T
teh_nathan
Guest
Posted here as a reference for anyone who wants to refer to it.
The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums
-
Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community
In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
If you do not have an account, please register.
REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your InfoTo register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.
T
teh_nathan
Guest
I can't edit it now that I've posted it but if a mod or admin wouldn't mind editing the post and changing the '400' in the image URL to an 800, then it would be bigger.
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Posts
- 2,947
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Goderich
- Website
- www.facebook.com
Boy does that map make me feel good to be a Canadian! 
Hey Nathan...Do you have one of Europe? I'm kindof curious to see what that looks like!
Hey Nathan...Do you have one of Europe? I'm kindof curious to see what that looks like!
Leidian
Sex God
A map of hate/ignorance. Makes me want to cry.
YAY CANADA!
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Posts
- 2,947
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Goderich
- Website
- www.facebook.com
A map of hate/ignorance. Makes me want to cry.
YAY CANADA!
COME TO CANADA....WE HAVE BETTER TASTING BEER!
Sausy
JUB 10k Club
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2005
- Posts
- 23,727
- Reaction score
- 160
- Points
- 63
One can be critical of aspects of our country,as I do as well,but I am proud,not embarrassed,to be American.There are some things Europe and Canada do really well ,some where you can see underlying flaws and tensions.I do not disparage us as a whole to build up the positive accomplishments and tendencies of our friends in Canada or Europe.
Sausy
JUB 10k Club
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2005
- Posts
- 23,727
- Reaction score
- 160
- Points
- 63
I just know there's a lot of frakking going on!Ooooooh ho ho! I can only imagine what will now ensue!
Hey you know what? I have no idea what the laws are on Caprica...
Lube
Temeritous hirsuteness
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2006
- Posts
- 7,566
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 0
Indeed, no country is perfect. But just as many northern US states are more progressive than southern states, Europe and Canada are more progressive than most US states.
Hence I choose to continue living in the US, but live in a northern progressive state. I wouldn't rule out living in Europe at some point.
cocktales
Sin City Cock-Sucker!!
Damn, double-damn, what is wrong with this picture?
The U.S. has to get with it and stop being so puritanical!
Look at this map, I guess the U.S. is better than having the death penalty; but dammit, why can't we have the same Civil Rights as those of Canada and the European countries....after-all, the U.S. is always saying that we are far ahead of others when it comes to human rights, but this issue puts us back 50+ years!!!
The U.S. has to get with it and stop being so puritanical!
Look at this map, I guess the U.S. is better than having the death penalty; but dammit, why can't we have the same Civil Rights as those of Canada and the European countries....after-all, the U.S. is always saying that we are far ahead of others when it comes to human rights, but this issue puts us back 50+ years!!!
S
slobone
Guest
Oh please, they only passed it last year. And they've been trying to repeal it ever since. Marriage was legal in Massachusetts before Canada.
Incidentally, South Africa is going to have it by the end of this year.
But what about Australia? No civil unions in NSW? Why is that?
CuriousMonkey
Porn Star
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2005
- Posts
- 392
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
What's the basis for the US calling itself the land of the free ? We had best live up to that label . . .
Black people (or, if you are more PC, African-Americans) are still fighting a war which ended over 100 years ago. Gay liberation is still a baby by comparison.
tx_doc
Anything is possible.
I find it ironic that the US is the "land of the free" but countries that are newer in their freedoms for all (such as South Africa) have progressed by leaps and bounds.
halubtsi
Optimist Eternal
The actual timeline of court rulings legalizing gay marriage in the individual Provinces and Territories of Canada is as follows:
1. Ontario Superior Court of Justice: June 10, 2003
2. British Columbia Court of Appeal: July 8, 2003
3. Quebec Court of Appeal: March 19, 2004
4. Yukon Supreme Court: July 14, 2004
5. Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench: Sept. 16, 2004
6. Nova Scotia Supreme Court: Sept. 24, 2004
7. Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench: Nov. 5, 2004
8. Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court: Dec. 21, 2004
9. New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench: June 23, 2005
July 20, 2005 - Bill C-38: The Civil Marriage Act, is granted Royal Assent and becomes law. This Bill did not allow gay marriage, it simply redefined the legal definition of "Marriage." On the eve of the passage of C-38, 90% of the Canadian population could same-sex marry in their own Province or Territory. With the passage of C-38, gay marriage was then made legal in Alberta, Prince Edward Island, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut.
Repealing the Civil Marriage Act and returning to the archaic legal definition of marriage, would allow Alberta, PEI, the NWT and Nunavut to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. However, in the other 8 Provinces and 1 Territory, the court rulings would still apply. The only way to ban gay marriage across the Federation is a ruling handed down from the Supreme Court of Canada.
FYI: Massachussetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that gay marriage was legal, on May 17, 2004
1. Ontario Superior Court of Justice: June 10, 2003
2. British Columbia Court of Appeal: July 8, 2003
3. Quebec Court of Appeal: March 19, 2004
4. Yukon Supreme Court: July 14, 2004
5. Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench: Sept. 16, 2004
6. Nova Scotia Supreme Court: Sept. 24, 2004
7. Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench: Nov. 5, 2004
8. Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court: Dec. 21, 2004
9. New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench: June 23, 2005
July 20, 2005 - Bill C-38: The Civil Marriage Act, is granted Royal Assent and becomes law. This Bill did not allow gay marriage, it simply redefined the legal definition of "Marriage." On the eve of the passage of C-38, 90% of the Canadian population could same-sex marry in their own Province or Territory. With the passage of C-38, gay marriage was then made legal in Alberta, Prince Edward Island, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut.
Repealing the Civil Marriage Act and returning to the archaic legal definition of marriage, would allow Alberta, PEI, the NWT and Nunavut to stop issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. However, in the other 8 Provinces and 1 Territory, the court rulings would still apply. The only way to ban gay marriage across the Federation is a ruling handed down from the Supreme Court of Canada.
FYI: Massachussetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that gay marriage was legal, on May 17, 2004
S
slobone
Guest
Posted here as a reference for anyone who wants to refer to it.
Thank God they didn't use the Mercator projection -- it would have looked even worse.
Thanks, but I think I'll stay here and continue to set an example.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2005
- Posts
- 22,224
- Reaction score
- 110
- Points
- 63
This is somewhat off topic, but two people mentioned to me (during my stops on the massive six-week West Coast trip I just finished) that the CATHOLIC CHURCH used to marry same-sex couples way back when, before the Middle Ages. I didn't research it, but is this true?
If that's the case, that would be very instructive indeed. There is no Christian church (at least in the mainstream) which claims that there was any messiah since the days of Jesus. That would inevitably mean that the antigay laws which later killed same-sex marriages were all done by HUMANS (probably, in all cases, men) who had their own agendas and prejudices.
Is there ANY "state interest" of ANY kind, that would prevent gay marriages because they were not in the best interests of that state? (I am thinking both of U.S. States, as well as national governments as "the state.") If there is anything about such marriages which harms the interests of the state, I can't think of any. Perhaps the agenda is CORPORATE as much as anything; woe to the bottom-line profits of insurance companies if something comes along that allows MORE couples to be co-insured at a lower cost!
In the U.S., though most people are not in favor of GAY MARRIAGE as such, most ARE in favor of equitable treatment and same-sex partnerships giving the couples the rights similar to those of married people...but under another name such as CIVIL UNIONS.
If that's the case, that would be very instructive indeed. There is no Christian church (at least in the mainstream) which claims that there was any messiah since the days of Jesus. That would inevitably mean that the antigay laws which later killed same-sex marriages were all done by HUMANS (probably, in all cases, men) who had their own agendas and prejudices.
Is there ANY "state interest" of ANY kind, that would prevent gay marriages because they were not in the best interests of that state? (I am thinking both of U.S. States, as well as national governments as "the state.") If there is anything about such marriages which harms the interests of the state, I can't think of any. Perhaps the agenda is CORPORATE as much as anything; woe to the bottom-line profits of insurance companies if something comes along that allows MORE couples to be co-insured at a lower cost!
In the U.S., though most people are not in favor of GAY MARRIAGE as such, most ARE in favor of equitable treatment and same-sex partnerships giving the couples the rights similar to those of married people...but under another name such as CIVIL UNIONS.