HOME | DD
RingtailFox — Shut Up, Government and Gaybashers
Published: 2012-03-07 00:08:22 +0000 UTC; Views: 8576; Favourites: 375; Downloads: 25
Redirect to original
Description
Stamp Template by Miarath (Found here:miarath.deviantart.com/art/Sta… )Don't like stamps? Don't look for them.
Read the description before you start whining.
WARNING: Possible "Offensive" Description Ahead!
-There is also lots of cursing, small children should leave the room~
If my insults don't apply to you, then they obviously don't apply to you, and are not directed at you. Don't be offended by something not meant for you.
Pre-thought: I support all forms of love, be it heterosexual, homosexual, pansexual, etc. Just let love be as free as letting a heart beat.
I don't give a flying fuck if you're an offended heterosexual, pull up your cum-slathered pants and grow a pair. Your love isn't the only love that exists, motherfucker. You don't need to open your eyes to other love, just open your mind, you paranoid shut-ins. No one is asking you to watch them have sex.
Yeah, this is something I've been meaning to make for awhile. I feel strongly about this, and really, if you want to stick your dick full of religion down other people's throats, then go love your religious fiction books elsewhere, cuz humans are allowed to love books but apparently not each other if they are of the same sex.
I don't have a problem with religion. I have a problem with people feeling as though they completely understand their religion, and thus force religion on others as a form of law or rules. Heads up, but I don't think God (or whoever you believe in) made you his/her spokesman, buddy. Sit the fuck down.
Not only do some people try to use religion as rules and laws, but they don't even follow all of that religion's rules in the first place. You're loyal? I think not.
Stamp Template (C) Miarath
Edits (C) Me
Let the bashing begin, I know someone out there is going to feel whole-heartedly against this and feel the need to speak their ignorant, closed little minds about this.
But before you do, "Hi, I don't give a fuck about your protest."
EDIT:
To clarify;
A lot of people are assuming that "love" means "sex". Not only is it sad that you equate the two, however there is a word called "lust" and is not the equivalent to love.
Necrophilia is not a form of love, unless it was relationship before one of them passed away. But really, as it has nothing to do with personality or relationships, it's just sex with a corpse that doesn't feel. It's more lust than anything, and it's one-sided and unhealthy. Therefore Necrophilia is not supported as it is not a form of love; it is a form of lust.
Incest is a form of love, and I do support it. If they love each other, that's their own business, and I stay out of it, as others should too, whether they want a child or not. They could decide on their own if they want a baby, and by choosing such option, they accept the fact that their child may be unhealthy and may be born with medical issues. But again, it's their business, if people don't like it, look away. Saying this, they could also adopt a child and free themselves from worrying about their own child being unhealthy or deformed. Therefore I support incest (however do not wish to see or know about it beyond that two people are in love).
Ephebophilia and Pedophilia, however, is a touchy subject since it involves younger people. I'd only support it if it was mutual love, but since it's between someone young with someone older (and more experienced with love, or lust, depending on how the older person actually feels about the younger one), the younger person may not understand the difference between love and lust. Yet this is a problem most older people have as well, which is why they date and break up so often, in most cases. Some teenagers put themselves out there, and then withdraw once they realize what it really means or what the affects really are, and they're called innocent. There are older people who are "creepers", but there are some who aren't and actually take it seriously, and really do love the younger person. I do support it, but only in the rare cases that are honest forms of love that can last, but it must be mutual. Rape and lust are not forms of love, and many of these instances are seen as rape, or something one-sided. It could have been that the younger person didn't know what they were in for, and that's why it's so frowned upon. It looks like the elderly are taking advantage of the youths. True forms of love in this are rare, but I'm sure there are a few instances out there.
Zoophile is another one where it depends, but I'm not against it. It's hard to find something mutual with an animal, and people believe that they have sometimes when they haven't. I have a dog, but I'd never have sex with him, because that's not what kind of love I feel towards him. For others, it may be different, and I wouldn't like to see it, but it can be love. If the animal isn't forced into it, then that's fine. There's also such a thing as training your pet, as you know, they can be taught not to just mindlessly mount visitors or friends of the owner. It's proven that animals can be taught not to do things, so why solo out teaching not to do this? Another reason is that animals can feel pain or discomfort, and they defend themselves when they feel the need to, and if they didn't want to be in the relationship with a human, they could lash out or try to get away, and if the person didn't let them defend themselves, then it isn't love- it's another case of lust. It all depends on how it happens and what happens. In summary, it's incredibly rare for the love to be real in these situations, but in the few cases where it is real, I support it (and do not wish to see it or know of it).
If people don't socially accept any form of love, then they shouldn't look for it and it shouldn't be allowed in public. Some people have been bothered by even seeing a straight couple in public, kissing, touching, or more. There will always be a social boundary, and I think that all love should have boundaries in public, but just be allowed to legally have that love. Again, I know not all cases are love and involve lust or rape, and those aren't the instances I support. Much of what I support isn't something I'd like to see, but it's something that exists and I'm not against it.
Related content
Comments: 210
amen.
I agree completely and love your honest truth on the matter
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Amazing stamp, and a powerful message <3 You are an awesome person o3o
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Amazing stamp! I've never seen as strong and logical points as what you put in this stamp!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I can't really tell you how much I love this stamp and, in a way, you for writing all this. I am bisexual and I can't really say I'm proud to be one because...I'm in the closet. I live in a close-minded, homophobic, mostly Christian community. Now I have no problem with God. But if he would cast me out because of who I love then obviously I have been praying to the wrong God. Back to my community, they see homosexuals as abominations and that stuff and there is absolutely NO WAY I could come out to them EVER. I can't wait until I'm done with school so I can move to Chicago for "college" I'll be attending college there, they just don't know that I'm not coming back. There, I get to start a new life as ME.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No problem, I'm happy you like the message. c:
It's really sad, isn't it? When you can't be honest about yourself. I wish you the best of luck with your plan, and live a happy life with the one you love.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thank you! 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I agree that no laws should be put to restrict the love between two consenting adults, but strictly speaking, humanity did "invent" the concept of love.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Humanity did not invent love, as it says. Concepts are different, as they are notions. You could say that humans invented the concept, but that is very different from saying that they invented love itself.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What other species can appreciate love, though? We made the word, the concept; we invented it in its current form.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Humans invented all concepts because we communicate in a completely understandable way (like with language) and we record data, but love existed before humans. I'm guessing you don't have pets, because they show affection for one another. It's parallel to that shown by humans. Love isn't only sex and is shown in a lot of different ways- it also isn't even just between a male and female. Mother animals defend their young, not only because they are the next generation, but because they love them. They also show signs of depression when their young die. Humans do too. Even on Animal Planet it shows animals and their love for one another.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Is animal affection comparable, though?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes. It also is for all the other feelings / expressions. Guilt, fear, sadness, joy, frustrated. It's very comparable.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Animals do possess emotions, but nowhere near such a wide range, nor with such depth. There is no comparison to be made.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Okay... This comment right here pissed me off...
I had a friend who owned two dogs. She rescued them both as pups(different litters), and they bonded fast.
They were best friends, lovers, life-long companions. One lived about 10 years before passing away. It's partner was crushed. That dog did nothing. It wouldn't eat. It wouldn't sleep. It wouldn't leave it's bed. It was completely heart broken.
You TRY and tell me that isn't love.
I also know someone who has two twin girls. They are in kindergarten this year. Their dog, about 8 years or so, follows the girls to the bus stop every morning. When they et on the bus the dog sits there, waiting. The dog doesn't leave until the bus stops and the girls come home, where they happily run back to the house.
I don't know what that dog would do without those girls.
Again, try and tell me that's not love. I dare you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
As I said: animals do have emotions too. They feel affection, loyalty, sadness, happiness... but it is nowhere near comparable to the subtle depths of what the homo sapiens is capable of.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You don't think the emotions the dogs I told you about have comparable emotions to humans?
Let's compare/contrast, shall we?
The dog in my first story showed emotion, depression, as would a human if someone dear to them died. Humans have been known to act the same way this dog did. They would stop eating and sleeping, lose interest in things they once enjoyed, etc. Those are very comparable things.
You know, when a dog refuses to walk anywhere to go to the bathroom, that he's feeling something extreme. Animals have very complex emotions as well, but they can't comunicate these emotions to us in ways we can understand clearly. We can only get the basics of what an animal is signaling, but there is so much that we just can't grasp.
Just because it can't make the same facial expressions, or tell you how it's feeling, doesn't mean it's not possibly feeling exactly the same thing you are. You don't know.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Nope, not comparable. Significant and worth consideration, but not equal. They are incapable of the same depth as humans, and that is a fact. That's no cause to treat them unkindly, but they are in every situation worth less than a human.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Wow. You are a fool to think an animal is worse less than a human. If it were my choice I would sacrifice many humans for the sake of animals.
I have a bond with animals that I do not have with people. I guess that makes me slightly biased on this topic, though.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What makes an animal worth equal or more to a human, though? What do you base this on?
And yes, that is indeed a tad biased.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
A life is a life. I'm not against taking a life for a reason, such as to save another life, but I think things like hunting for sport, or dog fighting is cruel. It disgusts me. Hunting for food is one thing, but trophy hunting is very different.
If it were up to me hunting for sport would be vey illegal. Punished by death.
Why is an animal's life of less value than your own? Just because it cannot speak to you, doesn't mean it's worth less. Just because it doesn't look the same, doesn't make it's life not equal to your own.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"A life is a life"- well, where do you draw the line? At what point is it okay to kill something? Mammals? Reptiles? Is it just vertebrates, or are snails and squid untouchable too? Insects, like flies and cockroaches? Does it extend down micro-organisms, who we kill just by sitting down?
At some point, you have to draw a line, and wherever you draw it, that line will be completely arbitrary.
Ultimately, humans are capable of a level of thinking and emotion beyond that of even the cleverest animal. We can appreciate things long term in a way animals cannot. We can decide to terminate their lives when they become too ill or too old, out of mercy. We should be kind to animals, but we shouldn't imagine their lives are somehow worth the same. If it was between five dogs and one human, I'd choose the human any time.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If an insect is inside my house or is bothering me, it dies. If it is minding it's own business and not bothering me I usually leave it be.
Yes, at some point there has to be a line, but think about everything humans have destroyed, and what we can't fix. Shouldn't we protect what's left?
I personally believe an animal's life is worth as much as a human's. In certain situations, there are exceptions, but for the most part that's where I stand on this topic.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So it stops with vertebrates. Why? A life is a life, isn't it?
I am all for the protection of endangered species. You can have protection of "what's left" and still value human lives higher.
It's worth considering that, entirely without human help, 99% of all species that ever lived are dead. Gone. It's the way of nature that the luckiest and best fit for their environment survive. We too are animals.
The question, then, that needs be asked is: On what moral, ethical or philosophical basis? Why place an animal at the same level as a human?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I respect them. They are fine, as long as I am not bothered.
NO. If we, as an evil, selfish race, hadn't been here to destroy homes for hundreds of species, not of them would be in danger. They were meant to survive. That's what the Earth designed each species to do. They are placed in places where they can get by, if allowed to do their own thing. We threw everything out of homeostasis with our greed. I don't believe in owning land. It's the Earth. Who has the right to claim a lot of land as their own?
"We too are animals." This is very true. I'll finish my rant later. I am about to change classes.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yet it's all right to kill them if they bother you. Why? Why do you draw the line there?
All races are selfish, and the term "evil" is one I'd be very careful in applying to a whole species.
Actually, a whole lot of them would be in danger all on their own. Species go extinct all the time, speaking from an evolutionary timeline perspective. We're not the sole cause of extinction at all. As I said, 99% of all species who lived died off naturally.
And animals are not "meant" to survive. They do their best at it, and the ones who are bad at it die. Nor are they "placed" anywhere- they end up in an environment, and the ones best fit prosper. There's really no higher purpose to it- they are animals, and they try to survive and reproduce.
Also, consider that humanity too is a product of evolution. What made us so wildly successful as a species was group coordination and intelligence- to rely on one another as well as being able to think in depth.
Now, would you care to answer my question on what basis you hold this opinion?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I hold this opinion because all people have ever been is mean. They are a naturally mean, nasty, rude, selfish species who would kill anything they felt like killing.
Deforestation destroyed so many animals' homes so we could live more "comfortably". We killed off so many species, trying to satisfy our greed, but it's never enough. We're driving ourselves into the ground because we are never content. We are the dominent species because we couldn't live with being in homeostasis. We had to throw everything off balance, and it's going to destroy us.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Naturally, as in instinctively, we are selfish and cold. But we are also naturally altruistic and kind. We are not damned by instinct alone.
We are, as a species, always trying to get ahead. Homeostasis? Constant stability? That's not something we should even want to achieve. It may be that we are the only species that kills for sport, but we're also the only species to show pure altruism. We have the means to right our wrongs, and to not repeat them. We are dominant not because we weren't content with homeostasis, but because our survival strategies were the very best.
So... is this your basis for putting animals as equals? Because humans are mean and destructive?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
We are all a product of evolution. (I'm Ahiest, if you hadn't gathered that already.) I don't believe it is right to place humans as higher importance, over other animals. We are all animals. Shouldn't we treat ourselves like animals? Should be destroy everything we touch? What about the other animals? We destroy their homes, knock out intire species.
I believe there has to be a ballance. We need to be stable. If racism is wrong why should we be more inmportant than other animals? We need to have compassion and equal value for every life, and we do not.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I too am an atheist.
Well, if we place animals as equal to ourselves simply on account of being animals, then we must discount every other standard we use to measure worth. Normally, a person is judged by his contributions to society, his skills, his education and so forth, while being considered as having intrinsic value- the kind of value that means that legally and ethically, the life of a hobo is equal to that of an accomplished CEO. But what, I ask, makes animals intrinsically valuable?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The fact that they have their own lives to live, as do we. We don't know what things run through their mind. Who knows what kind of things they accomplish amung themselves? Maybe amung ally cats their are ranks. Maybe there are leaders amung wild animals. You don't know what they're worth amung other animals of the same species, who actually can communicate with each other.
Just because they cannot build giant skyscrapers or shoot a gun doesn't mean they are worth less then those who can.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Having lives does not make for a good enough basis for worth, IMHO. If we are going to consider them equal to human lives, then they need to share an intrinsic value core- and that's the one thing I don't think you can provide. We know a lot about animals, and nothing suggests they form complicated societies like we do. The closest they come to a leader is an alpha male, and that only in the case of pack animals. Imagining they are similar to us is a fantasy, unsupported by science.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I too know much about animals and I know there is so much more we don't know or understand about them. Who knows what they say to each other? What languages they could have? What they think, personally, as individuals, about different things? I know my cats well and know they have personalities and traits similar to those I've seen in humans. I spend a lot of time with them.
I've spent a lot of time in the woods, watching for every little detail about birds, deer, mice, creek fish, insects, etc. I've observed animals show deep love for each other, hate for each other. I've seen their longing, lust, hope, fear, pain, compassion, confusion, guilt, surprise, happiness, warriness, anger, all emotions a human can express. It's all the same. It all comes down to that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Actually, we do know about animal "languages" and cultures. It's been observed in the more intelligent animals, like dolphins and chimpanzees. None of it compares to human language and culture in terms of subtlety and depth. Your personal experience are insufficient data to prove your hypothesis. I grew up in the countryside along animals, and nothing I ever saw convinced me of their intelligence. It isn't all the same at all.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You are very close-minded, you know this?
I believe animals have very high intellegence, but it is used depending on what it was intended for. Animals can be expertise hunters or gatherers. That takes a lot of skill. Some, as individuals, are better than others even of the same species.
Animals have different skills that their intellegence is designed for.
As humans have developed(with the help of opposable thumbs) we don't have "survive" always in mind. We have time to focus on other things. That's why things have been created. People had free time.
Other animals, on the other hand, are not safe. They always wake up with the question "How am I going to find food today?" in their minds.
Caged animals have no urge to do much of anything. They live in captivity. Zoo animals are safe from hunger, usually, and are content with lazing around. I know people like that too. >_>
Anyways... This conversation has drifted really far.
All I've wanted to say is that, in my opinion, all animals should be seen equally. Animals do their fair share of work, but they're not the ones destroying the Earth in the process.
I dislike much of the human populalation. I hate our modern society where two men or two women cannot have a civil union.
I enjoy the company of animals very much. They have showed me much compassion, as people have just stepped like I am dirt. Consider my opinion biased, I don't care. That's what I live by.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
There's nothing close minded whatsoever about making observations based on evidence. If there was evidence for what you suggest, I would believe it, but there simply is none.
What you refer to is instinctual, not intellectual. To be a very good, sophisticated hunter as an animal does not imply intelligence, only millions of years of evolutionary refinement. All of what you bring up is instinct, instinct, instinct.
Animals don't really do any "work" as such unless they are put to work. They survive and breed, and that's the entire point of their existence.
That's just fine. Society has many ills, ills that we are working on to fix- but that doesn't make animals better than us. Nature is a cold, hard and cruel place, bereft of the compassion and altruism found in humanity.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm done conversing with you. This discussion has gotten neither of us anywhere and I'm tired of putting my effort into it. Thanks for sharing your opinion. Bye.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Your description is the best description I have ever seen for any pro-whatever love stamp. Ever.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
this is Amazing... i immensely thank you for making this~
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>