Feline Ceramic Tile Murals
1 week ago
The Enchanted Thingamajig
Welcome
Hugo Award winning artist George Barr has been drawing and painting in the fantasy and science fiction field for over 30 years.
For a detailed Biography, please check out the Official website The Enchanted Thingamajig
George's art is now being offered on several Print-on-Demand sites on T-Shirts, Mugs, Greeting Cards, Posters and many other gift items.
The designs offered in our various POD stores are practically the same. But each site:
Cafepress
Zazzle
Printfection
has different types of merchandise, in various styles and colors.
6/11/2009
Boycott Cafepress T-shirt from Zazzle.com
Boycott Cafepress T-shirt from Zazzle.com
Shared via AddThis
1/13/2009
New Valentine's Day Pirate Designs on Cafepress
Avast,ye lubbers! Shiver me timbers!
Our newest Valentine Pirate designs.
Even the most scurvy old sea dog of a pirate cannot resist the siren call of love.
Savvy?
Jolly Roger Heart (Cutlass)
Avast,ye lubbers! Shiver me timbers!
A dashing jolly roger with a cutlass in his teeth.
Savvy?
Jolly Roger Heart (Rose)
Avast,ye lubbers! Shiver me timbers!
Here's a bewitchin' female jolly roger holdin' a pretty red rose in her delicate teeth.
Savvy?
9/29/2008
Halloween Designs
Halloween designs both creepy and cute, for those who appreciate the weird,
the strange and the unearthly on t-shirts,trick or treat bags, and gift items.
A trio of humorous vintage Hollywood Halloween creatures:A Man-made Monster, a Vampire Count and a Werewolf.
the strange and the unearthly on t-shirts,trick or treat bags, and gift items.
An age old warning, and a coven of ghostly, skeletal halloween witches.
Halloween Wind
A full Halloween moon and an October wind tossing the leaves and the hair of a bewitching fairy
A full Halloween moon and an October wind tossing the leaves and the hair of a bewitching fairy
A tree of death and a full Halloween moon, it’s gnarled trunk entwined with the twisted ghosts of its past. A dark gothic fantasy.
A trio of humorous vintage Hollywood Halloween creatures:
8/27/2008
Talk Like A Pirate Day
Avast! Ye lubbers! It's almost "Talk Like a Pirate Day"! What will you and yer scurvy crew be wearing?
New Pirate Designs
+Dark+T-Shirt.jpg)
Jolly Roger (Cutlass)
Avast,ye lubbers! Shiver me timbers! A dashing jolly roger with a cutlass in his teeth. Savvy?
+Women%27s+Dark+T-Shirt.jpg)
Jolly Roger(Rose)
Avast,ye lubbers! Shiver me timbers! Here's a bewitchin' female jolly roger holdin' a pretty red rose in her delicate teeth. Savvy?
Buccaneer Brand
Avast,ye lubbers! Shiver me timbers! The classic jolly roger, a skull and crossbones. What other brand would a real pirate wear, when you are..... sailing the Caribbean, plundering the seven seas or swashbuckling. Savvy?
Celtic Magic-The Great Tree
Celtic Magic-The Great Tree
We have updated one of our most popular designs. It's now much larger and more detailed, and we've added touch of color to the moon and stars.
Surrounded by a border of celtic knots, a stylized, mystical forest and riders in tones of green. In the Celtic Book of Taliesin, there is a poem called Cad Goddeu, or the 'Battle of the Trees'. In this mythical battle at Caer Nefenhir, the mighty wizard Gwyddion transformed a forest of trees into an attacking army.
This design is now also available as posters and framed prints.
How Normal is Heterosexuality?
With Gay Marriage in the headlines nearly everyday, I am reprinting an article that seems relivant:
by Daryl Abbot
(Reprinted with the permission of the author)
It’s doubtful that any homosexual in the world truthfully believes that statement. But it’s quite evident that a very vocal segment of the straight public does. How else explain their absolute certainty that allowing gay marriage will undermine “traditional” marriage and bring about the downfall of society?
Every mother and father prove, by fierce opposition to the idea of men marrying men, that they are morally certain their own sons will inevitably make that choice if the choice is available to them. Either that, or their sons are so weak-willed that they can’t prevent themselves from being enticed into it by evil men even when their own inclinations are not in that direction. By their condemning even the holding of hands in public they betray their assurance that men, seeing it, will of course do it.
It’s difficult to find a straight man who would even acknowledge the possibility that he, himself, might have made such a choice. But his fear of allowing that choice to the general public is strong evidence that he believes almost everyone else would.
I expressed puzzlement to a conservatively religious friend, several years ago, about why his church should have been so strongly against the Equal Rights Amendment. To help me better understand it he brought me a pamphlet published by his church explaining its position. It did help me to understand the opposition, but not the reasoning behind it.
There was, predictably, a lot of smoke-screen horror about legally mandated uni-sex lavatories. That could be overlooked as the nit-picking that it genuinely was. But it seemed fairly obvious to me that, in their insistence that Wife-and-Mother was the proper and “natural” role for women, they were overlooking the fact that – were it true –women would quite naturally gravitate to that role without it being necessary to have laws making it difficult to do otherwise. The fear that, having equal opportunity and guaranteed equal pay, women would en masse abandon their “natural” role in life and flock to the work force to compete with men, evidenced to me a great deal of uncertainty on the part of the church about what really was natural.
Another of the inexplicable reasons was that: if the law guaranteed equal treatment of the sexes then, if women were legally allowed to marry men, men could not be denied the right to also marry men.
I hadn’t even considered that aspect of it, but I had to admit it would have caused a reaction in the public that would have gone far beyond the intent of the ERA. I couldn’t, however, agree with the stated view of the inevitable result of such a thing: the whole concept of “family” would be torn asunder. Homosexuals would be adopting and raising innocent children. Marriage would no longer be the sacred institution it now is, and the world in chaos would spiral inexorably to hell. Wow.
“Terry,” I said to my friend, “tell me honestly: if some hypothetical Fred and Bob down the street got married legally and lived openly together, how would that affect the sanctity of your marriage? How could your marriage possibly be different because of it?”
“Well, mine wouldn’t, of course,” he said with a roll of his eyes, indicating that it was a pretty silly idea.
“Then whose would it affect?” I asked.
He thought a moment, opened his mouth a couple of times, changed his mind about whatever it was he’d intended to say, then replied: “Mostly it would be a bad example for our kids. It would lead them to believe that it was all right.”
“So,” I continued, “your kids would decide, because of that, to marry someone of their own sex?”
He didn’t want to say that. I might infer that there was something wrong with his three little pre-schoolers. “Well, they’d get the idea that it was an acceptable choice.”
“And you think,” I nodded, “that whether or not to fall in love with another man is a matter of choice.”
“Of course it is!” he replied, looking at me as if there was something wrong with me for not knowing that.
“Could you have fallen in love with another man?” I asked.
He gave me a Jeez-what-kind-of-an-idiot-do-you-take-me-for look. “No! Of course not.”
“Why not?” I persisted.
He thought about that for a moment. “Because of the way I was taught,” he said finally. “Because I was raised right. Because of my testimony of the gospel.”
I reminded him of some recent publicity about the son of one of the higher-ups in his church who had publicly owned up to being gay. “What do you suppose was wrong with the way he was taught?”
“I don’t know,” he admitted. “But something went wrong. He couldn’t have made that choice if he’d really believed.”
“Unless maybe he didn’t have a choice,” I suggested.
He shook his head. “There’s always a choice. I couldn’t have made that choice because I know it’s wrong.”
“So every one of the thousands of gay Christians made that choice,” I said, “because they all lacked your testimony and strength of character?”
“Well. . .” he hesitated, not wanting to sound quite that conceited, but obviously thinking exactly that. “I couldn’t say why they chose it, but I know they did. I know it is a matter of choice. I’ve known a few gays. I’m not prejudiced or anything, but I am a father. And I don’t want people like that living where my kids can see them.”
He made that statement, sitting in the living room of a neighbor’s home: a house shared for over two decades by a couple of middle-aged men. . . a home he’d visited and been welcomed into for nearly two years. He made that statement to men he’d laughed with, prayed with, and had invited to join his family for Thanksgiving (an invitation which was much appreciated but not accepted.)
I believe his convictions and sensitivity are representative of most devout Christians. . . including the authorities whose teachings on the subject form the basis of those convictions.
There is much talk of what is “normal” and “natural.” But those doing the talking obviously don’t believe in those concepts at all. Anything normal and natural will be done – normally and naturally – by the vast majority without any encouragement, and in spite of any efforts to make them do otherwise. That’s normal and natural.
If that were what people truly believed – that man was meant to love only women – they’d have no reason at all to believe that laws to safeguard it would be necessary. It would be impossible to prevent it. People naturally do what is natural. They normally do what is normal. It could hardly be considered normal and natural if they didn’t.
It hasn’t been necessary to pass laws limiting penmanship to the right hand. The great majority of people write that way quite naturally. If someone induces a child to try it with his left hand, there’s little need to fear that it will change his basic orientation. If he’s right-handed, it won’t feel right to him and he’ll probably not do it again. . . in spite of the minority of people he can readily observe doing it in the way that feels so wrong to him. Their not being condemned for it doesn’t create a danger that he might be persuaded to change his orientation. In spite of that minority who do write that way quite comfortably and naturally, the rest of the world isn’t aching for the opportunity to be left-handed.
However, quite obviously the whole world is aching to be homosexual. The hold that heterosexuality has on people is so tenuous that one step in the other direction is all it will take to undo a lifetime of indoctrination. Homosexuality is so much more attractive a way of life that if a boy learns in school that the law allows him to marry another boy, then girls will never be of interest to him. He’ll never want to be a father. He’ll never want to watch football, go deer hunting, or go to war. Soon there won’t be anybody left to do those things and the whole world will go to hell.
That is the inescapable conclusion to be drawn when people say: “If homosexual marriage is allowed, the moral fabric of society will decay. If men can marry men openly, and flaunt their relationships in society’s face, then our civilization will fall as inevitably as did Greece and Rome.”
History doesn’t record it, but evidently both civilizations ceased to exist because men married men, and not enough children were born to keep their legions going. Government corruption had nothing to do with it; it was the homos who destroyed Greece and Rome.
If so vast a number of men would (if the law allowed it) choose relationships with other men, then our entire concept of what is natural and normal is completely off-base. Homosexuality is obviously stronger than heterosexuality. It’s a more attractive and alluring possibility, a more exciting and satisfying lifestyle. If all the years of concerted effort on the part of heterosexual parents, school teachers, church figures, and popular entertainers can’t turn gay children straight. . . but just the possibility of being able to be openly gay is enough to guarantee the downfall of society, then homosexuality must be what nature intended. There’s no other explanation.
Every little boy must lie awake nights cursing the fact that everyone seems determined that he must get married, raise a family, and – worst of all – have sex with a woman. . . when what he really wants. . . all he really wants out of life. . . is a nice older man who will give him presents for doing what he’d really rather be doing anyway.
Seeing how irresistible homosexuality must be, it’s truly a miracle that the animals have survived all these millennia, since they don’t have the intelligence to make a choice based on morality.
For all of these years people have said that homosexuality was a “crime against nature,” and instead it is nature. Rules have to be passed forcing heterosexuality upon unwilling humanity or the race simply won’t survive another generation. In the name of civilization, how can we oppose such laws?
END
by Daryl Abbot
(Reprinted with the permission of the author)
Every man, basically, wants to marry another man and would do so if there were not laws to prevent it.
It’s doubtful that any homosexual in the world truthfully believes that statement. But it’s quite evident that a very vocal segment of the straight public does. How else explain their absolute certainty that allowing gay marriage will undermine “traditional” marriage and bring about the downfall of society?
Every mother and father prove, by fierce opposition to the idea of men marrying men, that they are morally certain their own sons will inevitably make that choice if the choice is available to them. Either that, or their sons are so weak-willed that they can’t prevent themselves from being enticed into it by evil men even when their own inclinations are not in that direction. By their condemning even the holding of hands in public they betray their assurance that men, seeing it, will of course do it.
It’s difficult to find a straight man who would even acknowledge the possibility that he, himself, might have made such a choice. But his fear of allowing that choice to the general public is strong evidence that he believes almost everyone else would.
I expressed puzzlement to a conservatively religious friend, several years ago, about why his church should have been so strongly against the Equal Rights Amendment. To help me better understand it he brought me a pamphlet published by his church explaining its position. It did help me to understand the opposition, but not the reasoning behind it.
There was, predictably, a lot of smoke-screen horror about legally mandated uni-sex lavatories. That could be overlooked as the nit-picking that it genuinely was. But it seemed fairly obvious to me that, in their insistence that Wife-and-Mother was the proper and “natural” role for women, they were overlooking the fact that – were it true –women would quite naturally gravitate to that role without it being necessary to have laws making it difficult to do otherwise. The fear that, having equal opportunity and guaranteed equal pay, women would en masse abandon their “natural” role in life and flock to the work force to compete with men, evidenced to me a great deal of uncertainty on the part of the church about what really was natural.
Another of the inexplicable reasons was that: if the law guaranteed equal treatment of the sexes then, if women were legally allowed to marry men, men could not be denied the right to also marry men.
I hadn’t even considered that aspect of it, but I had to admit it would have caused a reaction in the public that would have gone far beyond the intent of the ERA. I couldn’t, however, agree with the stated view of the inevitable result of such a thing: the whole concept of “family” would be torn asunder. Homosexuals would be adopting and raising innocent children. Marriage would no longer be the sacred institution it now is, and the world in chaos would spiral inexorably to hell. Wow.
“Terry,” I said to my friend, “tell me honestly: if some hypothetical Fred and Bob down the street got married legally and lived openly together, how would that affect the sanctity of your marriage? How could your marriage possibly be different because of it?”
“Well, mine wouldn’t, of course,” he said with a roll of his eyes, indicating that it was a pretty silly idea.
“Then whose would it affect?” I asked.
He thought a moment, opened his mouth a couple of times, changed his mind about whatever it was he’d intended to say, then replied: “Mostly it would be a bad example for our kids. It would lead them to believe that it was all right.”
“So,” I continued, “your kids would decide, because of that, to marry someone of their own sex?”
He didn’t want to say that. I might infer that there was something wrong with his three little pre-schoolers. “Well, they’d get the idea that it was an acceptable choice.”
“And you think,” I nodded, “that whether or not to fall in love with another man is a matter of choice.”
“Of course it is!” he replied, looking at me as if there was something wrong with me for not knowing that.
“Could you have fallen in love with another man?” I asked.
He gave me a Jeez-what-kind-of-an-idiot-do-you-take-me-for look. “No! Of course not.”
“Why not?” I persisted.
He thought about that for a moment. “Because of the way I was taught,” he said finally. “Because I was raised right. Because of my testimony of the gospel.”
I reminded him of some recent publicity about the son of one of the higher-ups in his church who had publicly owned up to being gay. “What do you suppose was wrong with the way he was taught?”
“I don’t know,” he admitted. “But something went wrong. He couldn’t have made that choice if he’d really believed.”
“Unless maybe he didn’t have a choice,” I suggested.
He shook his head. “There’s always a choice. I couldn’t have made that choice because I know it’s wrong.”
“So every one of the thousands of gay Christians made that choice,” I said, “because they all lacked your testimony and strength of character?”
“Well. . .” he hesitated, not wanting to sound quite that conceited, but obviously thinking exactly that. “I couldn’t say why they chose it, but I know they did. I know it is a matter of choice. I’ve known a few gays. I’m not prejudiced or anything, but I am a father. And I don’t want people like that living where my kids can see them.”
He made that statement, sitting in the living room of a neighbor’s home: a house shared for over two decades by a couple of middle-aged men. . . a home he’d visited and been welcomed into for nearly two years. He made that statement to men he’d laughed with, prayed with, and had invited to join his family for Thanksgiving (an invitation which was much appreciated but not accepted.)
I believe his convictions and sensitivity are representative of most devout Christians. . . including the authorities whose teachings on the subject form the basis of those convictions.
There is much talk of what is “normal” and “natural.” But those doing the talking obviously don’t believe in those concepts at all. Anything normal and natural will be done – normally and naturally – by the vast majority without any encouragement, and in spite of any efforts to make them do otherwise. That’s normal and natural.
If that were what people truly believed – that man was meant to love only women – they’d have no reason at all to believe that laws to safeguard it would be necessary. It would be impossible to prevent it. People naturally do what is natural. They normally do what is normal. It could hardly be considered normal and natural if they didn’t.
It hasn’t been necessary to pass laws limiting penmanship to the right hand. The great majority of people write that way quite naturally. If someone induces a child to try it with his left hand, there’s little need to fear that it will change his basic orientation. If he’s right-handed, it won’t feel right to him and he’ll probably not do it again. . . in spite of the minority of people he can readily observe doing it in the way that feels so wrong to him. Their not being condemned for it doesn’t create a danger that he might be persuaded to change his orientation. In spite of that minority who do write that way quite comfortably and naturally, the rest of the world isn’t aching for the opportunity to be left-handed.
However, quite obviously the whole world is aching to be homosexual. The hold that heterosexuality has on people is so tenuous that one step in the other direction is all it will take to undo a lifetime of indoctrination. Homosexuality is so much more attractive a way of life that if a boy learns in school that the law allows him to marry another boy, then girls will never be of interest to him. He’ll never want to be a father. He’ll never want to watch football, go deer hunting, or go to war. Soon there won’t be anybody left to do those things and the whole world will go to hell.
That is the inescapable conclusion to be drawn when people say: “If homosexual marriage is allowed, the moral fabric of society will decay. If men can marry men openly, and flaunt their relationships in society’s face, then our civilization will fall as inevitably as did Greece and Rome.”
History doesn’t record it, but evidently both civilizations ceased to exist because men married men, and not enough children were born to keep their legions going. Government corruption had nothing to do with it; it was the homos who destroyed Greece and Rome.
If so vast a number of men would (if the law allowed it) choose relationships with other men, then our entire concept of what is natural and normal is completely off-base. Homosexuality is obviously stronger than heterosexuality. It’s a more attractive and alluring possibility, a more exciting and satisfying lifestyle. If all the years of concerted effort on the part of heterosexual parents, school teachers, church figures, and popular entertainers can’t turn gay children straight. . . but just the possibility of being able to be openly gay is enough to guarantee the downfall of society, then homosexuality must be what nature intended. There’s no other explanation.
Every little boy must lie awake nights cursing the fact that everyone seems determined that he must get married, raise a family, and – worst of all – have sex with a woman. . . when what he really wants. . . all he really wants out of life. . . is a nice older man who will give him presents for doing what he’d really rather be doing anyway.
Seeing how irresistible homosexuality must be, it’s truly a miracle that the animals have survived all these millennia, since they don’t have the intelligence to make a choice based on morality.
For all of these years people have said that homosexuality was a “crime against nature,” and instead it is nature. Rules have to be passed forcing heterosexuality upon unwilling humanity or the race simply won’t survive another generation. In the name of civilization, how can we oppose such laws?
END
7/12/2008
Our Favorite Stores on Cafepress
Cafepress has thousands of unique and creative shops.
These are just a few of our favorites.
These are just a few of our favorites.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
