Fairfax County General :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
No Dogs for Gays
Posted by:
Animal Rights
()
Date: February 09, 2012 02:30PM
RICHMOND, Va. - The Virginia Senate has passed legislation allowing private animal adoption agencies to deny placements that conflict with their religious or moral beliefs, including opposition to homosexuality.
The 22-18 vote Thursday virtually ensures the bill will become law. The House of Delegates has passed similar legislation, and Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell says he will sign the measure if it reaches his desk. Virginia would become just the second state with such a law.
Republican Sen. Jeffrey McWaters of Virginia Beach says his bill protects the religious rights of private adoption agencies. Opponents argue that the government, which contracts with dozens of state-licensed agencies, shouldn't sanction discrimination.
The legislation is based on regulations adopted by the Virginia Board of Social Services in December.
The 22-18 vote Thursday virtually ensures the bill will become law. The House of Delegates has passed similar legislation, and Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell says he will sign the measure if it reaches his desk. Virginia would become just the second state with such a law.
Republican Sen. Jeffrey McWaters of Virginia Beach says his bill protects the religious rights of private adoption agencies. Opponents argue that the government, which contracts with dozens of state-licensed agencies, shouldn't sanction discrimination.
The legislation is based on regulations adopted by the Virginia Board of Social Services in December.
Re: No Dogs for Gays
Posted by:
friskydingo
()
Date: February 09, 2012 02:42PM
We shoulda sent Brian to Richmond !
Re: No Dogs for Gays
Posted by:
BEH
()
Date: February 09, 2012 02:47PM
This is a result of the sodomization of an Irish Setter at So Addictive Lounge.
Re: No Dogs for Gays
Posted by:
Gaymoose1
()
Date: February 09, 2012 02:48PM
How the fuck is Graymoose1 allowed to have dogs?
Attachments:
Attachments:
Re: No Dogs for Gays
Posted by:
Warhawk
()
Date: February 09, 2012 02:51PM
Dogs are always sniffing each other's assholes, so it's like they're part gay anyway. Who cares. Doesn't our state/local/federal government have better things to do?
__________________________________
That's not a ladybug, that's a cannapiller.
__________________________________
That's not a ladybug, that's a cannapiller.
Re: No Dogs for Gays
Posted by:
Fe Fi Fo Fum
()
Date: February 09, 2012 03:09PM
I smell a troll here
Re: No Dogs for Gays
Posted by:
not fake!
()
Date: February 09, 2012 03:37PM
It's true:
http://www.delmarvanow.com/usatoday/article/38538251?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|frontpage|p
http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Va-Senate-passes-adoption-discrimination-bill-3196265.php
http://www.delmarvanow.com/usatoday/article/38538251?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|frontpage|p
http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Va-Senate-passes-adoption-discrimination-bill-3196265.php
Re: No Dogs for Gays
Posted by:
BuckFutterman
()
Date: February 09, 2012 03:43PM
Animal Rights Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RICHMOND, Va. - The Virginia Senate has passed
> legislation allowing private animal adoption
> agencies to deny placements that conflict with
> their religious or moral beliefs, including
> opposition to homosexuality.
>
> The 22-18 vote Thursday virtually ensures the bill
> will become law. The House of Delegates has passed
> similar legislation, and Republican Gov. Bob
> McDonnell says he will sign the measure if it
> reaches his desk. Virginia would become just the
> second state with such a law.
>
> Republican Sen. Jeffrey McWaters of Virginia Beach
> says his bill protects the religious rights of
> private adoption agencies. Opponents argue that
> the government, which contracts with dozens of
> state-licensed agencies, shouldn't sanction
> discrimination.
>
> The legislation is based on regulations adopted by
> the Virginia Board of Social Services in December.
Seriously? This is the ridiculous shit our state legislators spend their time on?
-------------------------------------------------------
> RICHMOND, Va. - The Virginia Senate has passed
> legislation allowing private animal adoption
> agencies to deny placements that conflict with
> their religious or moral beliefs, including
> opposition to homosexuality.
>
> The 22-18 vote Thursday virtually ensures the bill
> will become law. The House of Delegates has passed
> similar legislation, and Republican Gov. Bob
> McDonnell says he will sign the measure if it
> reaches his desk. Virginia would become just the
> second state with such a law.
>
> Republican Sen. Jeffrey McWaters of Virginia Beach
> says his bill protects the religious rights of
> private adoption agencies. Opponents argue that
> the government, which contracts with dozens of
> state-licensed agencies, shouldn't sanction
> discrimination.
>
> The legislation is based on regulations adopted by
> the Virginia Board of Social Services in December.
Seriously? This is the ridiculous shit our state legislators spend their time on?
Re: No Dogs for Gays
Posted by:
Ding an sich
()
Date: February 09, 2012 03:56PM
Does the Bible say homosexuals can't own dogs..?
Re: No Dogs for Gays
Posted by:
R_in_FFX
()
Date: February 09, 2012 04:00PM
So I guess if your local Praise_Jesus!_Cats_Dogs_Shelter dont want to let a gay couple adopt an animal, they can turn them away? Shouldnt we just be thrilled there are people out there that want to give these poor creatures home? I mean I hardly see how your choice of inserting various parts of your body into the holes of another person's body has anything to do with your ability to feed and walk the dog in the morning.
Re: No Dogs for Gays
Posted by:
graymoose1
()
Date: February 09, 2012 04:10PM
Thanks for the good laugh gaymoose
---------------------------------------------------
W.W.S.D. what would Scooby Doo
---------------------------------------------------
W.W.S.D. what would Scooby Doo
Re: No Dogs for Gays
Posted by:
Private Enterprise
()
Date: February 09, 2012 04:21PM
This is a colossal waste of time, to make a statement. While I'm conservative, I don't give a shit if someone is gay, straight, bi, whatever, what color, what religion, etc. Yet as it stands, the state does not protect gays from discrimination. At least legislatively yet, thus allowing this sort of stupidity. Geez.
Re: No Dogs for Gays
Posted by:
Taylor
()
Date: February 09, 2012 04:35PM
As ridiculous as the title of this thread sounds, this is not about Gays and their ability to care for animals, or their right to own pets. This is about the Government not forcing citizens to go against their moral or religious beliefs. I agree that it's stupid not to allow Gays to adopt rescue animals.............. I ALSO think that it's stupid not to eat pork but I would definitely be against the Government passing a law that required Muslim owned & operated restaurants to prepare and serve pork dishes in order to not discriminate against people that like to eat pork.
In short, regardless of how stupid it sounds, the Government should not be dictating to privately owned businesses, religious schools, etc. that they practice acts that go against their fundamental beliefs.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/2012 04:38PM by Taylor.
In short, regardless of how stupid it sounds, the Government should not be dictating to privately owned businesses, religious schools, etc. that they practice acts that go against their fundamental beliefs.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/2012 04:38PM by Taylor.
Re: No Dogs for Gays
Posted by:
Ding an sich
()
Date: February 09, 2012 04:37PM
Taylor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In short, regardless of how stupid it sounds, the
> Government should not be dictating to privately
> owned businesses, religious schools, etc. that
> they practice acts that go against their
> fundamental beliefs.
Sure, but what religion says anything about homosexuals being prohibited from owning pets? They're not refusing to marry gay couples, they're refusing to provide them with animals. That has nothing to do with religious beliefs - it's pure prejudice.
-------------------------------------------------------
> In short, regardless of how stupid it sounds, the
> Government should not be dictating to privately
> owned businesses, religious schools, etc. that
> they practice acts that go against their
> fundamental beliefs.
Sure, but what religion says anything about homosexuals being prohibited from owning pets? They're not refusing to marry gay couples, they're refusing to provide them with animals. That has nothing to do with religious beliefs - it's pure prejudice.
Re: No Dogs for Gays
Posted by:
Taylor
()
Date: February 09, 2012 04:46PM
Ding an sich Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Taylor Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > In short, regardless of how stupid it sounds,
> the
> > Government should not be dictating to privately
> > owned businesses, religious schools, etc. that
> > they practice acts that go against their
> > fundamental beliefs.
>
>
> Sure, but what religion says anything about
> homosexuals being prohibited from owning pets?
> They're not refusing to marry gay couples, they're
> refusing to provide them with animals. That has
> nothing to do with religious beliefs - it's pure
> prejudice.
I would imagine, (and I really don't know aside from supposition), that maybe some religions avoid doing business with homosexuals. Or maybe they feel that if they are morally opposed to homosexuality that placing rescue animals into Gay households is somehow "sanctioning" homosexuality?
I don't really know, and I find it just as moronic, stupid, and closed-minded as you do. But if someone REALLY is against something for moral/religious reasons then I don't believe that the Government can/should force them to do it.
As I said before, I think that refusing to eat a piece of bacon because God "will get mad", is completely ridiculous, but if a Muslim believes strongly in that then I absolutely believe that the Government has no right to force the Muslim to eat pork, or to cater to people who do eat pork.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/2012 04:47PM by Taylor.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Taylor Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > In short, regardless of how stupid it sounds,
> the
> > Government should not be dictating to privately
> > owned businesses, religious schools, etc. that
> > they practice acts that go against their
> > fundamental beliefs.
>
>
> Sure, but what religion says anything about
> homosexuals being prohibited from owning pets?
> They're not refusing to marry gay couples, they're
> refusing to provide them with animals. That has
> nothing to do with religious beliefs - it's pure
> prejudice.
I would imagine, (and I really don't know aside from supposition), that maybe some religions avoid doing business with homosexuals. Or maybe they feel that if they are morally opposed to homosexuality that placing rescue animals into Gay households is somehow "sanctioning" homosexuality?
I don't really know, and I find it just as moronic, stupid, and closed-minded as you do. But if someone REALLY is against something for moral/religious reasons then I don't believe that the Government can/should force them to do it.
As I said before, I think that refusing to eat a piece of bacon because God "will get mad", is completely ridiculous, but if a Muslim believes strongly in that then I absolutely believe that the Government has no right to force the Muslim to eat pork, or to cater to people who do eat pork.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/2012 04:47PM by Taylor.
Re: No Dogs for Gays
Posted by:
Ding an sich
()
Date: February 09, 2012 04:51PM
Yeah, only thing with that is, the Quran actually forbids the consumption of pig. To my knowlege, there is no religion that forbids the ownership of animals to homosexuals.
Re: No Dogs for Gays
Posted by:
u r dense
()
Date: February 09, 2012 04:54PM
Ding an sich Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, only thing with that is, the Quran actually
> forbids the consumption of pig. To my knowlege,
> there is no religion that forbids the ownership of
> animals to homosexuals.
And there is no law that says as much either.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, only thing with that is, the Quran actually
> forbids the consumption of pig. To my knowlege,
> there is no religion that forbids the ownership of
> animals to homosexuals.
And there is no law that says as much either.
Re: No Dogs for Gays
Posted by:
Taylor
()
Date: February 09, 2012 04:56PM
Ding an sich Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, only thing with that is, the Quran actually
> forbids the consumption of pig. To my knowlege,
> there is no religion that forbids the ownership of
> animals to homosexuals.
Yes, but as I said, perhaps it's not the ownership of animals that is the issue. Maybe it's just doing business with homosexuals in general out of some sort of fear that they might appear to be condoning homosexuality.
The Quran probably doesn't specifically say that Muslims can't buy their meats from a butcher that also slaughters and butchers pigs, but they probably WOULDN'T do business with him just because they don't agree with the eating of pork.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, only thing with that is, the Quran actually
> forbids the consumption of pig. To my knowlege,
> there is no religion that forbids the ownership of
> animals to homosexuals.
Yes, but as I said, perhaps it's not the ownership of animals that is the issue. Maybe it's just doing business with homosexuals in general out of some sort of fear that they might appear to be condoning homosexuality.
The Quran probably doesn't specifically say that Muslims can't buy their meats from a butcher that also slaughters and butchers pigs, but they probably WOULDN'T do business with him just because they don't agree with the eating of pork.
Re: No Dogs for Gays
Posted by:
graymoose1
()
Date: February 09, 2012 05:13PM
We have a three page application and a two page contract. When we look for the right family or person to adopt a dog to. Race, religion, color, or sexual preference DOES NOT matter. What we look for is for the adopter and dog to be a good match.
---------------------------------------------------
W.W.S.D. what would Scooby Doo
---------------------------------------------------
W.W.S.D. what would Scooby Doo
Re: No Dogs for Gays
Posted by:
richard seemans
()
Date: February 09, 2012 05:19PM
Could it just have been gerbils they wouldnt let gays adopt? I mean dogs and cats should be ok. I hope no one sticks a dog up his ass.
Re: No Dogs for Gays
Posted by:
Unbelievable
()
Date: February 09, 2012 05:50PM
Either the OP misread the ruling, or I did, or he's punking us. As far as I can tell this legislation applies to CHILD adoption agencies, not PET adoption agencies. Not that that's any better.
The amazing thing is Virginia politicians have become so rabidly homophobic, misogonistic, and racist that almost no one here didn't believe this was true.
It wouldn't surprise me if this was the next thing on their agenda.
Much as they may try, Virgina can't turn back the clock. The South didn't win, blacks were emancipated, women have the vote, and gay people exist (including in the Senate). Do you really want to give these borderline lunatics even more power in the next election?
The amazing thing is Virginia politicians have become so rabidly homophobic, misogonistic, and racist that almost no one here didn't believe this was true.
It wouldn't surprise me if this was the next thing on their agenda.
Much as they may try, Virgina can't turn back the clock. The South didn't win, blacks were emancipated, women have the vote, and gay people exist (including in the Senate). Do you really want to give these borderline lunatics even more power in the next election?
Re: No Dogs for Gays
Posted by:
fo
()
Date: February 09, 2012 06:15PM
You ain't seen nuthin' yet. The State of Virginia is now under the total control of conservative republicans.
Any crazy fucking thing these wingnuts can dream up WILL become State law. One-party rule by EITHER party is a bad, bad thing. There's no way to counter the lunacy of the far left or right. Sad times are comin'.
Any crazy fucking thing these wingnuts can dream up WILL become State law. One-party rule by EITHER party is a bad, bad thing. There's no way to counter the lunacy of the far left or right. Sad times are comin'.
Re: No Dogs for Gays
Posted by:
Tell it, bro
()
Date: February 09, 2012 06:29PM
fo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You ain't seen nuthin' yet. The State of Virginia
> is now under the total control of conservative
> republicans.
>
> Any crazy fucking thing these wingnuts can dream
> up WILL become State law. One-party rule by
> EITHER party is a bad, bad thing. There's no way
> to counter the lunacy of the far left or right.
> Sad times are comin'.
Shit. Right-wing idiots in Richmond will make VA as much as laughing stock as the liberal dopes in MD have done to their state for years. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
-------------------------------------------------------
> You ain't seen nuthin' yet. The State of Virginia
> is now under the total control of conservative
> republicans.
>
> Any crazy fucking thing these wingnuts can dream
> up WILL become State law. One-party rule by
> EITHER party is a bad, bad thing. There's no way
> to counter the lunacy of the far left or right.
> Sad times are comin'.
Shit. Right-wing idiots in Richmond will make VA as much as laughing stock as the liberal dopes in MD have done to their state for years. Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Re: No Dogs for Gays
Posted by:
Fuckyou1_KTA
()
Date: February 09, 2012 07:31PM
You're all overlooking the perspective of the dogs here. I'm sure they'd all rather get euthanized than dressed up in cute little outfits every damn day.
Re: No Dogs for Gays
Posted by:
To Fuckyou1_KTA
()
Date: February 09, 2012 08:09PM
Well, if that's the best you got, it's time to do your homework, junior, and let the adults talk.
Re: No Dogs for Gays
Posted by:
blake lane 73
()
Date: February 09, 2012 08:33PM
Some of this is pretty good, but I'm confused. Are we talking about adopting dogs ,children ,pork or eating pork or dog with or without religious guidance? Maybe this law is a thinly disguised Korean restaurant/gay club control measure aimied at preventing the consumption of sexually abused
Shi-Tsu s. I think all reasonable men should be able to "get behind" such a piece of legislation. I hear Colon Bowel the retired gay general will be
appearing to lend a hand.
Shi-Tsu s. I think all reasonable men should be able to "get behind" such a piece of legislation. I hear Colon Bowel the retired gay general will be
appearing to lend a hand.
Re: No Dogs for Gays
Posted by:
Fuckyou1_KTA
()
Date: February 09, 2012 08:39PM
To Fuckyou1_KTA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, if that's the best you got, it's time to do
> your homework, junior, and let the adults talk.
Or, if you're going to be a snide piece of shit, I can make 100 pointless posts and maybe throw in some urethral sounding just for kicks. Shut the fuck up.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, if that's the best you got, it's time to do
> your homework, junior, and let the adults talk.
Or, if you're going to be a snide piece of shit, I can make 100 pointless posts and maybe throw in some urethral sounding just for kicks. Shut the fuck up.
Re: No Dogs for Gays
Posted by:
Pinhead the Cenobite
()
Date: February 09, 2012 08:44PM
That is just lovely.
-----------------------------------------------
"...your suffering will be legendary even in Hell!"
-----------------------------------------------
"...your suffering will be legendary even in Hell!"
Re: No Dogs for Gays
Posted by:
bahaha
()
Date: February 10, 2012 01:12AM
I guess rusty hall won't be adopting any time soon
Re: No Dogs for Gays
Posted by:
BuckFutterman
()
Date: February 10, 2012 01:41AM
Unbelievable Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Either the OP misread the ruling, or I did, or
> he's punking us. As far as I can tell this
> legislation applies to CHILD adoption agencies,
> not PET adoption agencies. Not that that's any
> better.
>
The original poster took the actual Associated Press report and modified it by adding the word "animal" to the first sentence, changing a legitimate news report into a troll post.
So yes, we have all been successfully trolled.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Either the OP misread the ruling, or I did, or
> he's punking us. As far as I can tell this
> legislation applies to CHILD adoption agencies,
> not PET adoption agencies. Not that that's any
> better.
>
The original poster took the actual Associated Press report and modified it by adding the word "animal" to the first sentence, changing a legitimate news report into a troll post.
So yes, we have all been successfully trolled.
Re: No Dogs for Gays
Posted by:
Animal Rights
()
Date: February 10, 2012 09:18AM
BuckFutterman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Unbelievable Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Either the OP misread the ruling, or I did, or
> > he's punking us. As far as I can tell this
> > legislation applies to CHILD adoption agencies,
> > not PET adoption agencies. Not that that's any
> > better.
> >
> The original poster took the actual Associated
> Press report and modified it by adding the word
> "animal" to the first sentence, changing a
> legitimate news report into a troll post.
>
> So yes, we have all been successfully trolled.
Correct, that's exactly what I did. Brian S. figured it out right away. When I read the news story it just popped into my head. Y'know, the best part of humor is that with an element of truth.
Thank you for playing.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Unbelievable Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Either the OP misread the ruling, or I did, or
> > he's punking us. As far as I can tell this
> > legislation applies to CHILD adoption agencies,
> > not PET adoption agencies. Not that that's any
> > better.
> >
> The original poster took the actual Associated
> Press report and modified it by adding the word
> "animal" to the first sentence, changing a
> legitimate news report into a troll post.
>
> So yes, we have all been successfully trolled.
Correct, that's exactly what I did. Brian S. figured it out right away. When I read the news story it just popped into my head. Y'know, the best part of humor is that with an element of truth.
Thank you for playing.
Re: No Dogs for Gays
Posted by:
Fuckyou1_KTA
()
Date: February 10, 2012 03:19PM
Animal Rights Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BuckFutterman Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Unbelievable Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Either the OP misread the ruling, or I did,
> or
> > > he's punking us. As far as I can tell this
> > > legislation applies to CHILD adoption
> agencies,
> > > not PET adoption agencies. Not that that's
> any
> > > better.
> > >
> > The original poster took the actual Associated
> > Press report and modified it by adding the word
> > "animal" to the first sentence, changing a
> > legitimate news report into a troll post.
> >
> > So yes, we have all been successfully trolled.
>
>
> Correct, that's exactly what I did. Brian S.
> figured it out right away. When I read the news
> story it just popped into my head. Y'know, the
> best part of humor is that with an element of
> truth.
>
> Thank you for playing.
10/10. If we had not been so damn lazy as to not even read the article ourselves maybe it wouldn't have worked out in your favor. But what can I say, I'm not a big reader.
-------------------------------------------------------
> BuckFutterman Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Unbelievable Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Either the OP misread the ruling, or I did,
> or
> > > he's punking us. As far as I can tell this
> > > legislation applies to CHILD adoption
> agencies,
> > > not PET adoption agencies. Not that that's
> any
> > > better.
> > >
> > The original poster took the actual Associated
> > Press report and modified it by adding the word
> > "animal" to the first sentence, changing a
> > legitimate news report into a troll post.
> >
> > So yes, we have all been successfully trolled.
>
>
> Correct, that's exactly what I did. Brian S.
> figured it out right away. When I read the news
> story it just popped into my head. Y'know, the
> best part of humor is that with an element of
> truth.
>
> Thank you for playing.
10/10. If we had not been so damn lazy as to not even read the article ourselves maybe it wouldn't have worked out in your favor. But what can I say, I'm not a big reader.
Re: No Dogs for Gays
Posted by:
curious
()
Date: February 10, 2012 03:55PM
The funny thing about this law is that it could allow you to specify that your child (which you, the incompetent parent who is turning the child over to the state,) can only be adopted by devil worshipers.
Re: No Dogs for Gays
Posted by:
Devon
()
Date: February 10, 2012 04:23PM
Anyone got any peanut butter?