this urn will turn you into a tree after you die
seapeny: rainbow-road-to-happiness: You can choose what kind of tree you want to become Idk I just find this beautiful just imagine cemeteries looking like this a forest of living, changing, beautiful trees. I think a tombstone holds much more finality in death than a tree. It’s like you are living on symbolically through something greater than yourself. this is a serious post...
I am one of the lucky ones. I managed to turn my history of science and...– Why The Practicality Trolls are Wrong | Earnest and Jest (via brute-reason)
My friend said that the Lord of the Rings is a...
Things my Little Sister Says...
“Full Tator” As in “I was really tired when I got home so I just went full tator” or “I tried to stand up but my leg was full tator because it fell asleep” …. “Full Tator” is shorthand for couch potato.
Reblog this if you like Supernatural. No...
fallenfromthetardis: lordzantrifreya: how could one not reblog this? I hope this is as fruitful as the Harry Potter one.
Girl pays for dinner: See this is what I can't stand about you Ms.Independent femanazis! You won't let men be men! You're emasculating us!
Girl lets guy pay for dinner: See this is what I can't stand about you gold digging femanazis! You want equal rights and equality but you want a man to pay for your meal!
I’m frankly surprised by the show. There’s stupid things - there’s - sorry...– Misha on the misogyny of Supernatural (via strangepicturesofmishacollins)
notyour-sidekick: morgrana: iblamecolin: sircolinmorgan: apparently prince william and kate are meant to be having a boy if they don’t name their son Arthur there is something seriously wrong with the world there’s usually precedent in names of those in line for the throne and i think Arthur is actually one that people are saying it might be WHEN ALBION’S NEED IS GREATEST. ARTHUR...
First Attempt at Vietnamese Food...
…a rousing success!!! I used mostly a whole frozen river eel found at Saw’s Asian Food Market here in Owensboro, some glass noodles, tumeric, onion , and bell pepper. I had to filet the eel, which was slippery and squirting blood everywhere. The kitchen looked like a murder scene, like literal splatters of blood everywhere. They don’t have visible teeth, I checked. It did...
Let me tell you some things. I used to investigate child abuse and neglect. I...– In reply to a ‘pro-life’ blogger: STFU, Conservatives: When I say I’m pro-life… (via grrrltalk) emphasis mine. (via fuckyeahfeminists)
rose-papillon: Oh man, there’s someone on the westeros forums claiming that Jaime doesn’t love Brienne because ‘he sees her as a sister’.
fuckedupmerlincomics: a haiku about my life: i want merlin back none of these shows are merlin i am really sad
Hollingsworth v. Perry.
JUSTICE BREYER: Assume that you could distinguish California. Assume that we accept your argument -- or Mr. Scalia's version of your argument. And that distinguishes California. Now, let's look at California: what precisely is the way in which allowing gay couples to marry would interfere with the vision of marriage as the procreation of children, that allowing sterile couples of different sexes to marry would not? I mean, there are lots of people who get married that can't have children. So take a state that does allow adoption and say, there -- what's the justification for saying "no gay marriage"? Certainly not the one you said, is it?
COOPER: Uh, y-y-y-you --
BREYER (interjecting): Am I not clear? Look: you said that the problem is marriage, as an institution that furthers procreation --
COOPER: Yes, Your Honor.
BREYER: And the reason there was adoption. But that doesn't apply to California. So imagine I wall off California, and I'm looking just there, where you say that doesn't apply. Now, what happens to your argument -- about the institution of marriage as a tool towards procreation? Given the fact that in California too, couples that aren't gay but can't have children get married all the time?
COOPER: Yes, Your Honor. The concern is that redefining marriage as a genderless institution will sever its abiding connection to its historic, traditional procreative purposes. And it will re-focus, re-focus the purpose of marriage a-and the definition of marriage away from the, uh, uh, raising of children and to the emotional needs and desires of adults, of adult couples.
KAGAN: Well, suppose a State said, "Because we think that the focus of marriage really should be on procreation, we're not going to give marriage licenses any more to any couple where both people are over the age of 55." Would that be constitutional?
COOPER: No, Your Honor. It would not be constitutional.
KAGAN: Because that's the same State interest, I would think. You know? If you're over the age of 55, you don't help us serve the government's interest in protecting procreation through marriage. So why is that different?
COOPER: You, you, Your Honor, even with respect to couples over the age of 55, it is very rare that both couples -- both parties to the couple -- are infertile.
(Laughter from the gallery.)
KAGAN (interjecting): No really, because the couple -- I can just assure you if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage.