Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Homosexuality

Page 34 of 93 [ 1477 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 ... 93  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Sopho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,859

09 Aug 2007, 4:36 pm

Hadron wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Hadron wrote:
Sopho wrote:
You didn't 'demolish' any of my arguments. I don't see any 7 year olds getting married. And it's about equal rights. Age requirements apply to everybody. All someone has to do is wait a few years and they can get married just like everyone else has to wait a few years. Whereas with gay couples, that's it. They can't.

There is no equal rights issue. Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, almost universally. Being allowed to carry out homosexual relationships does not relate to rights, you choose your own actions. How you behave is up to you, and yes you can be held very accountable for it elsewhere.

It's not about the right to marry any old as*hole; it's about the right to have your existing relationship recognised by the state so you have the same protection for it that any straight couple can get. I'm not straight, therefore I would never in a relationship with a man. So any relationships I do have, I won't be able to have the same rights for as other people would for theirs.

It is recognised by the state in the UK in terms of legal protection, but you seem to want it to be called marriage as well. Allowing gay relationships is not in the national intrest really, for the simple reason it experates the people having no kids issue.


1. I don't mean in the UK. For the last time: I know I can get married here. I mean in other areas.

2. Gay people can have kids: they can adopt, or could actually be bisexual and have a kid from a previous relationship

3. Not all straight couples have kids: Why do we let old people, infertile people and asexual people get married? If it was just about having kids then the government should put more emphasis on reproduction in marriages and have some kind of cut off point involving age. Yet it doesn't. People can get married with no intention of having kids, or at the age of 70 if they want. Also, we don't need marriage to have kids.



Sopho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,859

09 Aug 2007, 4:38 pm

Hadron wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Elemental wrote:
Hadron wrote:
There is no equal rights issue. Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, almost universally.


For me, marriage is the right to marry someone you love. But let's assume your definition is right. Lacking in empathy to a painful degree, yes, but technically right.

So....why not give homosexuals (and bisexuals and, indeed, all people) an extra right? After all, human rights are not a zero-sum game, you don't lose a right because someone else is exercising a new one. Explain in detail how you feel that would be bad for you.

If anything it should be changed because it's sexist. Not necessarily homophobic, but sexist. I can't marry a woman just because I don't have a penis. A man can't marry a man just because he does have a penis.
So instead of thinking of it as being equal because we all have the right to an heterosexual marriage, why don't people see it like that? I have the right to marry a man, but Ragtime doesn't. That's sexist discrimination.

Simple biology, dearie. Adam and Steve together dont make kids, end of.

What if Adam is infertile? Or a pensioner?
And don't call me 'dearie,' you patronising git.
That 'Adam and Steve' thing is getting really old now btw.



Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

09 Aug 2007, 4:40 pm

Sedaka wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
im glad to know people who have such views on gays dont even bother to ask why


Of course I asked why. I'm still curious, as a matter of fact, why penises can't just screw vaginas and be done with the whole debate. :roll: I mean, does a gay man really find women disgusting? Does it mean NOTHING to him that his penis fits perfectly and pleasurably into a woman's vagina? Seriously -- men can feel attracted to other men, but penises still have the same pleasure nerves. Therefore, how could a vagina "feel bad" to a gay man's penis? It's impossible. Therefore, it has more to do with the emotional relations of that person -- but why would the gender alone of a person you like determine your purely-emotional love for them? So, I've proved the sexual issue isn't a problem, and I've proved the emotional issue isn't a problem. So what's the problem?


if you had proved anything... yo'd be a very rich man

it's not the nerves in the penis or clit that matter... it's the brain. and im sorry... i dont buy your little experiment

along these lines... you cold conclude that a woman would draw pleasure from being raped. do you concur?



if you did ask... then answer the why.... beyond god "saying so"


That's a very inadequate reply.


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


Sopho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,859

09 Aug 2007, 4:41 pm

Ragtime wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
im glad to know people who have such views on gays dont even bother to ask why


Of course I asked why. I'm still curious, as a matter of fact, why penises can't just screw vaginas and be done with the whole debate. :roll: I mean, does a gay man really find women disgusting? Does it mean NOTHING to him that his penis fits perfectly and pleasurably into a woman's vagina? Seriously -- men can feel attracted to other men, but penises still have the same pleasure nerves. Therefore, how could a vagina "feel bad" to a gay man's penis? It's impossible. Therefore, it has more to do with the emotional relations of that person -- but why would the gender alone of a person you like determine your purely-emotional love for them? So, I've proved the sexual issue isn't a problem, and I've proved the emotional issue isn't a problem. So what's the problem?


if you had proved anything... yo'd be a very rich man

it's not the nerves in the penis or clit that matter... it's the brain. and im sorry... i dont buy your little experiment

along these lines... you cold conclude that a woman would draw pleasure from being raped. do you concur?



if you did ask... then answer the why.... beyond god "saying so"


That's a very inadequate reply.

In your opinion.
And none of your replies are ever inadequate?



Sedaka
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind

09 Aug 2007, 4:44 pm

Elemental wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
You ASSUME there's no logical reason. But you're not the Lord of Logic (hate to break it to you). There are some things you and I just don't know, which are true nonetheless. Just because you can't understand something doesn't mean it's illogical.


I get the feeling we're talking from completely different mindsets. For me, it is simple. If the God you worship creates people so that they have the urge to do things which harm no other, and then punishes them for doing those things, then he is a sadist putting people through needless torment in this life or the next. I could not worship such an entity even with cast iron proof that he exists and set things that way. My own conscience and sense of right and wrong would not allow it.


he does think differently...

he doesnt see it as being that sadistic since he has "pondered" homosexual tendancies and found them to be easily reversible and thus not that much of a road block

--though he does at least believe god works with you on these things... that's the most positive ive heard

but it is still sadistic imo....


_________________
Neuroscience PhD student

got free science papers?

www.pubmed.gov
www.sciencedirect.com
http://highwire.stanford.edu/lists/freeart.dtl


Hadron
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Aug 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 957
Location: IntensitySquared or Zomg

09 Aug 2007, 4:45 pm

Sopho wrote:
Hadron wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Hadron wrote:
Sopho wrote:
You didn't 'demolish' any of my arguments. I don't see any 7 year olds getting married. And it's about equal rights. Age requirements apply to everybody. All someone has to do is wait a few years and they can get married just like everyone else has to wait a few years. Whereas with gay couples, that's it. They can't.

There is no equal rights issue. Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, almost universally. Being allowed to carry out homosexual relationships does not relate to rights, you choose your own actions. How you behave is up to you, and yes you can be held very accountable for it elsewhere.

It's not about the right to marry any old as*hole; it's about the right to have your existing relationship recognised by the state so you have the same protection for it that any straight couple can get. I'm not straight, therefore I would never in a relationship with a man. So any relationships I do have, I won't be able to have the same rights for as other people would for theirs.

It is recognised by the state in the UK in terms of legal protection, but you seem to want it to be called marriage as well. Allowing gay relationships is not in the national intrest really, for the simple reason it experates the people having no kids issue.


1. I don't mean in the UK. For the last time: I know I can get married here. I mean in other areas.

2. Gay people can have kids: they can adopt, or could actually be bisexual and have a kid from a previous relationship

3. Not all straight couples have kids: Why do we let old people, infertile people and asexual people get married? If it was just about having kids then the government should put more emphasis on reproduction in marriages and have some kind of cut off point involving age. Yet it doesn't. People can get married with no intention of having kids, or at the age of 70 if they want. Also, we don't need marriage to have kids.

1. Exactly, you are arguing passonately about what is a moot point for both of us.
2. Yeah, while said kid is bullied into the nearest psych ward. You think aspies have it hard, just imagine what it would do to one of these adopted kids. As for the other two suggestions of yours, they both f**k up the kids lives quite a lot.
3. Allowing gay marriage would be promoting homosexuality, which obviously increases the amount of gay people (think about all the bisexuals) in homosexual relationships. This reduces the birth rate, which damages our economy and so on. 10% of the country electing automatically not reproduce is pretty disasterous.
On to your next post:
4. Adam is already inferile then, and yes it would not matter asides from the fact that Steve maybe fertile. Think about it.
5. Stop complaining so much and then i will be less patronising.



Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

09 Aug 2007, 4:47 pm

Sopho wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
im glad to know people who have such views on gays dont even bother to ask why


Of course I asked why. I'm still curious, as a matter of fact, why penises can't just screw vaginas and be done with the whole debate. :roll: I mean, does a gay man really find women disgusting? Does it mean NOTHING to him that his penis fits perfectly and pleasurably into a woman's vagina? Seriously -- men can feel attracted to other men, but penises still have the same pleasure nerves. Therefore, how could a vagina "feel bad" to a gay man's penis? It's impossible. Therefore, it has more to do with the emotional relations of that person -- but why would the gender alone of a person you like determine your purely-emotional love for them? So, I've proved the sexual issue isn't a problem, and I've proved the emotional issue isn't a problem. So what's the problem?

Because they're not attracted to them.

Specify how. Come on, I'm going to make you guys get specific. Emotionally attracted? Sexually attracted? Visually/Aestheitically? What?
Sopho wrote:
You have a prostate don't you?

Ummmmm, let me check.






Yes.
Sopho wrote:
I'm sure you could find it pleasurable to get f**** up your ass by a man.

Doubtful. The prostate is not designed for hard-pressure pleasure. Crap naturally stimulates it well, because it's soft. But when crap is very solid, it really hurts.
Sopho wrote:
But you're straight, so you wouldn't do it.

I wouldn't do it anyway, because it would be physically painful.
Sopho wrote:
I could have asex with a man, but I wouldn't want to.

Say why specifically.
Sopho wrote:
I don't find men repulsive at all, but the thought of having sex with one repulses me, just like the thought of having sex with a fat ugly woman repulses me. It's the same for everyone else.

If there's one thing this thread disproves, it's your final sentence.
And WHY does it repulse you? You haven't even tried it.


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


Last edited by Ragtime on 09 Aug 2007, 4:49 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Sedaka
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind

09 Aug 2007, 4:48 pm

Hadron wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Hadron wrote:
Sopho wrote:
You didn't 'demolish' any of my arguments. I don't see any 7 year olds getting married. And it's about equal rights. Age requirements apply to everybody. All someone has to do is wait a few years and they can get married just like everyone else has to wait a few years. Whereas with gay couples, that's it. They can't.

There is no equal rights issue. Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, almost universally. Being allowed to carry out homosexual relationships does not relate to rights, you choose your own actions. How you behave is up to you, and yes you can be held very accountable for it elsewhere.

It's not about the right to marry any old as*hole; it's about the right to have your existing relationship recognised by the state so you have the same protection for it that any straight couple can get. I'm not straight, therefore I would never in a relationship with a man. So any relationships I do have, I won't be able to have the same rights for as other people would for theirs.

It is recognised by the state in the UK in terms of legal protection, but you seem to want it to be called marriage as well. Allowing gay relationships is not in the national intrest really, for the simple reason it experates the people having no kids issue.


she's not arguing her point frivolously because she's in the UK....

because it's contested in other places and it's not PC universally


why is that so hard to conceive


_________________
Neuroscience PhD student

got free science papers?

www.pubmed.gov
www.sciencedirect.com
http://highwire.stanford.edu/lists/freeart.dtl


Sedaka
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind

09 Aug 2007, 4:50 pm

Hadron wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Elemental wrote:
Hadron wrote:
There is no equal rights issue. Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, almost universally.


For me, marriage is the right to marry someone you love. But let's assume your definition is right. Lacking in empathy to a painful degree, yes, but technically right.

So....why not give homosexuals (and bisexuals and, indeed, all people) an extra right? After all, human rights are not a zero-sum game, you don't lose a right because someone else is exercising a new one. Explain in detail how you feel that would be bad for you.

If anything it should be changed because it's sexist. Not necessarily homophobic, but sexist. I can't marry a woman just because I don't have a penis. A man can't marry a man just because he does have a penis.
So instead of thinking of it as being equal because we all have the right to an heterosexual marriage, why don't people see it like that? I have the right to marry a man, but Ragtime doesn't. That's sexist discrimination.

Simple biology, dearie. Adam and Steve together dont make kids, end of.


yes, thankyou... im sure we're all quite well aware of why certain people have these views conventionally


_________________
Neuroscience PhD student

got free science papers?

www.pubmed.gov
www.sciencedirect.com
http://highwire.stanford.edu/lists/freeart.dtl


Sopho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,859

09 Aug 2007, 4:50 pm

Hadron wrote:
1. Exactly, you are arguing passonately about what is a moot point for both of us.
2. Yeah, while said kid is bullied into the nearest psych ward. You think aspies have it hard, just imagine what it would do to one of these adopted kids. As for the other two suggestions of yours, they both f**k up the kids lives quite a lot.
3. Allowing gay marriage would be promoting homosexuality, which obviously increases the amount of gay people (think about all the bisexuals) in homosexual relationships. This reduces the birth rate, which damages our economy and so on. 10% of the country electing automatically not reproduce is pretty disasterous.
On to your next post:
4. Adam is already inferile then, and yes it would not matter asides from the fact that Steve maybe fertile. Think about it.
5. Stop complaining so much and then i will be less patronising.

I'm not complaining; I'm responding to people's posts and making the point that it is discrimination.
As for the 'promoting homosexuality' - that's complete BS. You can't promote something people don't choose. I doubt a lot of bisexual people would suddenly quite being in straight relationships and go and find someone of the same sex just because they can now marry them. The reason most bi people are in straight relationships is because there is more chance of them finding someone of a different sex to be with. We don't really need a high birth rate right now tbh.
And I'm not arguing about a moot point. Just because it doesn't directly affect me, I should just sit back and think it's perfectly OK? It affects people. I don't care that it no longer affects me. If I see something going on in the world and I think it's wrong, I'll argue about it with anyone who disagrees.



Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

09 Aug 2007, 4:52 pm

Sopho wrote:
Hadron wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Hadron wrote:
Sopho wrote:
You didn't 'demolish' any of my arguments. I don't see any 7 year olds getting married. And it's about equal rights. Age requirements apply to everybody. All someone has to do is wait a few years and they can get married just like everyone else has to wait a few years. Whereas with gay couples, that's it. They can't.

There is no equal rights issue. Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, almost universally. Being allowed to carry out homosexual relationships does not relate to rights, you choose your own actions. How you behave is up to you, and yes you can be held very accountable for it elsewhere.

It's not about the right to marry any old as*hole; it's about the right to have your existing relationship recognised by the state so you have the same protection for it that any straight couple can get. I'm not straight, therefore I would never in a relationship with a man. So any relationships I do have, I won't be able to have the same rights for as other people would for theirs.

It is recognised by the state in the UK in terms of legal protection, but you seem to want it to be called marriage as well. Allowing gay relationships is not in the national intrest really, for the simple reason it experates the people having no kids issue.


1. I don't mean in the UK. For the last time: I know I can get married here. I mean in other areas.

2. Gay people can have kids: they can adopt, or could actually be bisexual and have a kid from a previous relationship

3. Not all straight couples have kids: Why do we let old people, infertile people and asexual people get married? If it was just about having kids then the government should put more emphasis on reproduction in marriages and have some kind of cut off point involving age. Yet it doesn't. People can get married with no intention of having kids, or at the age of 70 if they want. Also, we don't need marriage to have kids.


Could one possibly use looser logic? It's just all kinds of apples-to-oranges precedents...


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


Sedaka
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind

09 Aug 2007, 4:53 pm

Ragtime wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
Ragtime wrote:
Sedaka wrote:
im glad to know people who have such views on gays dont even bother to ask why


Of course I asked why. I'm still curious, as a matter of fact, why penises can't just screw vaginas and be done with the whole debate. :roll: I mean, does a gay man really find women disgusting? Does it mean NOTHING to him that his penis fits perfectly and pleasurably into a woman's vagina? Seriously -- men can feel attracted to other men, but penises still have the same pleasure nerves. Therefore, how could a vagina "feel bad" to a gay man's penis? It's impossible. Therefore, it has more to do with the emotional relations of that person -- but why would the gender alone of a person you like determine your purely-emotional love for them? So, I've proved the sexual issue isn't a problem, and I've proved the emotional issue isn't a problem. So what's the problem?


if you had proved anything... yo'd be a very rich man

it's not the nerves in the penis or clit that matter... it's the brain. and im sorry... i dont buy your little experiment

along these lines... you cold conclude that a woman would draw pleasure from being raped. do you concur?



if you did ask... then answer the why.... beyond god "saying so"


That's a very inadequate reply.


how so?

you STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED WHY WHY WHY?

and now you're dodging the rape question

you have no answers cause you dont know.

edit: and thanks for the lame one-liner


_________________
Neuroscience PhD student

got free science papers?

www.pubmed.gov
www.sciencedirect.com
http://highwire.stanford.edu/lists/freeart.dtl


Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

09 Aug 2007, 4:55 pm

Sopho wrote:
Elemental wrote:
Hadron wrote:
There is no equal rights issue. Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, almost universally.


For me, marriage is the right to marry someone you love. But let's assume your definition is right. Lacking in empathy to a painful degree, yes, but technically right.

So....why not give homosexuals (and bisexuals and, indeed, all people) an extra right? After all, human rights are not a zero-sum game, you don't lose a right because someone else is exercising a new one. Explain in detail how you feel that would be bad for you.

If anything it should be changed because it's sexist. Not necessarily homophobic, but sexist. I can't marry a woman just because I don't have a penis.


Well, buy a penis then, and we can wrap up this debate.
Who wants to help chip in for Sopho's penis? I'm sure they're available online somewhere... Lorena Bobbit had a penis, but that didn't make her a man. :P


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


Last edited by Ragtime on 09 Aug 2007, 4:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sopho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,859

09 Aug 2007, 4:55 pm

Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Because they're not attracted to them.

Specify how. Come on, I'm going to make you guys get specific. Emotionally attracted? Sexually attracted? Visually/Aestheitically? What?

Attraction isn't really something that can be explained easily like that. It's a mixture of all of those things.

Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
I could have asex with a man, but I wouldn't want to.

Say why specifically.

Because I'm not attracted to them at all. I don't want some man f*****g me. It's as simple as that. I don't like the idea of someone I do not find physically attractive or have any emotional attachment (on a romantic level) to screwing me.

Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
I don't find men repulsive at all, but the thought of having sex with one repulses me, just like the thought of having sex with a fat ugly woman repulses me. It's the same for everyone else.

If there's one thing this thread disproves, it's your final sentence.
And WHY does it repulse you? You haven't even tried it.

I don't need to try it. It's the thought of it that I find repulsive, therefore I wouldn't try it. I know I wouldn't enjoy a man f*****g me because I wouldn't even want them anywhere near me in that way.



Sopho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,859

09 Aug 2007, 4:56 pm

Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Elemental wrote:
Hadron wrote:
There is no equal rights issue. Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, almost universally.


For me, marriage is the right to marry someone you love. But let's assume your definition is right. Lacking in empathy to a painful degree, yes, but technically right.

So....why not give homosexuals (and bisexuals and, indeed, all people) an extra right? After all, human rights are not a zero-sum game, you don't lose a right because someone else is exercising a new one. Explain in detail how you feel that would be bad for you.

If anything it should be changed because it's sexist. Not necessarily homophobic, but sexist. I can't marry a woman just because I don't have a penis.


Well, buy a penis then, and we can wrap up this debate.
Who wants to help chip in for Sopho's penis? I'm sure they're available online somewhere... Lorena Bobbit had a penis, but that didn't make her a man. :P

I don't want one. And I don't know who Lorena Bobbit is.



Sedaka
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind

09 Aug 2007, 4:57 pm

Ragtime wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Hadron wrote:
Sopho wrote:
Hadron wrote:
Sopho wrote:
You didn't 'demolish' any of my arguments. I don't see any 7 year olds getting married. And it's about equal rights. Age requirements apply to everybody. All someone has to do is wait a few years and they can get married just like everyone else has to wait a few years. Whereas with gay couples, that's it. They can't.

There is no equal rights issue. Everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, almost universally. Being allowed to carry out homosexual relationships does not relate to rights, you choose your own actions. How you behave is up to you, and yes you can be held very accountable for it elsewhere.

It's not about the right to marry any old as*hole; it's about the right to have your existing relationship recognised by the state so you have the same protection for it that any straight couple can get. I'm not straight, therefore I would never in a relationship with a man. So any relationships I do have, I won't be able to have the same rights for as other people would for theirs.

It is recognised by the state in the UK in terms of legal protection, but you seem to want it to be called marriage as well. Allowing gay relationships is not in the national intrest really, for the simple reason it experates the people having no kids issue.


1. I don't mean in the UK. For the last time: I know I can get married here. I mean in other areas.

2. Gay people can have kids: they can adopt, or could actually be bisexual and have a kid from a previous relationship

3. Not all straight couples have kids: Why do we let old people, infertile people and asexual people get married? If it was just about having kids then the government should put more emphasis on reproduction in marriages and have some kind of cut off point involving age. Yet it doesn't. People can get married with no intention of having kids, or at the age of 70 if they want. Also, we don't need marriage to have kids.


Could one possibly use looser logic? It's just all kinds of apples-to-oranges precedents...


elaborate on your one-liner? they seem very reasonable counters to various points being made

i think you're just parrotting attacks that have been made on you.......... lol


_________________
Neuroscience PhD student

got free science papers?

www.pubmed.gov
www.sciencedirect.com
http://highwire.stanford.edu/lists/freeart.dtl