FA+
Shop
896
Views
Views
12
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Photography / Scenery
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1280 x 960
File Size 165.2 kB
Report this content
More from Beachfox
I finally got around to making that No on 8 sign I'd been meaning to, what with the giant traffic jam outside our house this evening (truck blew up, long story). And as soon as I put it up, Axel the Window Dog ™ leaps up to pose beside it.
So of course I have to take a picture.
With artstic-keen™ reflections as well!
So of course I have to take a picture.
With artstic-keen™ reflections as well!
Category Photography / Scenery
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 1280 x 960px
File Size 165.2 kB
oh wow ...
man ... this is why i hate america.
they talk about how people here in america are freer to do what ever they want as long as its legal. and here there trying to make it so homosexuals cant even be together?!
>.<
that is total BS.
ive herd tale of a new law there trying to pass, make it so gays cant marry at all in any state of america
if that happens, im moving to canada, or australia ... or japan ...
At least people there dont judge you for being gay
>.<
man ... this is why i hate america.
they talk about how people here in america are freer to do what ever they want as long as its legal. and here there trying to make it so homosexuals cant even be together?!
>.<
that is total BS.
ive herd tale of a new law there trying to pass, make it so gays cant marry at all in any state of america
if that happens, im moving to canada, or australia ... or japan ...
At least people there dont judge you for being gay
>.<
Well, we're still not the most loved of people anywhere else either.
The "New Law" is a Constitutional Amendment that's never gotten off the House floor in all the years they've bitched about it. -That-, at least, isn't coming any time soon. It's a state-by-state fight at this point.
The "New Law" is a Constitutional Amendment that's never gotten off the House floor in all the years they've bitched about it. -That-, at least, isn't coming any time soon. It's a state-by-state fight at this point.
As if God would really dissaprove of a ceremony centered around union and love just because its between two men or two women
That's what happens when a Church is allowed to have so much power, it mixes and taints and creates it's own rules so they can control people and gain more power. And even nowadays when it has less power, the legacy of the what the church has done centuries agos has continued to an extent lying to it's followers. I honestly doubt the original bible banned homosexuality, sounds like something that was added in by the church (there was a time I think where no one owned a bible and couldn't look at it, only the church could I think) because so many places had laws against it to begin with.
Reason I'm still a christian but I dislike going to church :\
That's what happens when a Church is allowed to have so much power, it mixes and taints and creates it's own rules so they can control people and gain more power. And even nowadays when it has less power, the legacy of the what the church has done centuries agos has continued to an extent lying to it's followers. I honestly doubt the original bible banned homosexuality, sounds like something that was added in by the church (there was a time I think where no one owned a bible and couldn't look at it, only the church could I think) because so many places had laws against it to begin with.
Reason I'm still a christian but I dislike going to church :\
The bible was edited many, many times, and before it was widely used and printed, only churches had copies of it. But... such as it is.
As for God, well... honestly, the only reason the thing against homosexuality was put in was so there'd be more people to worship. Meh. I'm not sure God had much say in that one.
But whatever. Let's end it here so we don't clog up this submission further. ^^
As for God, well... honestly, the only reason the thing against homosexuality was put in was so there'd be more people to worship. Meh. I'm not sure God had much say in that one.
But whatever. Let's end it here so we don't clog up this submission further. ^^
To be fair, it's mainly been the Mormons at the front of this. We've actually got a number of Christian and multi-faith groups fighting against it under the duel flags of "It's Against Our Religion To Pass That Law" and "Love Thy Neighbor, Even If He Is A Big Gay Homo". So yay them.
best of luck to ya, after all if you guys in cali get it to stick, maybe us hillbilly arkansans can finally get ours done too...
ironic thought, our government is progressive somewhat, whilst our populace is backwoods conservative? if im not mistaken our courts struck down the ban on gay foster parents here, but the citizenry wanted it reinstated...dunno the status of that measure but i digress... also, WICKED CUTE FOR THE PUPPY ON THE POSTER!!!
ironic thought, our government is progressive somewhat, whilst our populace is backwoods conservative? if im not mistaken our courts struck down the ban on gay foster parents here, but the citizenry wanted it reinstated...dunno the status of that measure but i digress... also, WICKED CUTE FOR THE PUPPY ON THE POSTER!!!
I support you... unfortunately, I'm in Illinois so I don't know how much that really means...
I think the Bush Regime is where it all started to go wrong. Bear in mind I don't hate America, just the people presently running it.
Something to work with: The present official definition of Marriage according to Bush is "A sacred union between a man and a woman." With that setup, and the first amendment, nothing that is "sacred" is acknowledged by the government. If this is the official definition, then no laws can be made restricting marriage. On the other hand, the presence of the word "sacred" automatically means it's void in the eyes of the constitution. I think a better definition is "a union between two human-beings."
My big question is, what's the problem? So what if two men, or two women want to get married? How the hell does that affect anyone else? It's the same with Furry haters. Why do they care what's in somebody else' porn collection? Why do they care what two consenting adults are doing in the privacy of their own home?
As near as I can tell it's because they're what I call "Porn Voyeurs." These are people who are not content to simply look at porn, they have to be looking at somebody else' porn. Rather than change what they are looking at, they choose to try and change the person.
What we need is more people in the government who answer to the Constitution and NOT the bible.
I support you and your cause.
I think the Bush Regime is where it all started to go wrong. Bear in mind I don't hate America, just the people presently running it.
Something to work with: The present official definition of Marriage according to Bush is "A sacred union between a man and a woman." With that setup, and the first amendment, nothing that is "sacred" is acknowledged by the government. If this is the official definition, then no laws can be made restricting marriage. On the other hand, the presence of the word "sacred" automatically means it's void in the eyes of the constitution. I think a better definition is "a union between two human-beings."
My big question is, what's the problem? So what if two men, or two women want to get married? How the hell does that affect anyone else? It's the same with Furry haters. Why do they care what's in somebody else' porn collection? Why do they care what two consenting adults are doing in the privacy of their own home?
As near as I can tell it's because they're what I call "Porn Voyeurs." These are people who are not content to simply look at porn, they have to be looking at somebody else' porn. Rather than change what they are looking at, they choose to try and change the person.
What we need is more people in the government who answer to the Constitution and NOT the bible.
I support you and your cause.
We've had the State Congress say "yay" (overruled by the Govunator who said the courts should decide)
We've had the Courts say "yay" (but they don't count, so let's have a vote!)
So fingers crossed we go 3/3 and have the Government, the Courts, and the People all say "Let the faggots marry already, Christ!"
Because then, who would the fundies have left to blame?
We've had the Courts say "yay" (but they don't count, so let's have a vote!)
So fingers crossed we go 3/3 and have the Government, the Courts, and the People all say "Let the faggots marry already, Christ!"
Because then, who would the fundies have left to blame?
Comments