allowed to whore out my children if it meant putting them through college with the money (=their benefit). Someone who is not able to give informed consent when it comes to their own body, should be left alone.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, I could start telling you about metaphysics, but you're probably completely uninterested in that. All I say is: The wrongfulness of homosexuality is way overrated, especially in comparsion with greed and the sort. People are fucking freaks nowadays, with only a handful of exceptions, I myself excluded as well.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
P.S. When I said "mother fucker", I meant it with venerating truculence, not scorn or derogation.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Please don't delete Haraldia's comments. This is America, mother fucker. We don't listen to every, but we at least let them speak.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I wasn't planning on it. I let people say what they want, even if I don't agree. Everyone has their own opinion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
What pisses me off so thoroughly about anti-gay marriage activist or supporters is they're all, either willfully or tragically, ignorant of one timeless fact: when you make a law, you're not just making a law: you're proposing a punishment. You're saying 'if push comes to shove, if you resist me, if you fight back, I will stop you from doing x by way of assault, battery, and lethal force." And gays are going to fight back. They are going to resist, and not always civilly; and why should they? What the united states' citizens are demanding is barbaric and grotesque. It's not right, and if a police officer is willing to pledge to not enforce gun control, but refuses to not beat the shit out of two loving adults for doing what loving adults so...he's a monster. Plain and simple. Not a clock puncher, not a civil servant bound to comply to the caprices of popular opinion: he's just a monster.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Her's just happens to be breast fed by Glen Beck, no doubt.
(Hey, she's allowed her opinion, but I don't have to respect it. Just her right to say it.)
But kudos, man. I once wrote why I didn't like 'Brave' on a cosplayer's page and she promptly rebuttled with a terse "fuck you" and blocked all my mean and hateful (and by that I mean my even-keeled and literate) complaints about the movie. I had nothing but wonderful things to say about her cosplay and its accurate sensitivity to celtic culture (I'm Irish/Scotts American, can you tell?): but she HATED me. She blocked me like a troll and hid ALL my comments, including her ugly lil' outburst.
Of course, I was deeply hurt by the gesture: because I was even banned from so much as BUYING a photo of the cosplay in question: way to cut off your nose to spite your face, sweetie. Still, I refused to be put off from being a fan of her craftsmanship; and since I couldn't endorse her work by some other means, I posted it out the anime forums I subscribe to. She may hate me, but fuck her if she thought that was going to stop me from being a fan.
I learned a valuable lesson that day: never comment on cosplay at three in the morning; and that deviantart is not youtube.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Um, not for nothing, but I disagree. Specifically, I object to your wording more than your sentiments. What is "best" and what is "equal" are not the same thing: for further proofs consult Ayn Rand's 'Anthem'.
Equality is about what's fair given things we can't help, like the color of our skin or our family's history; or our sex, gender or orientation: if you're born insane, we're not going to let you handle cutlery. Giving equal treatment, and by that I mean treating everyone the same is a bad, bad idea. Equality, ergo, is not what's best for all. We can elect to treat everyone insane the same (which we don't). We can administer the same tests and ask the same questions to verify sanity: but we cannot treat insane people the same as regular people. (Again, I'm sorry. Its' your wording I don't agree with, not the intent.)
A better way to say it would be this: If it's legal treat it equal. Homosexuality can't be constitutionally abolished (no matter what Texas screams come voting time): it's here to stay (not that it newly arrived, mind you), and people have to respect that reality in a comprehensive fashion. Gay's get together and have monogamous relationships the same as heteros do. They're going to want equal rights. If their relationsihps are going to be treated equal by the eyes of the law, than their sequentially intimacy must be as well. It just makes sense. That means, since you can't constitutionally call it "a sin" or "devious behavior"--because such claims have been adamantly disproven by the psychological community--you have to acknowledge that, like, furries you may not get it, but that doesn't make it devious.
It's not "devious" or "deranged" to voluntarily skin your son's penis and call it heart warming tradition, even though genital mutilation is principally an objectionable enterprise: but you don't see anyone outlawing it. No one's breaking up sematic get-togethers over the happy couple's new baby boy, or beating circumcised Christians in the street. Why? Because it's deemed ethically subjective and thus left to the individual by his rights as a citizen. Gay marriage should be regarded the same way. Both should be protected and respected as being subjective to the consenting parties involved: which is more than I can say about circumcision, since no one every gives two shits whether the kid wants his dick scalped.
If the laws that protect Christians and their fucked up beliefs protect them when the law says they're 'legal', it should apply to gays as well. Being gays no more dignified or stupid than being straight.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks for sharing your opinion and why you disagree with it. I agree, the wording could be better with it and explaining what you did made perfect sense. I will definitely keep these things in mind when I make another poster of this type. Thanks again for explaining everything that you thought in such concise manner!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's how we artist types do, brother.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The institution of marriage is a sacred covenant to always in life love and protect someone of the OPPISITE sex. That is the only definition of it. We must preserve the sanctity and virtue of this union and not make a mockery of it by calling it something it is not and never will be, (same-sex 'marriage'.) If we were to move on this notion and allow ssm it would not be hard for Americans to further themselves from how marriage must always stay, (one man, one woman.) For example: many may start wanting to marry their dogs, or their children, their mothers, their fathers and so on. At that point all marriage value has been lost and society as a whole is degenerating speedily. About those states and countries which allow it, many of them are far in debt, hold high crime, have wicked leaders, murder occurs more often and so on, (New york, Washington,Vermont, etc.)
👍: 0 ⏩: 10
Are you for real? How do you connect same sex marriage with violence? Nobody is pushing for people to be able to marry children or pets, it would be immoral since animals can't really understand the situation the way humans do and also lack any proper way to object while children simply aren't old and mature enough to make that decission. You are jumping to conclusions. The constitution also states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".
Same sex marriage is about allowing other people the same rights you already have. Denying others the same rights won't make the world a better place, it simply makes you a selfish cunt.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
What about atheists getting married, or people thoughtlessly getting drunk-married, and all those other hardly sacred marriages between people of the opposite sex? Why does no one take issue with those?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Just to add on to the piles of crap that you're already getting (all of which I agree with) I'd like to chime in my own voice to the whole notion that your religion should dictate you and no one else. It's people like you who give the more decent ones a bad name, as it always has been. There are plenty of Christians and other members of monotheistic religions who are just fine with same sex marriage because, as someone else stated, marriage is now more about financial stability and life benefits than anything else here in the US. How would you feel if you lived in a state where you couldn't marry your wife and something happens and she goes into the hospital then you're told because you're not family or legally married you can't see her? What if you had adopted some kids but they were adopted under her name and now the courts are ruling that you can't take care of them because you're not 'family' because you couldn't legally marry this woman? And if she dies any benefits that might come because of her job or anything else besides an iron set last will and testament can't go to you because our government said you couldn't marry her.
That's what it's like for same sex couples every day in places where they can't marry. This is the United States of America, and this country was founded to get away from religious oppression. You are entitled to your religion, that's fine, but you are NOT entitled to take your beliefs and try to force them on everyone else.
As for the Bible and similar books, it also says that you can sell your children into slavery, that anyone who works on Sundays should be put to death, that it is not okay to make physical contact with a woman while she's on her period, and that one should be burned for wearing clothing made of two different fibers. It also says that a man should not lay with another man as he would a woman, it says nothing about them being allowed to marry. As for people wishing to marry close relatives, you seem to forget that in times past and in some places still today people of royalty were only allowed to marry other royals and this often meant siblings, aunts, uncles, cousins and sometimes even their own parents. This was meant to keep royal blood as 'pure' as possible, even though it resulted in a lot of really nasty stuff.
Finally, to address people wanting to marry their animals - number one there is no animal that we humans as a species agree have the same rights as humans, and until there is one no person would be allowed to marry an animal. Second, since the animal would not be able to comprehend what is happening to it during sexual intercourse with a human it would fall under rape in the same way we view statutory rape. That is to say that they do not have the ability to consent under any circumstances. Finally, you again seem to forget that people having sex with animals is nothing new. There are stories everywhere of people having sex with animals and producing half breed offspring going all the way back to the ancients with the tale of the Minotaur. While it is doubtful that any half human half animal ever existed by scientific standards, the stories are there.
In short, while I respect that you interpret your religious text to say marriage is only one man and one woman we would all be extremely grateful if you and those who are like-minded do not try to shove that interpretation down everyone else's throats and complain when the government doesn't want to cater to you. There are plenty of Christians who think that same sex marriage is fine and there are other religions who, quite frankly, are sick of the bigger religions thinking they're entitled to run everything.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Is this not the same exact thing that American's told themselves years ago before African Americans were excepted? It is in fact almost exactly the same, only this time, instead of it being the color of your skin it about the person to whom you are in love with. These same arguments of " many may start wanting to marry their dogs, or their children, their mothers, their fathers and so on. At that point all marriage value has been lost and society as a whole is degenerating speedily..." were more than likely what people told themselves years ago when African Americans were not allowed to marry a White person. The subject maybe different, and the people it targets may differ, but the hate is all the same.
Please, if you do not agree with something, if you see that it is something you know that you do not believe in! Please, do not even look at it or have a say in it. Do you not have anything better to do with your life? Do you not have a loved one to care about, a job to get done? Is that all you can do with yourself, comment on something that has a good purpose, something that gives others hope? Obviously you are going to be out numbered, and your words, you negative, hateful words are but mere scratches on the surface of a strong community of people who will continue to fight for what they believe in, just like the African Americans did.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>