Vousie

Love getting to bring home a bag of ground beef lol

My parents and I split half a cow earlier this year, and due to limited freezer space they held on to a lot of my portion. So whenever my freezer has enough room, I grab another bag of beef.

This is organic, grass fed beef raised by people we know and trust. And it came out to $5.73 a pound after everything - which means that the ground beef is that price, but so is the filet mignon.

life or you take it. either choose or go eat some fucking plants you loser

I’m pro-human life. Animals shouldn’t be treated with cruelty but also don’t have the same inherent rights and value as human beings.

What is the purpose of marriage as a state-recognized institution? Anybody can put on fancy clothes, rent a venue, invite friends and family, and make promises to each other. Why have "marriage" as a legal thing?

Most people see marriage today as an expression of love, or as the formalization of a relationship. If that's all it is, then there is no reason for the government to be involved, and there is no "secular" reason to not recognize gay marriage, polygamy, human-animal marriage, and so on.

However, the actual purpose of marriage throughout human history, across millennia, across various cultures and religions, boiled down to two things:

Protecting women

Protecting children

Man and woman partner up, woman gets pregnant. Now she's in a weakened state, may or may not be able to engage in sexual activity, and her partner may see her as less attractive (yes, I know some men find their wives more attractive, just follow me here). She needs to know that he is going to stay with her, protect her, and provide for her during her pregnancy and once she has a newborn.

The child also needs the assurance that his or her father will stay around and provide for the family.

Marriage, up until the 20th century, was about providing assurances for women and children that they would be provided for. It ensured that inheritance went to them if the father died, and that if he abandoned them they had legal rights to alimony/child support.

It was in the 20th century that we started divorcing (pun intended) marriage from its actual purpose. We started saying it was just about feelings, which is why no fault divorce came in. If marriage is about a feeling, why stay in the marriage if the feeling is gone?

Marriage was ALWAYS an institution designed to protect the weak and vulnerable. Which is why the concept of gay marriage wouldn't compute for anyone prior to about the 20th century. Not that gay relationships - secret or otherwise - didn't exist. No one would see a reason to use the institution of marriage for those relationships, because A) no children would be produced and B) there is either no woman in need of protection/provision, or no man to protect/provide.

The whole point of marriage is to put guardrails around male-female relationships to balance out the power difference between the sexes. Men are physically stronger, men face less risk from sexual activity (they don't get pregnant and often are less likely to have severe symptoms from STIs), and men typically are the higher income earners, even today.

It's simply not relevant for same-sex relationships.

Now, when it comes to things like taxes, hospital visitation, and inheritance, those things can be handled really easily under our current system without involving marriage. A living will can be used to give someone medical power of attorney and visitation rights. That person can be a friend, family member, roommate, whoever you want. A regular will is something that anyone with any kind of assets (house, savings, etc) should have, whether you're in a gay relationship or not.

But, back to the marriage issue. It's not just about gay marriage - no-fault divorce is what opened the door by undermining the purposed of what marriage is. It allowed men to more easily abandon their wives, and it also allowed women to fraudulently take their husband's assets and earnings and run off for their Eat Pray Love self-discovery adventure.

However, I do not see how you extend that into an argument against gay marriage since anyone could say “so what? who cares if this new version of marriage doesn’t match the old, so long as the old version still exists, the legal purpose is still accomplished”

But essentially when we say that marriage is between one man and one woman, we’re saying that there are specific concerns that need to be addressed with men and women in relationships that aren’t relevant to gay couples.

Interesting way to film the first two episodes of the new show you are making, Kripke 😅

The people who paid to go to his concert had the *luxury* of time and money for music. The minimum wage commuters, not so much.

So to the dad, anon just challenged his authority and his manhood. Dad is already threatened by his daughter having a boyfriend (and potentially eventually moving out due to that boyfriend/marriage), now anon is saying "I don't give a shit about you or your threat" as far as the dad is concerned. So anon saying he didn't mean it that way is what's triggering the "liar" comment.

It's a very patriarchal woman as property thing that crops up especially among white Southern Christians. I would lay money based on this story and my own experiences that anon is the girl's first boyfriend and that she's in the kind of family environment where she will live with her parents until marriage, a very literal dad giving daughter away at the altar situation.

Anon probably does not have sisters and didn't have all of this subtext made text constantly throughout his life, even though him carrying on a daily basis suggests some level of immersion in gun culture

Dad shows gun = "If you hurt her, I will kill you."

Boyfriend shows gun as well = "I also suspect you of being capable of hurting her and anticipate having to defend her."

And "hurt" in a dating context (or at least this specific gun related one) usually just means heartbreak, but "hurt" in a father/daughter context would more often be abuse.

So there's an implicit accusation he could read into it that turns the conversation into:

Dad: I think this relationship might not work out, and you will hurt my daughter's feelings.

Boyfriend: Well, I think you are physically harming your daughter, and brought this gun to show you I mean to rescue her.

Dad: How dare you! At least accuse me outright, for such a strong claim as this.

Boyfriend: I shall never say it outright, and therefore you have no evidence against me to use to kick me out right now.

Specifically, the concern is not that the daughter will move out, but that the man might get the woman pregnant and then leave her. This is where the term “shotgun wedding” comes from. Historically, if a young couple is dating and the woman gets pregnant, the man is expected to marry her and provide for her and the child - at gunpoint if need be.

It’s not “misogynistic,” it’s holding men accountable for their actions and not letting them abandon their child and the mother of their child.

The threat of the shotgun wedding is supposed to be enough to prevent the man from taking advantage of the woman in the first place.

Meanwhile the father can, and has full veto power over her (adult) relationships

It’s not about capability. It’s about men seeing women as deserving of protection. Again, as a woman, I want that to continue to be the case.

But also, the "I don't like that we were all used in this episode to pile on Danneel" (and basically just objectify her repeatedly, by the sounds of it) bit...

Well, if they really cared about their friend so much they could've refused to say those things in the episode. It's not like they were imprisoned...

1. IVF is immoral. Human life begins at conception. Human embryos are human beings. IVF commodifies, destroys, and endangers human embryos. An embryo created in IVF is statistically more likely to die before birth than to make it to term. Even in “ethical IVF” where only one embryo is created and implanted at a time, for a woman under 35 that child has a 49% chance of dying before birth. There is no other circumstance in which we would tolerate putting a child in a situation where they had a 49% chance of dying. For women over 35 the survival rate goes down dramatically. Since older women are more likely to be candidates for IVF (you have to have been trying for a while before it’s even recommended, and many women today don’t start trying until their 30s or later), the chance of death for many embryos created in IVF is between 75-95%.

It is impossible to know the success rate for natural implantation, because a woman cannot know if she has conceived until after implantation has already occurred. However, it would be reasonable to assume that the natural method of conception would be less risky for the embryo than creating an embryo in a lab and trying to perfectly time the implantation attempt, often by using drugs that artificially manipulate the mother’s hormonal cycle.

Note: in the article linked above, a 60-65% success rate is referenced before they get to the age breakdown. However, it should be noted that that rate is for “genetically normal” embryos, implying that you only get that rate if you’ve already destroyed any embryos that are not genetically perfect. But even if you decide to be a eugenecist and not consider generally “inferior” embryos to be people, that’s still a 35-40% risk of death, which again we would not tolerate for any other situation involving a child.

2. Religious freedom. For the same reason we have the Hyde Amendment to prohibit federal funding of abortion, and for the same reason that Hobby Lobby won their Supreme Court case, forcing either taxpayers or employers to fund IVF is forcing people to participate in something they consider to be morally indefensible. Both the Catholic Church and the Southern Baptists have condemned IVF, along with many smaller denominations and individual churches/religious groups.