it's against the laws of nature

nytimes.com
Republicans support conversion therapy in their most anti-LGBT platform ever
Republican delegates neared approval of a platform that is staunchly conservative in matters of gender, homosexuality and marriage.
By Jeremy W. Peters

The Republican Party is about to approve its 2016 platform, and their proposed draft takes a stronger stance against LGBT rights than ever before. 

Among many other backwards views on social issues, the platform says:

  • Marriage equality should be overturned with a constitutional amendment
  • Judges to be appointed (ahem, SCOTUS) should be advocates for “traditional family values”
  • Parents should have the right to put their LGBT children through conversion therapy
  • States should be able to dictate which bathrooms trans people use
  • Kids who have one mom and one dad are less likely to be drug addicts or “otherwise damaged” 
  • Religious principles should guide lawmaking: “man-made law must be consistent with God-given, natural rights”

Please do not vote Republican in this election. This platform could literally mean life or death for LGBT youth, transgender people, and so many others who will be targeted – strategically and legally – for being who they are. 

finance.yahoo.com
NASA confirms that the ‘impossible’ EmDrive thruster really works, after new tests

Isaac Newton should be sweating.

Flying in the face of traditional laws of physics, the EmDrive makes use of a magnetron and microwaves to create a propellant-less propulsion system. By pushing microwaves into a closed, truncated cone and back towards the small end of said cone, the drive creates the momentum and force necessary to propel a craft forward. Because the system is a reaction-less drive, it goes against humankind’s fundamental comprehension of physics, hence its controversial nature.

Without the restraints of some higher moral law, democracy instinctively works against natural marriage, traditional families, and any other institution that creates bonds and duties among citizens. It insists on the autonomous individual as its ideal.
—  Charles J. Chaput, Strangers in a Strange Land: Living the Catholic Faith in a Post-Christian World
buzzfeed.com
Against Me! will play a show in North Carolina protesting the state's anti-trans law
Laura Jane Grace, the lead singer of punk rock band Against Me!, said she will not cancel her concert in the state as a "form of protest."
By Tasneem Nashrulla

In light of new anti-LGBT laws in Mississippi and North Carolina, a number of performers have canceled concerts they had scheduled in those states.

Not Laura Jane Grace and Against Me! The band will deliberately follow through on an upcoming show in North Carolina, and trans lead singer Laura Jane Grace will use it as a platform to speak out against the state’s law. 

“I think the real danger with HB2 is that it creates a target on transgender people specifically,” Grace said. “When you feel targeted as a trans person, the natural inclination is to go into hiding. But visibility is more important than ever; to go there and have the platform of a stage to stand on and speak your mind and represent yourself.”

However, she commended performers like Springsteen, and Bryan Adams — who canceled his concert in Mississippi over its anti-LGBT law — for being “allies.”

“Bryan Adams and Bruce Springsteen aren’t transgender,” Grace said. “For them to say, ‘I think this bill is messed up and I’m not going to go here and be part of the state,’ that seems like the effort of an ally, which is really commendable.”

But Grace said that the transgender people who live in North Carolina don’t have the option to boycott the state. “They live here. They pay taxes. They are prisoners to it.”

While Grace acknowledged that someone like Springsteen canceling his concert brought a lot of attention to the issue, she said, “no one would care if we canceled.”

Hell. Yes.

theatlantic.com
India's Supreme Court Will Revisit Its Controversial Ruling on Gay Sex - The Atlantic

India’s Supreme Court is taking another look at a controversial decision that upheld Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, a 155-year-old law that criminalizes gay sex.

At issue is the colonial-era law enacted in 1860 that imposes a 10-year prison sentence for “unnatural offenses … against the order of nature.” In 2013, the Supreme Court overturned a landmark ruling by the Delhi High Court in 2009 that decriminalized gay sex. The lower court had ruled that Section 377 violated the fundamental rights guaranteed by India’s Constitution. But its decision was challenged by religious groups, and, subsequently, the Supreme Court ruled only Parliament can change the law.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard a “curative petition” against its decision and said it would re-examine the order, calling it a “matter of constitutional importance.” No date has been given for when this will happen, but the issue will be heard by a five-judge panel headed by India’s chief justice.

Activists gathered outside the Supreme Court in New Delhi cheered upon hearing the news, and sang “We shall overcome.”

“It is definitely a move forward,” Anand Grover, a lawyer and longtime campaigner against the law, told Reuters.

The curative petition was the last legal stop available to gay-rights groups and their supporters. A legislative change is considered unlikely at this time—despite support for decriminalization from key members of the government and opposition—because the country, despite growing calls for gay sex to be decriminalized, remains deeply conservative.

India is one of more than 70 countries that has laws criminalizing gay sex. Although prosecutions under Section 377 are rare, it is often used by police to harass gays and lesbians.

When one individual inflicts bodily injury upon another such injury that death results, we call the deed manslaughter; when the assailant knew in advance that the injury would be fatal, we call his deed murder. But when society places hundreds of proletarians in such a position that they inevitably meet a too early and an unnatural death, one which is quite as much a death by violence as that by the sword or bullet; when it deprives thousands of the necessaries of life, places them under conditions in which they cannot live – forces them, through the strong arm of the law, to remain in such conditions until that death ensues which is the inevitable consequence – knows that these thousands of victims must perish, and yet permits these conditions to remain, its deed is murder just as surely as the deed of the single individual; disguised, malicious murder, murder against which none can defend himself, which does not seem what it is, because no man sees the murderer, because the death of the victim seems a natural one, since the offence is more one of omission than of commission. But murder it remains.
—  Fred Engels, Condition of the Working Class in England, 1845
Reminder that Hitler was Not a Christian; For all those Well poisoning Atheists

Quotes Establishing Hitler’s Non-Christianity

Hitler may in public have claimed to be doing the will of God, but records of his private conversations show otherwise.  Many of these were recorded by his secretary and published in a book called

Hitler’s Table Talk (Adolf Hitler, London, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1953).


“National Socialism and religion cannot exist together….
“The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is  Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity….
“Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things.” (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday
“Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.” (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday
“The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death…. When understanding of the universe has become widespread… Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity….
“Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity…. And that’s why someday its structure will collapse….
”…the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little….
“Christianity <is> the liar….
“We’ll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State.” (p 49-52)

19th October, 1941, night
“The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.”

21st October, 1941, midday
“Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer….
“The decisive falsification of Jesus’ <who he asserts many times was never a Jew> doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work… for the purposes of personal exploitation….
“Didn’t the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it’s in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea.”  (p 63-65)

13th December, 1941, midnight
“Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery…. <here insults people who believe transubstantiation>….
“When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let’s be the only people who are immunised against the disease.”  (p 118-119)

14th December, 1941, midday
“Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don’t believe the thing’s possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself….
“Pure Christianity– the Christianity of the catacombs– is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics.”  (p 119 & 120)

9th April, 1942, dinner
“There is something very unhealthy about Christianity.” (p 339)

27th February, 1942, midday
“It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors– but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie.”

“Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity…. My regret will have been that I couldn’t… behold <its demise>.” (p 278)

Yes, I have a lot of questions actually, and nobody has really ever answered them for me, so I’m hoping you can help fill in the blanks.

 First things first: Why is America the only Western nation where this is such a widespread problem? What do we have that other countries don’t that leads to such continuous and excessive violence?Are we more violent and homicidal by nature or is because unlike other nations, we don’t have stricter gun laws? And if it is a problem with Americans, why the hell is it a good idea for it to be a right for citizens who are more likely to have violent tendencies to have weapons? 

Secondly: What do we do to stop gun violence? Do we sit and twiddle our thumbs and say “sorry, nothing we can do about it”? I hear proponents against stricter gun laws constantly saying that its not a gun problem, its a people problem, but they NEVER offer solutions for what we can do to help  those people. Do we just naturally have a larger population of “insane loners”? If so, once again why is it a good idea to make it a right where its easy for them to get a gun? I have never once heard of any of them actively trying to change the situation by helping people with mental illnesses, or any other sort of mission that could prevent more violence. Someone gets shot and the first thing they do is hide their gun behind their back so nobody could take it from them instead of looking for ways to help. That doesn’t seem the slightest bit shady to you? If they think its such a tragedy, why the hell don’t they offer anything more than their prayers - which obviously, by the increase of gun violence over the years, isn’t working by itself? If you really care about protecting people, you’d try to help by stopping violence beyond using a gun too, by trying to find ways to stop it, right? So why don’t anti-gun control supporters actually do anything other than protect themselves, when there is supposedly a bigger problem than guns in this country? 

They say criminals will find a gun if they really want it, but would someone be statistically more likely to steal a car if the keys were within reach or if they had to break into a house and look around to find them? The majority of crimes are committed because people have easy access and think they can get away with it.

 Next, onto the ongoing debates about Muslims in this nation, a gun and a human are hardly the same thing and are therefore hardly comparable.  A gun is created to shoot things. Be it for protection, like in the hands of a police officer defending citizens, a hunter, or  in the hands of a robber, that is their purpose - to harm someone or something. There is a time and place for them to be a good thing, and a bad thing, that is why they are supposed to be regulated. A human being, religious affiliation or not, does not have such a simple purpose, therefore they can NOT be regulated unless convicted of a crime - and even in prison there is only so much you can humanely do. 

Regulating people is something that was done in the slave trade, the holocaust , Rwanda, and the Japanese internment camps in America, and all of those things were done out of fear, and have historically been widely considered to be bad moves that we should learn from and not do again. We don’t classify Christians by priests who rape little boys, the KKK, the Westboro Baptist Church, and people who commit hate crimes, because they do not represent the majority or the best kinds of things that can come from the religion, like its generosity, plans to help the less fortunate, spreading the word of love and peace. It is easy to classify Islam based on the extremists, but that is also not representative of what the majority of them believe, and ignores the good things that come from them as well, such as American Muslims raising around $200,000 so far to support the victims of San Bernardino to show love and solidarity for them.

 I honestly understand that good can come from armed citizens, I come from a home where my father has a concealed carry license, but allowing citizens to be easily armed is also why we have so many shootings in the first place. Its not an easy fix, I’m not that naive,  but it is even harder to let the violence grow and continue like it is. If you think it will get better by doing nothing or adding more guns, you are perpetrating the conditions that got us here in the first place. I understand that not all gun owners turn violent, but guns by creation are violent. There is also no freaking reason why citizens need assault weapons, and there is no freaking reason why it is easier to get a gun than even a potentially life-saving abortion. 

Thank you.

Originally posted by utiligif

Zeref talking about bringing back people to life and with such a cute innocent face being just a child.

I would be scared shitless if I saw that.

Its like “Mom can we revive the dead, here’s a theory I created to go against the laws of nature. Just a few sacrifices need to be made.”

A conversation begins
with a lie. And each

speaker of the so-called common language feels
the ice-floe split, the drift apart

as if powerless, as if up against
a force of nature

A poem can begin
with a lie. And be torn up.

A conversation has other laws
recharges itself with its own

false energy. Cannot be torn
up. Infiltrates our blood. Repeats itself.

Inscribes with its unreturning stylus
the isolation it denies.
—  Adrienne Rich from “Cartographies of Silence”