RECENT  POSTS:  » Read: Federal judge calls MS's marriage ban what it is: discriminatory » Yet another federal judge accurately notes crude discrimination within Arkansas' marriage ban » Prominent conservative outlet equates LGBT activists with Nazi paramilitary » New pledge: Conservative pastors choose to separate selves from civil marriage » Read: ADF creates fake 'victim' superbook; misapplies business matters to churches » P&G reaches out to pro-discrimination activist, learns it made right choice » In prep for Pope's 2015 visit, World Meeting of Families readies gay stigma, exclusion » Today in ambition: NOM cofounder vows to fight marriage equality for 100 years » Video: Mississippian who made soldier his lifestyle choice seeks freedom based on unchosen orientation » One of America's most anti-gay organizations rallies for the Duggars; because of course they would  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

10/06/2009

Disrupting the echo chamber: Another look at the 'Yes on 1' campaign's censorship

by Jeremy Hooper

Below you will find an image.

On the left, you will see how a certain thread from Stand For Marriage Maine's Facebook page looked as of 3:14 PM.

On the right, you will see how a certain thread from Stand For Marriage Maine's Facebook page looked as of 2:14 PM.

In yellow, you will see what Stand For Marriage Maine considers to be unacceptable pushback.

In a perfect world, people from ALL political stripes and ideologies would agree that this censorship is unfair, unnecessary, hurtful to the discourse, and thoroughly un-American:

(click for full size)

200910061525

Stand For Marriage Maine's completely one-sided Facebook wall

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

They still missed a couple.

Posted by: Piper | Oct 6, 2009 5:18:22 PM

"Marriage = 1 man and 1 woman
(reference: Bible)
period. End of story."

*sigh* I would like to ask Mrs. Murphy to re-examine her Bible and make sure she hasn't missed something.

In the original Hebrew, David and Jonathan are implied to be much closer to one another than simply good friends. And in the first chapter of Daniel, a Hebrew word implying sexual love is ascribed to the relationship between Daniel and Ashpenaz, both of whom were men.

Now... neither of these relationships were condemned by God as sinful, perverse, or evil. In fact, it was God Himself who brought Ashpenaz into this relationship with Daniel (Daniel 1:9). What then could these relationships be, if not marriages between two men?

...I may just realized I may have a couple screencaps to submit to this site later in the week.

Posted by: Chris Cool | Oct 6, 2009 6:08:10 PM

Ugh... never mind. I realized you have to become a fan to post anything, and I'm not about to have others thinking I approve this effort.

Somebody else get more contrasting screenshots in my stead!

Posted by: Chris Cool | Oct 6, 2009 6:11:47 PM

From Ms. Horning: "[Conservatives] are doctors, lawyers, teachers, your neighbors...we are not rednecks that are uneducated at these town hall meetings or tea parties, etc."

I'd like to tell her: "We are doctors, lawyers, teachers, your neighbors...we are not sex-crazed perverts hellbent on destroying your values."

Posted by: PINGAS | Oct 6, 2009 10:51:28 PM

Even being a 'fan' doesn't permit you to make comments for long. I made a respectful comment regarding marriage being a civil right, etc. It is gone and the "comment" link no longer appears anywhere on their page for me to utilize. So I clicked on their 'friends' list and pasted a message to a couple of them directly. There's only so much volume I can handle as far as having a dialog (and I use the term very loosely) but if enough of us were to do the same ... . But when it's hard to argue against Gawd's Woid with these folks

Posted by: cedlitz | Oct 6, 2009 11:48:37 PM

I think I've said this before, but...

I'm totally against this Yes on 1 BS, and the organizations behind it. That being said, it doesn't appear that talking to them will do any good, especially if it's obviously against their ideals. It's sad, but nothing will get through to them until it's legalized.

Posted by: Yuki | Oct 7, 2009 3:50:38 AM

Love the paranoid red herrings in one entry that marriage equality is a "cultural issue" and a "Pandora's box" because one day people will then be able to marry "pets, siblings, cousins, threesomes" and other fear-mongering rubbish and nonsense.

Posted by: Morgan | Oct 7, 2009 5:30:05 AM

I think when you "click for full size", the 2:14 and the 3:14 are the wrong way around...

Great articles tho, as usual. Interesting that they left some of the 'liberal' comments, like the one about King James. Maybe they didn't understand it? ;-)

Posted by: Londoner | Oct 7, 2009 2:18:36 PM

Oh, thanks Londoner. Fixing it now. Not exactly sure how that happened

Posted by: G-A-Y | Oct 7, 2009 2:43:26 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails