Why Kim Davis is so wrong.

Beneath this seemingly Duggar like attire, there lies a very kinky, Apostolic christian who's hypocrisy can be summed up by what's written below:

Although, I realize that she just converted a few years ago, etc. etc. there is still the glaring fact that she has made no mentions of withholding licenses to those who are on their second marriage or who aren't virgins (I realize that may seem like a hard thing to decipher, but then again there are couples who think dry humping is appropriate PDA and that makes it pretty obvious). If this were really all for the sake of religious conviction she would have to stop their marriages too, and allow herself to get stoned to death as her good book states. Unfortunately for her as well, she seems to miss the point that as an employee of a secular government, throwing the Bible at Judge Bunning isn't going to work as a way to avoid jail; even if he does actually agree with her views. Of course, religious freedom does give certain allowances, such as breaking the dress code to wear a burka or being allowed to pray every day, but there is still the very simple fact that if you don't do your job you shouldn't get paid for it. This is not a theocracy ladies and gentleman; although there are a great many who wish it would be (cough* 98% of the Republican candidates cough*), and if she wants to protest and throw a huge hissy fit she should do it on her own time and money not the general public's.

P.S. A little bit more of hypocrisy to spice things up: she won as a Democrat and is now all buddy buddy with Mike Huckabee, and she supposedly went to go chill with the Pope and got his blessing even though as a part of the Pentecostal church she should be opposed to him.

Update:The Pope did not actually have a private discussion with the Pope, in fact when he was supposedly meeting her, he was meeting with a very old friend of his, a gay man.

Reference:
http://imgur.com
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3219147/Kentucky-clerk-Kim-Davis-married-FOUR-times-gave-birth-wedlock.html
http://www.apostolicchristian.org/page.cfm?p=545
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2014/07/28/pope-apologizes-for-catholic-persecution-pentecostals/5HQGujRn8fagi3NpYl8b2M/story.html

The Entitled High School Part 2

The dominant females are characterized by their obsessive preening of their fur and the placement of baubles on their neck and head. They will even apply heavy amounts of mud to their face in an attempt to attract a more powerful mate. These creatures will stay together in a small pack at all times, while the more submissive females try to copy the more dominant female’s choice of embellishment, eventually leading her to lash out in an attempt to subdue them. These females will gather around a particular post of their choosing, languishing in very submissive positions in full view of the males. Even if one claims a mate, the other females will still try to steal that mate away as a way to move up in the hierarchy. A female who has multiple partners must keep it a secret for fear of banishment from the pack; although, in secrecy, having such a selection to chose from is, in fact, a badge of honour.

The Entitled High School Part 1

In their natural habitat, a certain breed of hypocriti grazes amongst the tall purple grass. Unbeknownst to these juvenile specimens, they are surrounded by a walled enclosure where the guardians can view them and can interfere in their interactions, either to force them to interact further or to protect the members of the upper hierarchy. These meetings between the guardians and hypocriti are very short and quickly forgotten by the very short term memories of the wards.

The various groups of hypocriti are split into the groups as follows: dominant males and females, middle hierarchy males and females, the lower class group, and finally a few outcasts.

The first group, dominant males and females, are categorized by very specific behaviours. The males are known for advertising patchy amounts of pastel fur about their neck (the beginnings of a ruff) with pride as even a minimal amount of plumage may be enough to attract a particularly desperate female. Their rear flanks remain thin while they gain a very top heavy appearance from the many hours spent wrestling each other, again in the interest of attracting a short term partner as well as to suppress slight homosexual tendencies. The more dominant males seek to create a harem of sorts of the more attractive females as a sign of virility to the others. These males will always band together against females, either to subdue them in a brilliant chauvinistic display or to expel them from the group for being coquettish.  

The Argument for Gay Marriage

After the legalization of gay marriage, there have been a lot of disputes on whether or not the Supreme Court overstepped their bounds by "creating legislation". Republican candidates such as Mike Huckabee and Ted Cruz have vehemently opposed this decision, citing that marriage has always been between a man and a woman just as the Bible states. Unfortunately for those 18th century bigots, the Bible is not the Constitution. Also, the Bible doesn't say between a man and a woman; it says between a man and WOMEN. Definitely, there is no polygamy happening in the states unless its one of those random sister wives episodes that pops up every so often in West Virginia. Of course, there is also the fact that all of the SCOTUS justices are deeply religious and usually old, Catholic, white guys i.e. the same people who voted Cruz and Huckabee into office to begin with. And if those Republican Methuselahs can say it should be legal then that should be all the proof in the world that Cruz and Huckabee are out of line.

Also unfortunately for them, there was no random creation of legislation as they said. The legislation that the Supreme Court contested was that of the states' ability to deny marriage based on gender pairings. And being perfectly economical about the situation (cruel I know), marriage is primarily a financial institution. Therefore to place a restriction on a financial institution based on gender pairings is actually ludicrous from a legal standpoint. Essentially, marriage makes you business partners, and as  a capitalist country with relatively low regulations on business procedure it seems a bit hypocritical to deny the entity that is a gay couple the right to fair business practices.

To be emotionally invested in the argument would condense the huge issue of not being married into one situation. Your partner of twenty plus years is sick with cancer and has to be placed on life support. You aren't married nor is it possible for you to be married. They have told you that they want to remain on life support for a month, but the family disagrees. They need money fast and decide to take your lover off life support. You have no say and you can't even see them at the hospital. Next they have free rein over all of you and your partner's belongings, everything you've accumulated together over the years, and since you are not married the courts will not view it as shared property. You essentially loose everything in one fell swoop. Your life ruined. All because the government won't allow you to get married.

All this because some people say that the gay problem isn't like the Civil Rights movement. "They only make up 2% of the population," they say, Well if you were an African American in the fifties, but could be mistaken as white, wouldn't you state that you were white just to protect yourself? How many haven't listed themselves as gay in order to protect themselves? We should leave it up to the states to decide they argue. The US was already behind the times when it came to gay marriage by more than five years, waiting for the states to decide would have taken at least a decade. The same could have been said about black rights in the fifties. We could have still been segregated in the eighties if SCOTUS hadn't passed segregation. The Supreme Court has done us a favor by putting us with the times just as they did in the sixties.


Update: To combat the religious opposition, I will only say that if God were against gay people why do they exist? He had to have wanted them since homosexuality is present in most species and has been in ours for almost as far back as we've recorded.

U.S. drug procedures...or lack thereof

Very little has appalled me as much as the recent explosion on the internet of the girls suffering from the severe effects of the HPV vaccine Gardasil. Some side effects that have been listed are as follows: stomach paralysis, neurological issues, chronic pain, and varying degrees of skin disorders. Now every medicine has its side effects, as everyone knows, since even Advil can kill you (it can eat through the lining of your stomach). The scary part about this is the fact it has only been out for nine years (a very short time for any effects such as cancer to take root) and that there is already such a backlash of people with side effects. There have already been 32 deaths caused by the drug and of the people who REPORT and REALIZE that the drug caused the health problems, 8% of people have serious side effects. Again it doesn't sound so bad, but this is strictly limited to those who report their issues and those are only the short term effects. It has gotten to the point where the European Union is actually investigating it, even though this vaccine shouldn't even exist considering the only thing needed to protect against HPV is a condom. It is only a way to make money and the heavy campaigning done for this vaccine is indicative of this.

Now I'm sure many of you have complete or at least partial faith in the FDA to release drugs that aren't going to kill you, but the harsh reality is that they actually test on humans indirectly. Rats and mice are the newest test subjects for the FDA and have immune systems completely different from our own; what we used to test on were dogs and monkeys which is at least in the ballpark of humans. I know that sounds horrible to test on Fido, but the alternative is to release drugs that pass by a rodent's immune system and then see if complications arise. If they do, they pull the drug but only after hundreds of people will suffer through an unrealized testing trial that they paid to be a part of.

Take Depo Provera, a birth control shot passed by the FDA in 1992; it was passed after over twenty years of rejections, because of the fact that when they tested on beagles and monkeys, they showed an increased probability of endometrial and breast cancer as well as birth defects. The really crazy part about the endometrial cancer was the fact that there were no records of that particular breed of monkey ever having it before, so Depo gave those monkeys a whole new type of cancer. When the test animals were changed to rodents in 1987; however, Depo caused no adverse effects even though in illegal test trials run by the company, women died and got cancer after exposure to the drug. Now it is recommended by doctors who advocate it because of their lack of information on its history or on the over SIX columns of side effects including all the normal birth control side effects as well as passing tissue clots the size of golf balls, loss of bone marrow, infertility, causing two types of cancer and a severely increased chance of contracting STD's. It is considered so detrimental that you can never have had Depo Provera in your system to be considered as a surrogate mother. In other words, you need to heavily research any drugs you take because the FDA isn't exactly testing thoroughly. Thank you for that PETA.

Resources:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/07/13/worries-about-hpv-vaccine-european-unions-medicines-agency-investigating-reports-of-rare-but-severe-reactions/
http://www.snopes.com/medical/drugs/gardasil.asp
http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1985/02/problems-us.html
http://www.drugs.com/sfx/depo-provera-side-effects.html