surrounded

    Newer Older

    KaroliK, Wolfman Jaake, and 147 other people added this photo to their favorites.

    View 20 more comments

    1. moonglampers 65 months ago | reply

      I think all fundamental religious people from all over the world should be rounded up, brought to Cape Canaveral, and Space Shuttled to Mars, where they can carry on with their wars and religiously motivated legislation, and leave the rest of us alone.

    2. TigerLikesTail 65 months ago | reply

      Who cares.
      Live & Let Live.
      Really that simple.
      There are larger fish to fry as far as tax dollars go.
      However it's always easier to cowardly attack areas that are popular to attack, like this area.
      instead of growing some & attacking areas like the complete & utter uselessness of the federal reserve bank, & how it's ruined America.
      Or perhaps our local politicians who spend more of our dollars on political pork to make headway & climb ladders to personal advancement.
      People waste their time lobbying for useless crap.
      Lobby for some real & legitimate changes.

    3. wahidao 65 months ago | reply

      stumbled: awesome, brave.

    4. zenlabudda 64 months ago | reply

      stumbled ....into an example of Americans Free to express themselves. I am especially proud of all the comments and commitment to expressing ourselves, to sharing, contributing, learning and growing.

    5. staceybby 64 months ago | reply

      i hate those homophobic pigs.

    6. foned 64 months ago | reply

      Haha, very nice! I was at three of these protests on green back and sunrise (sacramento area) most of the time was spent in the rain arguing with russian folks.

    7. sml62378 64 months ago | reply

      Ha! Nice!...........You would be amazed to know how many divorcees fight to "protect the sanctity of marriage".........fuckin' hippocrites.........

    8. Izakilldwhiteman [deleted] 63 months ago | reply

      Rock on!

    9. gina94984 62 months ago | reply

      thank you scarborough librarian. i believe that between both your posts you have covered most of the ground that needed to be said. l.n.batides is trying to make an argument that is fallacious at best and demonstrates why a separation of church and state occurred in the first place. church doctrine was based on what a few powerful leaders decided it should be based upon their interpretations of ancient and antiquated teachings and was applied so heavily and without common sense for the common good that people revolted. so many revolving arguments and holding onto power at all costs was finally broken by the ability of people to become literate and educated. the evolution of human rights that has occurred over the last 150 years has been phenomenal and has to a huge degree been driven by non-religious thinking called compassion and good common sense.

    10. padlok_47 61 months ago | reply

      marriage needs to be defined as either a legal contract or a religious rite.
      because we [ostensibly] enjoy a separation of church and state the government should have no authority in the practice of a religious rite. also no legal prohibition based on the doctrine of one religion should limit the freedoms of citizens not of that faith. [i.e. just because observant jews deny themselves pork doesn't mean i have to].
      viewed in this light the question is not so complex.
      if marriage is a legal contract then it is sexual discrimination to allow tom to wed sally but hold it unlawful for jane to wed sally. you have withheld from jane based on her sex.
      if on the other hand marriage is a religious rite the government has no business licensing it, [a license is the government's permission to do something that is otherwise illegal, ...look it up], much less dictating upon whom and under what circumstances such a religious rite could be performed. and definitely no authority to recognize such a rite in the law. [imagine if there were a law that extended a tax break to people who'd been baptized or to those who'd made the pilgrimage to mecca].
      the legal benefits of marriage cannot be withheld from any party of consenting adults by a government that is not practicing discrimination.

      on a more confrontational note: i challenge anyone to explain to me how the marriage of the guy down the street to another guy [or his brother, sister or dog, for that matter] "threatens" the marriage of a heterosexual fundie couple in bumfuckville, biblebeltistan. if you can explain why your marriage vows are so delicate that mere existence of married couple of the same sex could "threaten'" them then i will begin to consider the possibility that there is some motivation beyond bigotry and bullying in your quest to dictate other people's sex lives.

    11. padlok_47 61 months ago | reply

      oh, and scarborough librarian is hot!

    12. Harinama 60 months ago | reply

      Marriage should be ONLY done via religious institutions with no civil benefits whatsoever.

      Civil Unions should be required for everyone and ONLY performed by state-sponsored personnel and provide the benefits that marriage does presently.

      Thus, homophobic pseudo religious nuts get their "marriage" which is only a piece of paper, and EVERYONE gets civil unions which actually bestow the benefits of it.

      Separate marriage(religious) from Civil Unions(state), and everyone is happy!

    13. rdaved 59 months ago | reply

      USA is a very strange place indeed.
      Is it not meant to be a free country?

    14. jellos4peace [deleted] 59 months ago | reply

      THAT.
      IS.
      AMAZING!
      lol!

    15. baddyart 59 months ago | reply

      I absolutely love this. That guy wins the clever protest sign of the year award.

    16. mostly-cloudy 58 months ago | reply

      it's funny because after he left he was just surrounded by fascists

    17. p medved 58 months ago | reply

      Yep, I stumbled here. Great pic! I am so curious to know what the hell they mean by 'free speech'? Since when is restricting or denying the rights of others considered free speech?

    18. NotSoPC 52 months ago | reply

      Laws are mans laws lets them write what ever the heck "laws" they want. Those so called laws are meant for the law makers not sovereigns of the land. Personally I live by Gods Law. I had a friend say to me once about faith in god. "Its much better to believe and be wrong, then to live life with no faith and be wrong." The fact of the matter is 70 years that is about all we get (some more so than others) . Gay, strait, or other who f*#kin cares. Spend your 70 the way you want (with or without faith), and let everyone else do the same. We will all answer for our choices in the end. The only thing I have a problem with is the "in your face" attitude homos have.
      Look I don't parade down main street AMERICA dry humping my girl for all to see. I don't want to hear about it or see it from gays. You want to be gay fine be gay; you want to tell people you know fine. Other than that do what the rest of us do...KEEP IT IN THE BEDROOM.

    19. SamanthaElizabeth Photography 51 months ago | reply

      this is why I love stumbleupon.com it showed me this picture, AWESOME

    keyboard shortcuts: previous photo next photo L view in light box F favorite < scroll film strip left > scroll film strip right ? show all shortcuts