Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Pinkiequality by PixelKitties Pinkiequality by PixelKitties
I've seen a metric ton of equality avatars popping up on Facebook, Twitter, etc. And yet, by some terrible oversight, none have featured Pinkie Pie. Well, we can't have that!

Feel free to use as you like!

For anyone who hasn't passed a TV/Radio/Internet Device this week in America, the US Supreme Court heard challenges to California's Proposition 8 banning Same-Sex Marriage in the state AND the Defense of Marriage Act of our Constitution which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even if individual states approve them. Many folks are using avatars like this- [link] -in their social media to support repeal of anti-gay legislation.

Obviously being a big ol' Lefty I am on the side of tearing down both of those laws to their foundations. And hopefully, here in the land of the free, we'll stop attempting to enshrine discrimination- in any form- within our most precious founding legal and cultural documents.

UPDATE- I have to say, I've found all the debate in the comments to be very very interesting and entertaining! Thanks to everyone who stopped by and offered their thoughts, whether I agree or not, it was quite a read.
Add a Comment:
 
:icon5kmoe:
5kmoe Featured By Owner Jun 29, 2013
Why is her arm growing out of her chin?
Reply
:iconmutt42:
mutt42 Featured By Owner Jun 26, 2013
Thanks for drawing this. it's cute.
Reply
:iconpixelkitties:
PixelKitties Featured By Owner Jun 27, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
Thank you for saying so! <3
Reply
:iconmutt42:
mutt42 Featured By Owner Jun 28, 2013
you're welcome.
Reply
:iconnanashi89:
nanashi89 Featured By Owner Jun 26, 2013
Present: Gay Marriage is wrong

1967: ...I mean if Whites and Negras can marry, it'll ruin the whole institution!

1947: By George, if I let my daughter marry a Jew, where will it end?

1867: Soon our women-folk will think it's okay to marry Yankees!

1692: and I swear in the Lord's name, if my daughter marries a left-handed man, both will be burned at the stake as witches!

2,000,000 BC: Groog moogog tsrong, grunt oont braaaawk!

Seriously, people need to shove it and be happy for them.
Reply
:iconmillennialdan:
MillennialDan Featured By Owner Jun 26, 2013  Hobbyist
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
:)
Reply
:iconnanashi89:
nanashi89 Featured By Owner Jun 27, 2013
I'm saying I find it disgusting that people are treating GLBT rights like it's Sodom and Gomorrah: Reloaded, when it's no different than 2,000,000-1967. They did nothing to hurt us, so we shouldn't be bitching, we should be happy for them.
Reply
:iconlionroo:
Lionroo Featured By Owner Jun 26, 2013
I thought that Federally, Same Sex Marriage is now recognized as marriage for tax purposes, but each state can legally still state what they wish 'marriage' to be. So if Texas says, "Marriage is between Man + Woman. No exceptions" on death, Federal Taxation for estate tax will say, "Texas may have said no, but we'll understand you"

So, it's not as great as you think yet. It's still permitted to be judged on a state by state basis what marriage is permitted to be in that such state.

Canada let that happen for one year, then with argument and a little reason (Section 7 challenge) meaning that Life Liberty and Freedom to move about this great country is not equaled, because each Province would limit what they thought to be 'marriage' and thus the gay couples that thought they were now free, were in fact, not.

We can then hope that this same situation may arise in the future. This is a doorway, we've not passed through it, but I wish you the greatest luck in this, also the FRA (Family Reunification Act) talks a little about gay marriage permitting someone to become a citizen of the United States as well. Hope that'll work too, Canada enjoys that privilege, and hell, even Australia.
Reply
:iconmrasianhappydude:
MrAsianhappydude Featured By Owner May 1, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Simple. Yet awesome. It blows my mind!
Reply
:iconstrchsr:
strchsr Featured By Owner May 1, 2013
How about one with Rainbow Dash, with her lying on a cloud? ;p
Reply
:iconkyoshyu:
Kyoshyu Featured By Owner Apr 21, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Wheeeeeee!
Reply
:iconpinksaphires:
pinksaphires Featured By Owner Apr 3, 2013  Student Digital Artist
Well, I can't say that I am surprised that someone beat me to it. Glad that it was you, Pixelkitties though I wish I had given you a watch sooner.
Reply
:iconx-turent:
X-TURENT Featured By Owner Apr 2, 2013  Hobbyist
they should feature every pony
Reply
:iconsimeonleonard:
SimeonLeonard Featured By Owner Mar 31, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I really prefer not seeing My Little Pony politicized. Just my two cents worth.
Reply
:iconpixelkitties:
PixelKitties Featured By Owner Apr 3, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
I know, right? Luckily this is a civil rights issue.
Reply
:iconmig111:
MiG111 Featured By Owner Apr 4, 2013
A lot of things are civil rights issues and not every one of them is grounded in morality. Homosexuality, adultery, and pornography are all perfectly legal and in some cases acceptable things but they are completely immoral and despicable in the eyes of God.
Reply
:iconpixelkitties:
PixelKitties Featured By Owner Apr 5, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
Please know that I'm honestly not trying to be provocative or confrontational but religion is far more of a choice than who someone is inherently, unchangeable attracted to. Different religions have different things to say about what is and is not moral, and that's fine. It's the job of religion to give folks a foundation for their beliefs and needs. But religion does not get to dictate our government or how that government relates to its citizens. We are a nation founded by members of Christian religions, but we are not a theocracy whose laws are derived exclusively by a 2000 year old book of tribal social norms and mores.

You have the right, through freedom of religion and expression, to say things that I find unkind. You are free to believe and express which people your god consider "despicable" You are welcome to equate homosexuality with negative, unrelated behaviors to help support your case. But that doesn't make them true or right in the eyes of our constitution or our government.

Opposition to same-sex marriage because of their religious beliefs is fine. No church will EVER be forced to conduct a wedding in contradictory to its teachings or beliefs. To this day there are churches in the deep south of the United States that will not marry interracial couples. But beyond the rhetoric, the strawman arguments, and the fear is the simple reality that all couples, including same-sex couples, deserve the assurances and rights of our legally defined institution known as marriage. They deserve the right to visit a sick or injured spouse in the hospital. They deserve the right to make medical, funeral and estate decisions. They deserve the right to own property together, to insurance and social security benefits, and to the tax rewards of joint households and to over a thousand other important legal differentiations between perfect strangers and married couples.

Gays deserve these rights, not because they are special but because they are ordinary, equal citizens of the United States of America.
Reply
:iconmig111:
MiG111 Featured By Owner Apr 5, 2013
God doesn't see homosexuals. He sees people who practice homosexuality. And no, he does not despise them. He despises the practice.
Reply
:icondark-hyena:
Dark-Hyena Featured By Owner Jun 26, 2013
God also despises the practice of eating shellfish and mixing fabrics. So, does that mean we should boycott sushi restaurants and burn down clothes shops?
Reply
:iconbrave-kakapo:
Brave-Kakapo Featured By Owner Apr 7, 2013
Does God recognizes poofters?
Reply
:iconsimeonleonard:
SimeonLeonard Featured By Owner Apr 3, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Well, I stand corrected, but I still think it's in poor taste to use My Little Pony characters to promote one side or the other of a divisive issue. It seems to me like the implication is that if you don't agree, maybe you're somehow not a real fan. The show's messages of love and tolerance should certainly inform one's opinion, but I don't think its creators intended to make any specific statements on current issues.

One could use images from "A Canterlot Wedding" and argue that so-called "traditional" marriage is the only type of marriage that's canon in Equestria, and it would seem equally silly to me. I'd still be asking myself, why are we even talking about this issue in this context?

You're free to do what you think is best, of course, but I just thought you should know that some people might be turned off by this.
Reply
:iconpixelkitties:
PixelKitties Featured By Owner Apr 5, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
People are turned off by all kinds of things, but that doesn't mean any artist, anyone should censor themselves based on unpopular or divisive opinions. Look, we're both members of a fairly rabid fandom. People who are crazy, sometimes actually crazy, about ponies can be as divisive, prone to hyperbole and overreaction far more than any political, social, or cultural debate.

An example, I frequently receive deeply hurt and angry messages telling me to stop posting images of Alicorn Twilight. She's a canon character, she's part of the show, I'm a fan artist drawing stuff to make me happy on a free website on the the free internet. But some people demand that I should acquiesce and censor myself because they don't like a cartoon horse.

I get much the same argument from people concerning shipping. "I don't want to see that!" "Shipping is completely against the nature of this children's cartoon!" "You're going to lose fans!" etc But I'm not making art to be popular or generate views. I make art for fun, because I love My Little Pony. Because it makes me happy. And for that matter, playing fans or watchers or followers or public opinion is a suckers game. X number of people like one thing, X number of people like the opposite. A certain group of fans loves a character, another group wants her stricken from the show. If you're an artist and you're going to try and pandering to exclusively what a majority of what others want you to do, you're going to have a bad time. It can't be done. Public opinion is a maelstrom in a teapot, eventually you'll either boil or drown.

On your DA page, you have a very nice picture of Vinyl kissing Octavia under the mistletoe. Are you promoting same-sex relationships? Is this appropriate for a children's cartoon? Are you forcing your thoughts on people who may not agree? I'm not trying to be confrontational, but you have to see that social issues are part of everything, and people can take a position- WILL take a position- on them and insist you change your likes, dislikes and views to meet theirs.

And so, I love ponies. They are a huge part of my life. I believe in the intrinsic human and legal rights of all Americans who seek commitment in marriage. I combined these things because I can, because it's where my thoughts and moral compass take me.
Reply
:iconsimeonleonard:
SimeonLeonard Featured By Owner Apr 8, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
People give you grief for drawing Alicorn Twilight? Ugh. I don't envy you =p

I get that you're just expressing yourself. I'm sure you're right about social issues affecting almost every facet of daily life, even if they do so indirectly. It might be a losing battle, but for the sake of my sanity I nonetheless make an effort to keep at least some parts of my life segregated from the hottest hot-button issues of the day. Ponies is one of them. I guess I felt like my "happy place" was imperiled by the intrusion of civil discourse, so my knee-jerk reaction was to voice disapproval. If I'd thought about it I would have realized that you surely knew some people would be incensed.

I wouldn't ask you to pander to anyone. I'll be the first to acknowledge that you're entitled to express your opinion however you see fit. I've always thought you seemed like a nice person, and certainly not unreasonable, so I'm sure you won't mind if someone like me respectfully dissents (I hope I didn't come across as disrespectful) when you take a stance on something.

But you're right - if I don't like what you're doing, it's my problem, not yours. I can unwatch you or delete my DA or smash my computer with a hammer if it upsets me that much, but I can't imagine any of those things happening. I enjoy my computer, DA, and your artwork way too much to let a minor disagreement cause anything more than an unnecessarily lengthy comment or two ;)

btw, I absolutely love your line about public opinion being a "maelstrom in a teapot" that you'll either boil or drown in. Good stuff :D
Reply
:iconcoco-sweet:
Coco-Sweet Featured By Owner Mar 31, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Epic win :thumbsup:
Reply
:iconkomatsuzaki-xingqi:
Komatsuzaki-Xingqi Featured By Owner Mar 31, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
It's only a matter of time, whether anybody likes it or not. The democratic power of people against same sex marriage will be silenced, or the tides of popular opinion will suck out that ideal, whichever comes first. Being a big right-winger, I used to get into heated debates about same sex marriage. But now, that seems like a waste of energy. The government will overstep its bounds, people will refuse to accept that there are logical reasons against same sex marriage, and our whole world will plunge into a society like those of old, before they were destroyed.

Alas, my nick-pick is to keep Ponies and politics separate. But that's beating a dead horse as well.
haha pun
Reply
:iconpokelova:
Pokelova Featured By Owner Apr 3, 2013
Please, inform me of these "logical" reasons.
Reply
:iconkomatsuzaki-xingqi:
Komatsuzaki-Xingqi Featured By Owner Apr 3, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
[link]
[link]
[link]

You aren't allowed to say there aren't any logical/good reasons against same sex marriage until you've researched the arguments against it.
Reply
:iconpokelova:
Pokelova Featured By Owner Apr 3, 2013
I'm sorry, but every one of those links is a load of shit.
Reply
:iconkomatsuzaki-xingqi:
Komatsuzaki-Xingqi Featured By Owner Apr 5, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Oh didn't see that coming. X) Unfortunately, simply calling something you don't like a derogatory phrase doesn't prove it wrong. You're going to need to man-up and actually address the points given to you. You say there aren't any logical points against same sex marriage? I've given you plenty. In order to refrain from embracing dishonesty, you need to read them, so that you can refute them (if you know how), or admit that there are some good points against same sex marriage. I've had lots of people tell me that these were the first things they've seen that actually pose some good points. Of course, that didn't change their minds on same sex marriage, but that's not what I'm trying to do.

Or, you could just put your fingers in your ears and go "La la la!" and curse out whatever you don't want to hear. Your choice. You have, I assume, freewill.
Reply
:iconpokelova:
Pokelova Featured By Owner Apr 5, 2013
Firstly, the phrase "man up" is sexist.

Now about those links. The first seems mostly about what rights marriage grants and about how necessary it is to redefine marriage when we could redefine civil unions to include those rights. Now, regardless of whether we redefine civil unions to include those rights or not, there are still many countries that do not recognise civil unions, only marriages, so those rights will be nullified. Also, separate but equal is not truly equal. This was demonstrated back in the days of civil rights with water fountains. Having a separate water fountain for black people, even if it worked just as well, was still discriminatory. Having a seperate union for gay couples, even if it works just as well, is still discriminatory.
The second is a little harder to comprehend. It goes into marriage "as defined by God". But how anything is defined by God is irrelevant. Practically any religious argument is irrelevant, as we have freedom of religion. I should not have to follow the guidelines of your religion. Neither should the law. Now if you were to say "okay but what if in my religion it isn't immoral to kill?". That argument is completely ridiculous, as you are equating marriage to murder. Completely offensive, just as offensive as the slippery slope fallacy you people love so much. You know the one, about beastiality and incest. You guys sure love talking about that. The second link also tried to say that children raised by both a mother and a father are better off than kids raised by same gender couples. This claim is completely unfounded. Any child raised by same gender parents will most certainly tell you that you are wrong. Yes, they face bullying because of it. But kids face bullying for anything and everything these days. They get bullied because their parents are poor or ugly. Are we going to make it so poor and ugly people can't get married and have kids? Also, the bullying is from people like you. If you stopped being so bigoted and taught your children love and tolerance, it wouldn't be as big an issue in school. The article also seems to think that children are necessary for marriage. They are not. Not is religion. If you disagree, why not campaign against atheists and infertile couples from getting married? Also mentioned is the child's "right to have a mother and father". Since when have children ever been able to choose their parents? Sorry, but that is not a right. They have the right to parents who can provide for them and don't abuse them, that's about the only optional thing when it comes to that. It says that gay marriage is denigrating the Christian sanctity of marriage. Again, atheists can still marry. People no longer have to get married in churches or say anything about God during the ceremony. The simple fact is, it is a legal contract. It is also a declaration of love and commitment, something many straight couples lack, because they can so easily get married. Gay couples are truly tested in commitment. They have to go through the struggles of people like you making them feel inferior. And they have to either leave their state/country to get married or they have to fight legal battles like the ones being fought now in France, New Zealand, and probably some states for their right to express their love and commitment. Another thing, there are gay Christians. They do exist. Some believe so strongly in the word of God that they either repress their sexuality or they just don't get married, but some do want to get married because they believe that God loves them no matter what and wants everyone to be happy. Now, I'm not religious, but who are you to tell them that their interpretation of God's love is wrong? Quoting the article now, it says "By granting the status of marriage to a man and a woman who are in a committed relationship and willing to be married, it places value on the relationship, not on the people." For that quote, basically fuck you. Who are you to say that a gay relationship has none or less value than a straight couple? It is ridiculous and offensive. Back to the equally offensive 'straight parents are better' thing, the article says that we are trying to make make same gender parents "the new normal". Despite being the name of a tv show based around the subject, this is not the case. Gay parents will never be as common as straight parents, I'm not even sure if they outnumber solo parents. But even if we should encourage straight parents (which we shouldn't), that doesn't mean we should deter gay parents. We don't tell solo parents that they can't adopt. Another thing, gay couples are already adopting. And even if we don't get marriage equality, they will still adopt. The only problem is they can't adopt as a couple, so only one parent will be the legal guardian. This will cause many problems for both the child and parent. Why put them through the unnecessary stress of that? The article says that if today's young people see the definition of marriage change, they might feel it is less sacred or necessary or whatever, and wait longer to get married or even not marry at all. Um, so fucking what?! It's their choice whether they want to marry or not, what business is it of yours? Again quoting the article, it states "More and more children will be simply the byproduct of whatever sexual relationships suit the parent's fancy." Again, why is that your business? Also, I doubt the effect will be as large as this article claims it will be. The article says that many gay people have had happy and successful opposite gender marriages. That's great for them. I'm happy for them. But not everyone wants that, so I don't see how it is relevant. It sounds more like they're trying to convince gay people to marry someone of the opposite gender, which is very strange indeed. How about some of you straight people marry someone of the same gender, see exactly how fulfilling that is. The article also states that if marriage is equalised, more people will leave their opposite gender spouses in pursuit of same gender ones. Honestly, this really isn't as common as the article makes it seem. And even if it was, so fucking what?! If they want to divorce their partner, it's their freaking choice. It seems like this article is largely against divorce, so why not protest divorce, try to make that illegal? It'd make a fuckload more sense to do that. The article implies that being "forced to accept gay marriage" might make many Christians scared and angry, causing them to lash out violently and reflect badly on the church. This sounds like the church just trying to cover its ass, and is not a very good argument against same gender marriage. How about teaching your fellow Christians to be not fucking insane? It will reflect badly on the church because if the teachings of said church. The article thinks that equalising marriage will blur the line between same gender feelings and same gender sex. The thoughts and the actions. Almost any person with same gender attractions will tell you otherwise. For instance, I am into dudes in a sexual way, but I am romantically interested in any gender. It isn't a hard concept to understand, and if any person has difficulty with that, we'll be happy to try and teach them.

Now onto the third link. The article seems to be saying that religious folk feel that their rights are being destroyed in place of gay rights. This is not the case. It is your religious right to think gays are sinful. It is your religious right to not like same gender marriage. It is not your right to stop someone from marrying the person they love. Your rights end when they affect other people lives. Gay people will not affect your life unless you think about it 24/7 for whatever reason. There was this hilarious video where people parodied a straight couple reacting to same gender marriage being legalised. I can't link it right now, as I'm on a mobile device, but it was pretty funny. They were saying about how they'd be forced to leave each other and get married to someone of the same gender, which is what a lot of Christians are acting like, despite being told many times that this is not the case. We won't affect your marriage, so stop affecting ours, okay? The article goes into ministers/pastors/whatever being forced to perform same gender marriages. This is not true, at least not in New Zealand. I don't know about the states, but in New Zealand's Marriage Amendment Act, it is specifically mentioned that nobody will be forced to perform a marriage ceremony they don't want to. Now, a recent case people may be wondering about is the wedding cake incident. A lesbian couple were refused a wedding cake by this bakery. This is entirely different to ministers performing weddings. While performing weddings is solely about religion to these specific ministers, baking cakes isn't a religious thing to this bakery, even if they themselves are religious. There is nothing "sacred" about cakes, whether they're for weddings or not. So the lesbian couple has every right to file a discrimination lawsuit. But again, not in the case of ministers. The article goes on about the definition of 'condone', which is stupid and offensive and irrelevant. The article mentions religious adoption agencies being forced to give children into families they don't support. And so they should. If the two men or two women are loving and kind, then they are worthy of adopting a child. Like I said earlier, your religious rights end when you try to stop someone from doing something that isn't illegal. The article says something about taxes. I don't know a lot about taxes, but I know that my freedom to marry a person of my choosing is far more important than your fucking money. It mentions that Christian clubs at universities will lose their status or something unless they accept same gender couples into the clubs. And so they should. "Love thy neighbour" was mentioned in the tolerance talk, so that should apply to Christian clubs. You can hate their relationship, but that shouldn't give you the right to exclude them if they are Christian. The article goes into a parents right to choose what their kids are taught in school in regards to moral issues. I really don't see the issue here. If you put enough of your bigotry into your kids, it won't matter what school says. And if you're that afraid of them learning about the world that they live in, and that afraid of their kids choosing their own path in life, freaking homeschool them. That's what the Westboro Baptist Church does. And look at how much everyone loves them. Indoctrinating your children with bigotry makes you all sorts of friends. Of course, I'm being sarcastic. The rest is just boring crap that isn't actually about marriage and will in no way be affected by marriage.

So yeah, is that good enough for you?
Reply
:iconlightanimaux:
LightAnimaux Featured By Owner Jun 26, 2013  Student Digital Artist
I know this is an old comment, but oh my glob, I like you very much. XD
Reply
:iconpokelova:
Pokelova Featured By Owner Jun 26, 2013
Thank you :)
Reply
:iconnanorider426:
Nanorider426 Featured By Owner Apr 27, 2013
I guess it was good enough for him. He hasn't answered back. ;-)
Reply
:iconmillennialdan:
MillennialDan Featured By Owner Jun 26, 2013  Hobbyist
*He, not you.
Reply
:iconmillennialdan:
MillennialDan Featured By Owner Jun 26, 2013  Hobbyist
Probably because you don't know how to use paragraphs.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconmountainlygon:
MountainLygon Featured By Owner Mar 30, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
While I support Pinkie Pie, I also support the definition of love as a conscious decision to sacrifice of oneself, and not as a fickle emotion one can fall in and out of based on what the hormones are doing. That's the problem with wanting to redefine marriage. They want to make it fit their microwave ideals. Whatever happened to the good ol' days when if something was broken, you fixed it? Do we really want to increase the number of broken families by including more people in this downward spiral? Marriage is already a legal, binding contract, and yet people can violate it with precious little legal consequence. Should we really encourage that? I don't understand how people can argue for what they want marriage to be tomorrow when they don't even understand what it is today. So before you go changing marriage, make it worth being married. Let's strengthen marriages and family. Let's lower the divorce rate and the number of broken homes by reminding people that love isn't about what you want, but about what you give.

:bulletwhite: Love is generously giving of your time, attention and effort. Love is sacrificial. Love is not petty, greedy or jealous.
:bulletorange: Love is living with integrity. Love rejoices in truth. Love is humble, not arrogant or boastful.
:bulletpink: Love is being an incorrigible optimist when everyone around you is cynical. Love always hopes. Love has faith.
:bulletblue: Love is loyalty and fidelity. Love bears and endures all things for as long as the one who loves shall live.
:bulletyellow: Love is patience, kindness and forgiveness. Love is not unbecoming or provoked.
:bulletpurple: Love is teachable. Love leads. Love can accomplish great things. Love never fails.

Until everyone has an equal understanding and respect for love, marriage and family, there can be no marriage equality. It is simply impossible to accomplish.
Reply
:iconbrave-kakapo:
Brave-Kakapo Featured By Owner Mar 31, 2013
That's a lot of pretentious expectations. As well as being raised in a shitty house hold is more proof that divorce isn't necessarily a bad thing. But the dedication bit? That's what my Dad did, that's all you need to know. And neither of my parents were to blame as to who was the bigger evil.

I hold the same thought on that who ever you're with should be able to work with you, but it takes a lot more than a head in the cloud attitude. You have to find yourself, your own independence, before you can actually go looking for a mate.

My sister has only found one person who has actually stuck with her as a friend from her rampant search. She's tough, but she isn't exactly independent socially.

Oh and a quick note. I'm a bi-sexual.
Reply
:iconmountainlygon:
MountainLygon Featured By Owner Mar 31, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
Pretentious? That's a funny way to spell "foundational." Or "original." Love fixes what is broken instead of discarding it. Marriage's purpose is not to provide salaries for divorce attorneys. And if it were, why then would gays be demanding the "right" to have their spouses walk out on them and then sue them for alimony?

Love is self-sacrificial. That has always been its design, and it always will be, whether you, your parents or your sister understand that or not.
Reply
:iconbrave-kakapo:
Brave-Kakapo Featured By Owner Mar 31, 2013
My Dad sacrificed a lot of emotion, but that didn't stop the fighting. My Mother was unfortunately in a power struggle due to being molested as a child amidst what I'm assuming was Aspbergers. But that was something none of my family knew due to having the prideful old ways of sacrifice and powering through. My Mother made the sacrifice of feeling cold and unsupported from some one who was already dried up and unfortunately didn't trust psychologists due to trusting a pseudo self-help therapist. That same sacrifice is why out of the four kids, only my sister is able to support herself and her kids due to her friend and serving in the National Guard, one of my brothers is missing with no info as to whether he is still alive, the other may as well be on Social Security, but thanks to his friend, he's allowed to assume that he doesn't need any help and not give any assistance a full follow through, and me still struggling to find a job and deal with my own disability at the age of 28.

I shouldn't have to have dealt with the struggle of accepting and working around my disability at that age. Yes, marriage and love are dealt around sacrifice and tolerance, but it can be taken way too far, farther than necessary.
Reply
:iconmountainlygon:
MountainLygon Featured By Owner Mar 31, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
Sorry, but I don't see where the sacrifice came into play with your parents. They're supposed to sacrifice what they want for one another's needs, not the tools they need to accomplish that sacrifice. They're supposed to serve one another. It sounds to me like neither of them really did that. Your mom was too busy wanting power and your dad was too busy wanting to look tough and resilient. How is that sacrifice? How is that love?
Reply
:iconbrave-kakapo:
Brave-Kakapo Featured By Owner Mar 31, 2013
My father wasn't trying to look tough and resilient. My father was cowering and resigning after every time my Mother began screaming because he gave up on trying to reason. He only looked tough and resilient because he was a naturally good person who trusted in what he believed and had actual positive qualities. But unfortunately he percieved psychology as nothing but a scam, so any empathy was lost due to the phrase "deal with it". Why do you assume that my Mother was intentionally trying to take over anything? Do you know what it's like to not trust a single person? Do you not know what it's like to not trust the obvious? Have you ever dealt with the concept of a mental disability and how it plays out to some one who knows their own view and perception is skewered? The fact that a single emotion, feeling is wrong but for no actual reason you still feel it? The fact that you have to emotionally endure fighting with it every time it springs up just so you can get back to a level perception? They both tried to sacrifice their emotions for their kids, but that didn't stop the fighting. Please tell me how a broken woman, crying after a fight because she looks at her kids, knowing all too well that they're crying because she's fighting isn't a good person trying to sacrifice? Please tell me how a father who devoted himself to family, hoped that the fighting would stop, but had no choice but to endure every bit of flak that sparked off from some one he loved for being a good person but could not help isn't a sacrifice?

They have been divorced for 7 years, yet they still ask me how each other is doing when ever I talk to them. How can you say that isn't love for another person? It may not be love in marriage, but it's still love. If they were together now, they wouldn't be facing the same problems preventing them from getting along. But it's too late now.
Reply
:iconmountainlygon:
MountainLygon Featured By Owner Apr 1, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
Love never fails. If they'd learned what sacrificial love was early on, they would've spared themselves and you that pain. But sometimes it takes pain to teach. I'm glad they've since learned what love is and what it is not. But it's not love that caused their marriage to fail.

By the way, YOU said all of that stuff about your parents. I merely said it back to you in my own words.
Reply
:iconbrave-kakapo:
Brave-Kakapo Featured By Owner Apr 2, 2013
Yes, and your own words assumed that BOTH my parents were covering. You also stated that they both sacrificed the wrong thing. How can they sacrifice something they don't know how to sacrifice? How do you sacrifice emotions that aren't coherent to begin with? Growing up, I knew my world view was different, but didn't know how. I only learned recently that I have Aspbergers. All I knew back then was that I had a short temper compared to every one else. How am I supposed to work around my disability if I don't even know how to describe it let alone how it affects me?
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconhealingblight:
HealingBlight Featured By Owner Mar 30, 2013
Only in Pinkies reality does
<3 = π

(Wow the DA font sucks for pi)
Reply
:iconsuciefue:
sucieFue Featured By Owner Mar 29, 2013
Pinkiesexual?
Reply
:iconcklein07:
CKlein07 Featured By Owner Mar 29, 2013
I know you didn't say anything to the contrary, but I feel the need to point out that some of us Right-wingers oppose these laws too
Reply
:iconpyrmappege:
pyrmappege Featured By Owner Mar 29, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Positively awesome. I'll probably change mine to this one. :D
Reply
:iconalphagamer774:
alphagamer774 Featured By Owner Mar 29, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Cannot describe the awesome with words
Reply
:iconviisbyxa:
Viisbyxa Featured By Owner Mar 29, 2013
Awesome, I didn't really feel inclined to take part in armchair protest but I might as well do it for ponies.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×




Details

Submitted on
March 28, 2013
Image Size
66.0 KB
Resolution
600×600
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
8,538 (3 today)
Favourites
642 (who?)
Comments
153
Downloads
295
×