Small Grey Outline Pointer
nczerny asked:

I just really like your voice okay like wow.


You have incredible control. I love "Take Me or Leave Me" and I always sing Maureen's part, too! :) You sound fantastic!!

Wow, thank you! That’s awesome to hear since I’m way out of practice. It’s been a few years since I’ve been really serious about singing with professional training, and I’ve been meaning to find a new voice teacher since I’m not in college right now. 

I just love her part! Joanne’s part is great, too, but I’m so used to singing Maureen’s. :)

lrbcn asked:

Damn, that cover sounds specially good :D

Thank you! :D I sang it as karaoke the other night. Felt good.

Anonymous asked:

what do you have blacklisted?

This has to be one of my most frequently asked anon questions, besides the ones in my faq. And I’m not really sure why? It’s just a collection of things that I don’t really want to see on my dash. Doesn’t mean I hate them or the people who like/post them; but for various personal reasons (and yes, sometimes something strongly associated with hate), I prefer my tumblr experience without them. 

I have a few musicians/bands, tv shows, ships, triggers, and a couple things I don’t want to be spoiled for, just like everyone else who uses tumblr savior probably does. I feel like actually posting my blacklist might piss a few people off, so I’m just going to save everyone the trouble and not do it.

mina-harkers asked:

I didn't mean to imply that marriage belonged to the church! I'm so sorry for that, because I meant to imply kind of the opposite; it's just hard to fit everything into a message. I was just trying to make the point that if marriage itself is separated from the government, people can decide for themselves what it means in terms of their personal religion and culture(s). I certainly don't think it's a perfect plan, but I think it would provide for the most compromise. Again, sorry! (:

Oh, that makes much more sense! Sorry. I thought you were saying marriage should be exclusive to the church, and therefore the fate of many same sex couples would lie in the church’s hands. NOT good. I see, now, what you mean. And it is a bit idealistic, but I understand you much more now!

mina-harkers asked:

I think it's too idealistic, but I think that marriage as an entity should be entirely left up to the church, while the government could still control (as far as it should be able to control) the sharing of wealth, paying for insurance, so on and so forth--and that should be afforded to gay couples as well as straight couples. As a Christian, I don't want the government involved in the religious part of my marriage ("by the power vested in me by the state of--" and so on).

I could see that, except that marriage didn’t even ‘belong’ to the church until sometime after the 8th century when the Catholic Church made it an amendment. And love wasn’t even factored into the equation until the 13th century. The idea that marriage is “God’s” is, well, wrong. Marriage was originally a business agreement between a father and his daughter’s husband; it was a right to ownership. This was long before the Catholic Church even existed. 

Which is why I find the whole idea of “redefining marriage” being offensive to Christians a bit ironic—when that’s exactly what Christians did. 

But tangent aside, same sex being actually legalized by the government is a necessity for a step towards equality. It shouldn’t be anyone’s marriage, because if it belongs to anyone, it belongs to a barbaric form of husband-wife-offspring ownership from thousands of years ago. 

effie214 asked:

Your post is right on, IMO. I completely understand and respect a religious leader's discomfort in marrying same-sex couples. For me, the issue is and always should be one of governmental discretion. The basic rights we agree we're all afforded have been created that way, so in my mind, gay rights shouldn't be any different. I don't want to get married in a church. I don't even care if you call it gay marriage. I just want the same benefits my straight counterparts are afforded. No more, no less

I agree with this.

My stepdad is also a Christian pastor and he shares the same beliefs. He supports gay marriage but will not marry gay couples. We have had lengthy conversations about it (me being 100% for equal marriage rights) and I told him flat out that I did not have a problem with him as an individual feeling that, based on his religion, he himself could not marry a gay couple. As long as they are allowed to marry. He has turned gay couples away but referred them to a pastor he knew would marry them. (cont

Wow, I really love your step-dad. He’s a step forward for the Christian community, imo. I also feel that people like this within the Christian community will only evolve over time to become Christian advocates for gay rights. Maybe that’s idealism, but I do hope.

killianknows asked:

I think that's reasonable. Nothing is preventing the gay couple from getting married, they just need someone else to do it. Along similar lines, I used to see a doctor (until I moved) who would not prescribe birth control because it was against her (Catholic) beliefs. I simply had to see a different doctor in the same office to obtain the prescription. Just because I might want to marry a woman later in life doesn't mean one person HAS to do it, so long as my RIGHT to do it isn't taken away.


It sucks that these issues can’t be abolished right here and now, but in the mean time, while we’re fighting for our rights, we also have to remember the importance of freedom of religion. I guess? I don’t want to sound like I’m sympathetic to homophobia… just the power of brainwashing, I guess.

Anonymous asked:

you is too perfect omg. i love eVERYTHING ABOUT YOUR BLOG <3