#anti-guy

[especially-in-heaven]

“she never gave your brother a reason to feel anything for her”

---  rip to the women who lost these games

 (the witch doesn’t burn in this one poems by Amanda Lovelace)

[veronicamarsconfessions]

“The scene where a boy was spending some money and whores in a hotel, and he was jumping around, wasn't funny or entertaining. WHO WROTE THAT SCENE? It was unnecessary stupid scene and it took forever.”

[especially-in-heaven]

I’ve decided i’m going to make a gif thread of ‘every time Guy was a dick to Marian’

[papermaddy64]

Demolishing Anti-Guy in 60 seconds

[robin-hood-confessions]

[robin-hood-confessions]

[especially-in-heaven]

I feel like people who like Guy always have to justify themselves by dragging Robin’s character down (this is not me being judgmental against the Guy fandom or me trying to cause an arguement, It’s just something i’ve noticed, although I know not all Guy fans are like that) I’m a firm believer that we all have different taste of character and shouldn’t judge another person for liking another character, different from ours. I don’t mind people liking Guy, just don’t drag Robin down in order to justify your reason for liking him

[viapictures-blog]

A Response to the Anti-Gay Scare Tactics in a Maryland Marriage Ad

    Marriage equality opponents, hoping to defeat a Maryland ballot measure that would legalize same-sex marriage in the state, have resorted to misleading scare tactics in a new television ad focusing on youth and schools. If same-sex marriage comes to Maryland, the ad ominously warns, “schools could teach that boys can marry boys.” The ad features parents from Massachusetts who fought unsuccessfully to prevent a public school from teaching their child about the existence of same-sex couples. The mother warns:  ”Don’t … think that gay marriage won’t affect you.”

What’s wrong with this ad? Here are four points to consider:

First, by using the word “boys” (“schools could teach that boys can marry boys“), the ad suggests that Question 6, which would legalize same-sex marriage for adults, has something to do with youth sexuality or the romantic or sexual behavior of young children. It does not. Any insinuation to the contrary is an insulting scare tactic completely disconnected from reality.

Second, as Josh Levin of Marylanders for Marriage Equality has explained, “[p]arents, teachers, and local school districts determine the public school curriculum in Maryland,” and Question 6 would not change that. Sure, state and federal laws can also affect the contours of curricula to some extent, but nothing in Question 6 addresses schools. The ballot measure does not require schools to do or teach anything, and it does not limit the authority of local districts to determine what kids learn.

Third, school districts in Maryland and most other states can already teach children about LGBT people and about marriage equality if they so choose, regardless of whether marriage equality exists in the state in question. In other words, the fact that a state does or does not grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples does not determine whether or to what extent a school can teach about LGBT people, about discrimination, and about the diversity of families that is simply a fact of life in the United States and the world. If a school in Maryland wants to teach students the (entirely true) fact that same-sex couples can get married in some parts of the world, like Iowa, Connecticut, Canada and Spain, then the school can do so, regardless of whether Question 6 passes. Indeed, Maryland state law recognizes same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions, so if a school in Maryland wants to teach students that same-sex marriages performed in other places are valid in Maryland, it may do so—and again, this is true regardless of whether Question 6 passes. (Experience from other states proves, moreover, that the legalization or prohibition of same-sex marriage does not necessarily determine what gets taught in schools. California has more LGBT-inclusive curricular requirements than New York, for example, even though New York allows same-sex marriage and California does not.)

Fourth, it’s not a bad thing for children to learn about marriage equality! Schools should teach children to respect different kinds of families. At a minimum, schools should not deny that same-sex families exist. If Question 6 somehow makes it easier to teach children about the incontrovertible fact that some families are made up of same-sex couples (sometimes with children), then that’s a good thing; it’s not something that Maryland parents should fear. As for “opting out” of lessons, parents don’t get to remove their children from the classroom when schools teach about racial or gender equality, and they shouldn’t get to remove their children from lessons about marriage equality either.

http://www.dataentryjobs.us/120759.html

<![CDATA[// <![CDATA[ iDevAffiliate_BoxWidth = "220"; iDevAffiliate_BoxHeight = "80"; iDevAffiliate_OutlineColor = "#000099"; iDevAffiliate_TitleTextColor = "#FFFFFF"; iDevAffiliate_LinkColor = "#0033CC"; iDevAffiliate_TextColor = "#000000"; iDevAffiliate_TextBackgroundColor = "#F3F3F3"; // ]]]]><![CDATA[>]]>