Spyder: I will PARTIALLY agree with you. Using someone else's picture is called "misappropriation" and a person is liable for invasion of privacy for using the name or likeness of another for commercial purposes without permission. And this couple will probably win big.

But then you ruined an intelligent response by charging bigotry and claiming "hate" which BTW is slanderous itself if stated towards a person in particular. But this is the problem with the liberal side: They stress the importance of "choice" - but only if your "choice" matches theirs. I believe abortion is a sin so I could quickly claim liberals "hate" babies and they are "anti-life" but we conservatives are not as hateful as liberals.

We have a different opinion of the gay lifestyle. We think it is morally corrupt. We believe it is damaging to a traditional family value. We believe it to be sinful. However, what we DON'T do is tell people what they can do or what their beliefs must be. If you want to be in a gay relationship then "have at it". I think it's wrong but not my job to tell you what you can and can't do.

What I CAN do is to stand up against calling a gay relationship a "marriage". It is not. If gays and lesbians want their relationships to have a legal status I am fine with that - again not my job to tell you what you can and can't do. But we shouldn't call it a marriage - call it a civil union or call it a legal union or whatever you want. That I DON'T want the religious and moral title of marriage altered to match your desires does not make be "anti-gay" or a bigot. It makes me traditional.

Funny how liberals always want to CHANGE things and tell the people that want to keep it the same way as "anti" this and "anti" that or a bigot but if it has been that way for hundreds of years why are WE the "anti"? Aren't YOU the "anti-tradition" or the "anti-religious"? You want to have a gay relationship that is up to you - but it is not a marriage: never has been and never should be.

Absolutely Spydey, I hope they ride that bunch into the ground. I hope they get a seven figure settlement and a public apology. Hit'em where it really hurts, in their funding.

All this hate committed in the name of the Prince of Peace. Ya gotta wonder.

Slow down and ask a few questions......First, did they label their photo as copyrighted when they put it on their blog? If not then they are the ones guilty of copyright infringement......

This is not hate it is God's rules. God says homosexual acts are a sin. He also says those who support sin are as guilty as those who commit the sin.

We don't hate the people in fact we love them enough to be honest and tell them it is a sin, instead of telling them it's ok when it's not. God holds all accountable for that as well.

Those who use religion as a nightlight are simply afraid of the dark. Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that creates kinship. Nuff said...

@Janey..That is an incorrect statment. It is not public domain and free to use by anyone for anything..Its copyrighted by the photographer.

The only way it could be public domain is...the owner clearly gives up his rights, such as by signing a document saying, "I now give up my copyright and irrevocably place this work in the public domain." OR 75 Years have passed since the owner died.

Yet another pro gay article by MSNBC. If the photo used was from the couple of photographer then they have a case. If it was snapped by someone else then they have no case as they were in the public eye, but somehow even if the latter is the case we will see it side with the gay couple because that is the politically correct thing to do. I could care less what they do just so sick of liberals and the media trying to force me to accept it as natural, when I feel it is not and never will be the "norm" if it becomes the norm the species is done.

Pro Business,

Being gay is no more of a lifestyle (or a choice) than being black, female, etc. Using such hate-mongering language to describe us, however, is. And, yes it is hate that compels people to be anti-gay. No one ever stripped another person of his rights out of love, and anyone who tries to claim that's why he oppresses others is so full of @!$%# as to be certifiable.

Slow down and ask a few questions......First, did they label their photo as copyrighted when they put it on their blog? If not then they are the ones guilty of copyright infringement......

Wrong, sir. Any form of art that a person creates is by default copyrighted, whether it's labeled as such or not. Only if the item is labeled as "for free use" or "in the public domain" does the artist waive that copyright.

Sorry but I have to disagree. Marriage is a covenant between God, a man, and a woman. It is from the Bible. Adam and Eve were married. Man has tried to alter the description of marriage but that is impossible since only God has the authority to do so. Man can call something else marriage but that does not make it right.

I tend to agree with ProBusiness and will go him one further. Redefining marriage is public policy and will have economic effects such as the amount of taxes collected the amount of Social Security and Medicare expenditures. As such, it should be subject to public debate. The incentives provided to marry promote a healthy, stable environment for the raising of children and those children are the payors of our Social Security and Medicare. Last I checked, gay marriage does not result in procreation, and it probably isn't the healthiest environment in which to raise children.

This is not hate it is God's rules.

Here's a few more of God's rules. Are you obeying them all?

Ephesians 6:5:Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

Peter 2:18:Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

Leviticus 19:27 reads "You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard."

Leviticus 19:19 reads, "You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together."

Leviticus 11:10 reads, "But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you."

Leviticus 20:9

If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death.

Ephesians 6:5: Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

Leviticus 19:19 You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together.

Leviticus 11:10 But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you.

You go Tether! Make sure all your slaves know about it too! That's after you do the morning inspection to make sure they are not wearing conflicting fibers! Better hurry though, because you don't want to be late for the mornings stoning. Two adulterers and a blasphemer today!

L.J.

No one is stripping you of any rights. You are free to marry as long as you follow the rules just like everyone else.

And I have had gay friends whom I love but do not support their choice to act on their homosexual desires. No more than I would support a straight persons choice to commit adultery or to murder someone. It is all the same.

Probusiness said:

You want to have a gay relationship that is up to you - but it is not a marriage: never has been and never should be.

Really. 'Never has been'? I will respectfully disagree with you--my belief system calls it a marriage. We have sects for the gays and the lesbians and our priests and priestesses can marry them at will. We've always called it a marriage and we have been around longer than the Judaism-based religions (and their definition of marriage) have been--humankind was worshipping the Great Mother when man was still fingerpainting on cave walls.

So yes, it has been considered a marriage in the past and will continue to be considered a marriage by our priests and priestesses despite the rather more recent Judeo-Christian-Islamic taboos. Our issue here is that church and state are supposed to be separated in this country and freedom to practice one's religion is supposed to be a right, so when the government refuses to acknowledge that our practitioners are married, they are infringing on our right to practice our religion as we choose. And THAT is clearly unconstitutional.

Pro Business:

I am straight, and by your definition, traditional. However, I married my husband in a civil ceremony 20 years ago, and continue to call my union a marriage. Should I refer to my husband as my 'civil partner'? Should I not receive the same rights under the law because I didn't get a priest's blessing? Your argument doesn't hold water. Gay folks want the same rights as I enjoy, and they should have them. They pay taxes, pay into their retirement systems, pay for health care, and their partners should receive the same benefits from their unions as I do. It is simple: denying their rights simply because you don't agree with their stance on moral grounds makes you a bigot. You deny rights based solely on your interpretation of the Bible. My interpretation says that Jesus loves everyone and wants us to love and accept our neighbors.

What I CAN do is stand up to you calling my marriage a 'legal status'.

Disagreeing with homosexuality doesn't translate to hate. Homosexuals and future homosexuals use this tactic of terminology to guilt normal people. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with a lifestyle. If some of you want to sodomize your buddys, then go ahead, but that photo did make me throw up in my mouth just a little.

Wow. I guess they don't limit themselves to using music without permission. And this is from the Corporation First crowd that wants a heavy hand when it comes to copyright violations. I am forced to conclude that copyright only applies when it is to their advantage.

But this is the problem with the liberal side: They stress the importance of "choice" - but only if your "choice" matches theirs.

As opposed to conservatives who believe that there should be no choice about anything. Either you follow the strictly prepackaged ideas that they have decided are the right ones or you're evil and should die.

but we conservatives are not as hateful as liberals.

Posts #14, 22, 23. Yep. I can just sense that conservative tolerance.

We believe it is damaging to a traditional family value.

Yet conservatives turn a blind eye to infidelity, which is a leading cause of divorce and destruction of the family. Unless of course it's a Democratic President...then it's an impeachable offense.

What I CAN do is to stand up against calling a gay relationship a "marriage". It is not. If gays and lesbians want their relationships to have a legal status I am fine with that - again not my job to tell you what you can and can't do

So if it's not your job to tell what people can and can't do...why are you telling them it can't be a marriage. Is yours so shaky that Bob and Tom or Jill and Joyce saying "I do" will immediately end yours?

Funny how liberals always want to CHANGE things and tell the people that want to keep it the same way as "anti" this and "anti" that or a bigot but if it has been that way for hundreds of years why are WE the "anti"?

"Anti-American" "Anti-Freedom" "Anti-Capitalism" "Anti-Christ" "Anti-Christian". "Anti-Colonial": Just some of the many wonderful descriptors that people have thrown at the current President and his supporters. The first one is the one I find especially amusing considering your statement amusing. Particularly when you take into consideration that without "liberals pushing to CHANGE things in opposition to people who wanted it the way it was for hundreds of years"...there would be no United States of America.

If marriage is a covenant with God, then what about all those marriages that have been performed outside of churches? Are you saying no marriage is valid unless it is performed within the context of a religion? Because millions of people who are married in the eyes of the law but not a religion might want to disagree with you. No one is saying that a church would be forced to sanction a gay marriage. That is a decision that would be up to each institution - as it is today. Every church sets their own rules for who they will unite in marriage. But no church should tell the legal system who can be married. Let's keep a separation between legal and religious marriage.

I really wish that everyone who was so passionate against gay marrige was also as passionate about divorce. Ironically, divorce is also in the bible listed as a sin and the average rate of divorse in the country is 50%, yet its rarely even an issue talked about. Now that is something that ruins childhoods; believe me, I would know.

Good for them and I hope they win.Gays have every right to obtain a legally recognized marriage-not some cobbled together 'also ran' version.As to being anti tradition or anti religion,you might want to reconsider that.Just because something is a tradition does not mean it is right,just because the bible says one thing-which actually in the case of gays or marriage of gays,it doesn't really-doesn't mean that those who are non religious must follow.Your choice to follow religion is yours alone-it gives you no more right to dictate or influence my life or a gay persons life.

If you are against gay marriage,don't marry a gay person-it's that easy.

It's always amusing to hear social conservatives claim others should be tolerant of their intolerance. I'm sorry but it doesn't work that way.

People are of course free to hold whatever opinions they wish. However, singling out a particular group on some arbitrary basis, and claiming that that group should enjoy fewer or restricted rights because of their membership in your arbitrary group, is BIGOTRY. If you are going to practice it, you need to own it.

tether said:

This is not hate it is God's rules.

Your God maybe. Mine says no such thing.

God says homosexual acts are a sin. He also says those who support sin are as guilty as those who commit the sin. We don't hate the people in fact we love them enough to be honest and tell them it is a sin, instead of telling them it's ok when it's not. God holds all accountable for that as well.

Actually the passage In the Old Testament says that 'thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman--it is an abomination.'

Now my question to you; the Bible says nothing about two girls 'lying down together.'

Why does God have a double standard?

@dirtydog200

Don't worry, it appears that reaction disappears over a few generations. Your grandkids, or their grandkids won't suffer from it like you do.

Chances are, if you have enough decendents, at least one of them will be homosexual.

Welcome to the cause, brother.

Those such as Tether who choose to use their belief in a Sky Fairy as a means of determining the Law in a Secular Society are placing us on the road to a Theocracy. This is in the vein of the very extreme regimes our fine young men and women are losing their lives to protect us from.

As for the purported fair use of this couple photo, as others have mentioned it is a copyrighted work by the photographer who took the photo for them from the moment of it's creation until the photographer grants use of it: period.

Ken Trout said;

It is DEFINED as the union between a man and a woman. That IS the intent and the definition, anything else would require a separate title.

Nope. Sorry. My belief system calls it a marriage and we don't define it as exclusively between Man and Woman. It's two consenting adults. Period.

Tether,

Out of context or in context, your religious rules mean nothing in our secular, legal, society. Furthermore, marriage can mean to YOU whatever you want, however YOUR belief on what marriage is considered, is not enough to base our laws off of. Finally, your logic about "gays being able to marry anyone they want" so wrong on many counts. They CAN'T marry who THEY want, and your logic defending that is the same logic that failed in Loving v Virginia, why would it make sense now?

Just change "race" in that case, to "gender", another equally protected class.

Sorry Tether. Marriage isn't 'from the Bible'. The concept predates the Bible by a good long bit. And all cultures, not just 'Judeo-Christian' cultures have marriage. Religion is not a necessary element in the process, however a legal marriage certificate issued by the state is.

but we conservatives are not as hateful as liberals

Are you on drugs? YOU, conservatives, worship Beck who associates liberals with Nazi's, dresses up like a Nazi, and makes blatant lies about everyone waking up dead if you vote for liberals. YOU, conservatives, chant "LET HIM DIE" at your primary debates. YOU, conservatives, mocked and "boo'ed" a soldier, fighting for our freedom, on live television. YOU, conservatives, worship Sean Hannity who routinely applauds Ted Nuggent saying he wants to stick an assault rifle up Hillary Clinton's, or have Obama "choke" on it. YOU, conservatives, call gay teenagers "barbarians" and yell "you are going to hell" at gay couples.

You don't call that hate?

Again, I ask... are you on drugs?

Pro Business.. Wow, we believe so everyone should live the way we believe. What a crock. What gives you the right to tell others to live the way you believe. FY! I won't goose step for your beliefs, and I won't goose step to your flat earth superstitions. I have an idea for you...Look at a calender. Thanks for playing, but you didn't win anything.

Pro Business:

You can dislike gay people as much as you want, but you don't OWN the word marriage. "Marriage" covers a whole host of different unions, not just "one Christian male and one Christian female" (which is "holy matrimony" by the way). Throughout history it has meant one man and many women, one woman and many men (usually brothers in this case), one man and a child, two women, two men, and many more combinations. And that's not even getting into it's metaphorical use. Or do you call in and complain on cooking shows when a judge says that the "marriage" of rosmary and lemon is exquisite? Or do you try to prevent art critics from commenting on the "marriage" of colors and textures? Are a good number of people outside of our very narrow culture not married, despite their cultures, religions and governments saying "yes, duh"?

"pro business" you yourself define bigotry and hate, as well as being a world class coward. then again, in real life you have a mullet.

The term 'marriage' is used in so many ways

Huh! You mean like "Scotch Tape"!

Probusiness,

Talk to us when someone tries to pass a law stating you HAVE to approve of gay marriage. Until then, disagreement with your position, does NOT equal force. However, legally banning something, does.

Janey @1.4: "Grow up, and understand that if someone posts a photo on the internet for everyone to view, it is fair game, and it will be in the public domain for a very long time, if not forever."

And Truett @1.7, also....

Oh, Janey, no it does NOT mean anything of the sort. There is no legal precedent to support the crap you posted, and you only say the things you did because you are some rightwing whiner that likely supports the hate-mongering presented in the flyers.

What you're trying to assert would be the same as me starting a porn site, but getting a high school yearbook and using the 18+year-old female pictures for my advertisement. Or maybe find family pictures on your Facebook page and use them to advertise my new daycare. Perhaps I could get pictures of male members from the local church bulletin and use them on the login page of a gay-porn site.

Would you feel the same way? Of course not, so don't even try....

Yes, you anti-gay people are everything that has been said about you, and far worse than what is allowed to be written in this forum. You attempt to force others to limit the happiness in their lives based on your own whims, violence, ignorance, and religious nonsense.

That patronizing horse@!$%# (as spewed by Tether) is nothing but bigotry hiding behind religious ignorance -or, as we commonly say, using Jesus to justify being a close-minded, bigoted @!$%#. The same God(tm) that made those statements also banned shrimp, shellfish, clothing of mixed fabrics, and demanded stoning of non-virgin women, people who worked on the Sabbath, and unruly children, but you all conveniently ignore those little inconveniences.

And no -I have long ago finished trying to be reasonable with you people, so your disrespectful and ignorant statements are responded to appropriately. I am the guy that will gladly get his hands dirty to take the fight for equality right to the doorstep of people like you, and fight it out on your own dirty terms. Your statements about people pointing out your bigotry is nothing more than a cross between "cognitive dissonance" and "projection," and is best treated with regular visits to a therapist.

We have a different opinion of the gay lifestyle. We think it is morally corrupt. We believe it is damaging to a traditional family value. We believe it to be sinful. However, what we DON'T do is tell people what they can do or what their beliefs must be.

That is EXACTLY what you do. You quote your fairy tale bible every god damn day, telling people what they should do. You shout "burn in hell" to anyone who does not agree with you. You attempt to pass legislation based on your beliefs, in an obvious play to "tell" people how to live.

You, Probusiness, are a LIAR.

But we shouldn't call it a marriage - call it a civil union or call it a legal union or whatever you want. That I DON'T want the religious and moral title of marriage altered to match your desires does not make be "anti-gay" or a bigot. It makes me traditional.

Marriage laws have existed long before your little fairy tale religion, so you do not get sole rights to use the term.

But, if you want to be called something different... fine. How about defining "marriage" as a gay relationship, and calling heterosexual relationship "pre-divorce unions"? Let's be honest, that is what they really are. You good with that?

No body cares about your subjective morals, because morality is different between each person. I find your desire to segregate groups of people into two groups, assigning less rights to certain groups, based on what you "think" about them, to be extremely immoral and borderline evil. That is what my personal morality tells me. And I don't need a 2000 year old book to define what I believe.

I see two consenting adults in love. Isn't love and respect family values? Who cares if it is two men or two women?

Tether,

The bible also states that you shouldn't wear clothing of mixed blends or eat shellfish. I wonder what your opinion is on poly/cotton blends and Red Lobster. Are you pro or against?

I don't really care about who marries who as long as they are consenting adults who are entering this union of their own consent. Not their parent's or their religious leader's but their own choice. No church is going to be forced into performing ceremonies against their beliefs but if you are pushing in making civil ceremonies less than religious ones then I have a big gripe. By choice my husband and I were married in judge's chambers does this mean we shouldn't have the same rights as the couple who married in a church. And will all churches of all faiths be considered valid to perform marriages or just those who fit within the beliefs of the people making the laws.

Pro-business - slander is only slander if it's untrue.  Calling a hateful bigot a hateful bigot isn't slander.



You are free to marry as long as you follow the rules just like everyone else

A similar argument was used in Loving v Virginia - in which anti-interracial marriage advocates argued that marriage is equal because white people can equally marry other white people and black people can equally marry other black people.

It was a dumb argument and failed then, as it does now.

This whole battle is over a stupid word and there is no way either side is going to relent. The only solution is to move the word 'marriage' to a strictly religious definition/interpretation - and it has NO legal status. It's a church 'blessing' (or curse as some would say!:) )So, you can get "married" in the church - AND you still need to sign off on a binding civil contract for legal recognition. Then, anyone who wants to enter into a binding social contract can - call it a civil union, legal union... or whatever - and it is ONLY that status that has legal recognition.

"Marriage" is preserved. And everyone can enter a civil union.

Problem solved.

Tether,

Please provide credible sources and evidence. Your mere posting and opining on genetics, doesn't prove anything.

Ok .....Marriage must be whatever we believe it to be according to whatever fantasy we're living in.......but last time I checked it was definitely a legal obligation between two people and a State in which you were married....if it wasn't then how come when two legally married people decide to split up, neither one can legally get married again until they go through a legal process called DIVORCE and this can only be obtained through the court systemwith the assistance of an attorney (who LEGALLY represents the offended party) and in that process one of them can be FORCED to pay the other one for the rest of their lives...this is a LEGAL term called alimony ( or palimony )....God you guys will be making me laugh all day.......simply living together will not cause these problems unless your state decides to call it a "common-law marriage" after you have lived together for a"State specified"amount of time.......if this is the case then you can then be sued by the person you decided to leave (divorce).......these are not God's Laws ...they are Man's Laws

The way I see it ...

The only real objections are based on religious grounds ... ie god says it's a sin

God doesn't exist ... therefore the entire basis of the argument is invalid.

And ... it's blatant discrimination. Period.

Gay marriage will be the law of the land, and soon. Grow up and get used to it. It doesn't harm anyone no matter how much you want to scream about family values.

God says homosexual acts are a sin. He also says those who support sin are as guilty as those who commit the sin.

Marriage is a covenant between God, a man, and a woman. It is from the Bible. Adam and Eve were married. Man has tried to alter the description of marriage but that is impossible since only God has the authority to do so. Man can call something else marriage but that does not make it right.

So, tether, do you feel men should be castrated to show their faith in God? Jesus thinks so: Matthew 19:12

How about your relationship with your family? Do you get along? Jesus says you're supposed to hate them: Luke 14:26

When you pray, do you do so in absolute secret? Or do you accept prayers in churches, public places & events, or when you gather with other Christian friends? This is absolutely contrary to Jesus' commandment: Matthew 6:5-6

My dear, I could quote this sort of thing to you all day! The Bible and even Jesus' words are so full of contradiction that there are no absolute rules. Even if you argue with that statement, and continue to cling fast to the hypocrisy that is the Bible, Christianity is still the poorest excuse for condemning gay marriage...because, after all “Judge not, and ye shall not be judged, condemn not and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven” (Luke 6:37)

Mark,

. The only solution is to move the word 'marriage' to a strictly religious definition/interpretation

OR, we could just apply the law equally, which would take NO legislating, or rewriting of any laws.

and it has NO legal status.

Except the 1000+ state benefits that comes with being married. Except that people get married by the STATE, not the church. That's Holy Matrimony. This is why I could get married tomorrow (God forbid) without stepping foot in a church of any kind.

All of you Bible and God preaching narrow-minded bafoons can stop quoting make believe, (yes the Bible was made up, written by man, and full of crap. Go back and read it again and honestly try to convince yourself half of those fairy tales actually happened). But that's beside the point. If there is a God, and that is a big fat "if", he would condone not only the tolerance, but the acceptance of EVERYONE, especially due to a lifestyle that they can not control any more than the rest of us can control being straight. If you're really that against Gay marriage, go by yourself a DeLorean and go back to the 16th century because this is 2012 and everyone has just as many rights, or should have just as many rights as the next person. Especially in a world where 99% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, let these people who actually care for and love one another live their lives in peace and happiness.

Dan, You need to check your facts. Homosexuality is not something you are born with, it is not genetic.

Cite a credible source or you are just making crap up. You know that making crap up that makes sense to your under-informed brain does not constitute evidence, right?

If it were then all identical twins would be of the same sexual orientation and they are not.

This comment alone demonstrates your ignorance on the subject of genetics. Gene expression continues to develop after birth. Sexual identity among other traits really isn't fully formed until after puberty; and differing expressions can occur even in identical twins.

Tranquil Nihilist

Billy Graham's R.V., this sh!ts wild. Weeeew!!!!

I mean, does anyone else feel like the whole, "change everything to a civil union" argument, is simply a last, ditch, somewhat desperate attempt?

While I agree that using their picture without their authorization is very wrong, using the word "hate" in your comment is completely unnecessary. I don't agree with homosexuality, but that doesn't mean that I hate homosexuals.

these are not God's Laws ...they are Man's Laws

I have asked many religious conservatives to explain to me when "God" became so overly concerned with State-based contractual law. You would think he has better things to do than become embroiled in legal discussions.

Mguy,

Perhaps he's too busy being concerned with sports?

I mean, does anyone else feel like the whole, "change everything to a civil union" argument, is simply a last, ditch, somewhat desperate attempt?

It's pretty pointless, because it brings the debate down to it being over wording - which is just..... really.... dumb. It also sounds too much like a separate but equal argument.

ProBusiness:

You are correct in that we don't have the right to tell gays if they can have a relationship or not. You're also correct in stating that the word "marriage" signifies a religious institution as defined by the bible being one man and one woman.

Where you made an error is in agreeing with politicians to ban gay marriage. If marriage is a religious institution, then the government can not say who has the right to marry and who doesn't. that's the churches responsibility. The constitution prevents the government from making any laws "respecting the establishment of religion". If the only argument against gay marriage is because the bible says it's wrong, regardless of how people feel about it, the constitution explicitly prevents laws being made based on religion. it has to be that way, otherwise discrimination based on who worships how would be rampant.

I respect peoples religious beliefs. If you feel morally and personally that gay marriage is wrong, i respect that. We can agree to disagree on that. But passing a law banning gay marriage because God says it's wrong is against everything America stands for. (by the way, the bible also forbids the eating of pork and shellfish. and remember, bacon is pork.)

@ProBusiness - you are absolutely wrong.

-----
But then you ruined an intelligent response by charging bigotry and claiming "hate" which BTW is slanderous itself if stated towards a person in particular. But this is the problem with the liberal side: They stress the importance of "choice" - but only if your "choice" matches theirs. I believe abortion is a sin so I could quickly claim liberals "hate" babies and they are "anti-life" but we conservatives are not as hateful as liberals.
-----

Your analogy is bogus. The organization in question is involved in a political act that is an attempt to deny legal rights to gays. In other words, they are less-than-human. They are not entitled to the same rights that others have.

This is in no way related to your "hates babies" parallel. It's a BS argument.

-----

We have a different opinion of the gay lifestyle. We think it is morally corrupt. We believe it is damaging to a traditional family value. We believe it to be sinful. However, what we DON'T do is tell people what they can do or what their beliefs must be. If you want to be in a gay relationship then "have at it". I think it's wrong but not my job to tell you what you can and can't do.

-----

First, you make the absurdly ridiculous statement that "it is damaging to a traditional family value" - how? How can you make such a claim? Based on WHAT evidence?

Second, you claim that you can't tell someone what they can and can't do, but then you proceed to do EXACTLY what you say you can't do!

-----

What I CAN do is to stand up against calling a gay relationship a "marriage". It is not. If gays and lesbians want their relationships to have a legal status I am fine with that - again not my job to tell you what you can and can't do. But we shouldn't call it a marriage - call it a civil union or call it a legal union or whatever you want. That I DON'T want the religious and moral title of marriage altered to match your desires does not make be "anti-gay" or a bigot. It makes me traditional.

-----

When did YOU take ownership of the word "marriage"? Marriage existed before the church, and will exist after the church no longer is. Marriage is NOT owned by the church, and is not exclusively a religious title. The concept that you try to put across of it being a "moral" title is likewise, absurd in the extreme.

There is the concept of a religious ceremony, sure, but there's also LEGAL marriage. Legal marriage outlines property, financial, legal and social rights. It's about property, wealth, inheritance, etc. It says NOTHING WHATSOEVER about values, morals, traditions, or anything.

If you really want to say that it involves religion, then you're stepping into the morass of government starting to dictate morality and religion to you - I'm sure you'd have no problem with that as long as it was your particular religious sect that was in charge, but I'm going to guarantee you'd object to that if it were a religious belief you were opposed to.

-----

Funny how liberals always want to CHANGE things and tell the people that want to keep it the same way as "anti" this and "anti" that or a bigot but if it has been that way for hundreds of years why are WE the "anti"? Aren't YOU the "anti-tradition" or the "anti-religious"? You want to have a gay relationship that is up to you - but it is not a marriage: never has been and never should be.

-----
Oh, yeah, like those liberals wanting to CHANGE the law that says blacks couldn't vote, or could be owned by whites, etc., or change that whites couldn't marry Puerto Ricans, etc. Damn liberals giving people more rights than they should have!

Nobody here is being anti-religious when they say they want to allow gays to marry. You, sir, are trying to seize ownership of something you self-righteous types don't own, and never did.

Nobody is forcing a church to marry gays. We are trying to allow the government to issue marriage licenses to gays who want to marry. That's IT. Nothing more, nothing less.

You self-righteous types, on the other hand, are trying to tell homosexuals that they are not entitled to the same rights you are. Just as was done to minorities in the past, and women, and non-property owners, etc.

Nobody is trying to force their views on YOU. YOU, on the other hand, are trying to use the law to force YOUR narrow-minded views on others.

Hypocrisy, pure and simple.

"Marriage" is a word. Get over it, ProBiz! How about minding your own BUSINESS!

Your marriage (whether homosexual and/or heterosexual) can NEVER EVER impact mine. Sorry your marriage is so fragile that other's marriages impact it negatively. Why is that?

Sam Adams,

I believe you left out Leviticus 20:13, it reads something like this; If a Man lies with another Man as he would a Woman, this is an Abomination, and Surley Both Shall be put to Death...

I do believe this is hate and I do believe that these people don't care who they hurt. Photographs have implicit copyright. Something internet users fail to understand.

Also, if Leviticus is still the law of the land, I was married to my fiancee by a Judge after having lived with him for 2 years. I have all sorts of reason why I would have been stoned to death.

But, for those of you who are against Gay Marriage, I offer and absolute compromise. Remove government from the Marriage business all together. EVERYONE is a registered partnership. Marriage is conducted by either your Church, Synagogue, or Mosque and if you're atheists can have commitment ceremonies. That way, if a Church wants to bless a Gay couple, they can. If a Church doesn't, they don't have to. Registered partnerships get all the same tax/inheritance/visitation rights and do not require a "marriage" certificate. It would be treated similarly to a business partnership and dissolved through the courts similarly. Strike the term marriage from tax/inheritance laws and problem solved. Religious institutions would be protected and gay couples would be protected under the law. Religion and the State should not intersect. I don't think a Mormon Church should have to rent out their Ward Building or Temples to a Gay Couple, but I don't think they should be able to affect the lives of consenting adults in their own home.

CBurroughs,

You also missed the one about shell fish. Please tell me you aren't a hypocrite, and spend as much time picketing Red Lobster as you do posting about gay people.

"God Hates Scallops!"

Tether said:

Dan, You need to check your facts. Homosexuality is not something you are born with, it is not genetic.

There is a species of lizard in the Southwest that are entirely female. Centuries ago when the SW was a fertile grassland watered by the Colorado River,there were male and female of the species, but as climate changed and the Southwest became a desert,the higher temps resulted in all the lizards hatching out genetically female (ask any herpetologist, cooler temps produce males, warmer temps produce females). Today the entire species is composed of females--and they continue to survive as a species.

I believe efforts have been made to subject new eggs to lower temps in an effort to reintroduce males, but irregardless of temp changes, so far the eggs have continued to hatch females--there apparently is no male chromosome left.

I would say that is definitely genetic.

CBurroughs: Ask any Xtian...Leviticus is "Old Testament Jewish Laws" which do not pertain to the words of their 'savior', nor should it be considered law for Gentiles.

Or at least that's what they say when it suits their purpose.

Probusiness,

I am with you on this except I do not consider homosexuality morally corrupt. As an aging straight married boomer who had worked for years in an industry that attracted gay men, I came to appreciate that in work we were all the same. What one does in their bedroom is no one's business but those in the bedroom. My own opinion is that divorce between a man and women has had a more corrosive impact on society than gay marriage (but don't get me wrong, get divorced if you want to).

My god, you republicans piss me off. If we're stuck with Obama screwing up our economy for 4 more years because you idiots keep trying to stick your religion into politics, I'm going to tour the country, and personally kick every one of you in the nuts.

The republican battle cry is "keep the government out of our lives". Well, how about giving other people the same respect.

Ask any Xtian...Leviticus is "Old Testament Jewish Laws" which do not pertain to the words of their 'savior', nor should it be considered law for Gentiles.

Current Christianity treats the bible like a Chinese take-out menu. They pick and choose what parts they want, and what they don't want.

"Let's see... I'll take an order of Teach a man to fish, a side dish of Immaculate Conception... ummmm, oh I do not want Shellfish is an Abomination (I love shrimp). Oh, and I like to wear clothing from different crops.... you know what, let's just pass on all of Leviticus. WAIT! Forgot, give me two orders of Homosexuality is an Abomination, then pass on the rest of Leviticus. That is actually my favorite dish. Lastly, can I get an order of Love thy Neighbor? But I would like to change it to Love thy Neighbor unless they are gay... is there extra charge for that?"

Any psychologist would look through these posts and single out the gay-bashers and especially the religious gay-bashers as those most likely to be closeted gays. Remember that Craig and Foley were prolific sponsors of anti-gay legislation. As Shakespeare so wisely observed, they "doth protest a bit to much."

The gay bashers are just pots trying to deflect attention from their own blackness.

I personally think these 2 guys just need to grow up! It's just another excuse to sue someone for what, a photo? Oh please, there are more IMPORTANT things happening in this world than a photo of 2 guys kissing! If this is your lifestyle, then so be it. I don't have a problem with that at all, but when you start to force things on people that don't agree with you, then it's wrong? Again, grow up and start to worry about more important things in life and don't dwell on a photo.

Jan,

Yes, because it couldn't possibly have to do with the unauthorized use of their wedding pictures, to further bigoted legislation that actively works against them, right?

And how is it being forced on you? Stop lying, you DO have a problem with it or you wouldn't care about whether or not it's "in your face". And why can you put your lifestyle in their face, but they don't get the same consideration?

Jan-what the heck!It's not just about their photo being used without their or the photographers permission-something that is wrong in its self.But their image is being used in a hateful and bigoted way.Imagine you are a morbidly obese person and a diet campaign or anti-fast food chain uses your image-without your permission-to spread ignorance.

ProBusiness

But then you ruined an intelligent response by charging bigotry and claiming "hate" which BTW is slanderous itself if stated towards a person in particular. But this is the problem with the liberal side: They stress the importance of "choice" - but only if your "choice" matches theirs. I believe abortion is a sin so I could quickly claim liberals "hate" babies and they are "anti-life" but we conservatives are not as hateful as liberals.

.........

What I CAN do is to stand up against calling a gay relationship a "marriage". It is not. If gays and lesbians want their relationships to have a legal status I am fine with that - again not my job to tell you what you can and can't do. But we shouldn't call it a marriage - call it a civil union or call it a legal union or whatever you want. That I DON'T want the religious and moral title of marriage altered to match your desires does not make be "anti-gay" or a bigot. It makes me traditional.

YOu may not think yourselves hateful but you guys sure as hell are falsely entitled. And that is just as bad.

The bottom line is that whatever you feel is a sin or moral CANNOT have influence on legislation. Our constitution protects against that so find another argument. In the same vein, you feel as a Christian that the term marriage is owned by the church. I assure you it is not. The term marriage existed long before Christianity and to try to give it legal definition based on Christian values is yet another constitutional violation.

No one is saying you don't have a right to feel the way you feel. WHat you don't have the right to do is vote away the rights of others and that is why all of these bills are a big joke. It doesn't make yo a bigot... it simply makes you unpatriotic!

So Jan - if someone found a picture of your teenage daughter and decided to use it as an ad for a teen porn website, you'd be OK with that?

@Sarah:

I mean, does anyone else feel like the whole, "change everything to a civil union" argument, is simply a last, ditch, somewhat desperate attempt?

These photographs were used against State Senate candidates who were pro-civil union. Not even pro-gay marriage.

Ah the Bigotpublican Homophobic freaks are out in force today. :) Hope all you guys go to...

@probusiness: I agree with your post at 1.1 with the exception of the term "marriage." It is not a Christian term - other religions also marry. It's not even a religious term - agnostics and atheists also marry. Heck, the instructions for my universal remote instruct me to "marry" the remote to my TV! What I believe makes the difference between a Christian marriage and a "secular" marriage is that we are "joined in Holy Matrimony" - meaning that we are not only married in the eyes of the law (marriage), but that we are also married in the eyes of God.

bscol - I don't agree with homosexuality, but that doesn't mean that I hate homosexuals.

Right......you don't hate gays, you just think they shouldn't have the same legal rights you enjoy.

Sounds like you're a greedy bigot.

This is not hate it is God's rules. God says homosexual acts are a sin. He also says those who support sin are as guilty as those who commit the sin.

We don't hate the people in fact we love them enough to be honest and tell them it is a sin, instead of telling them it's ok when it's not. God holds all accountable for that as well.

However, God made us in his image and Loves ALL his children. God preached love, tolerance, understanding and forgiveness. Yes God holds all of us accountable for what we say and do in our life, NOT the public opinion, NOT politicians, and NOT religious leaders.

I hope they are happy and their privacy was invaded for Political Advantage and according to the artilce it was a copyrightrd photo, so let the courts decide the legality and God decide the morality when the time comes.“

And, you know, God, doesn't have any legal standing in this country. Can you imagine them going into court with the defense of, "Well God doesn't like gay"???

I find it interesting that adultery and divorce are also sins as noted in the Bible, and they are addressed hundreds of times versus a smattering of non-specific phrases that may or may not refer to homosexuality. Yet, I don't see the religous groups trying to ban divorce or trying to stop divorced people from getting married again (which is adultery). Regardless of the uneven application of your own religious beliefs, they do not belong in a discussion about federal or state laws. This is not a theocracy, and marriage pre-dates the Bible and exists in other religions as well as non-religious communities.

Oh, and for those of you who think it is perfectly fine to take someone's picture from the internet and use if for whatever you want, you need to first look up the Constitution and understand copyright law, and second, look for your picture to be reused in some ads promoting gay marriage :)

Sarah,

And your Point? I was just pointing out how he missed that one, after he was pointing out so many in Leviticus.

Tranquil Nihilist,

Try reading Matthew 19:1-12, you said you could not find this info. just pointing it out for ya...

C,

My point is, those who use Leviticus as a legal argument both violate the 1st Amendment and are flaming hypocrites.

THAT'S my point.

Tranquil Nihilist,
Try reading Matthew 19:1-12, you said you could not find this info. just pointing it out for ya...

Sorry, I had the triple spicy burrito lunch and the whole book of Matthew is gone.

Sarah-teach your children well. Keep God out of your life. Reap what you so. You can explain later, unless of course you are worm food.

And, you know, God, doesn't have any legal standing in this country. Can you imagine them going into court with the defense of, "Well God doesn't like gay"???

Sarah,

It's like watching children argue over who's imaginary friend is real. And then making rules based on what their imaginary friend tells them.

If you replace the word God with: "my invisible friend that you can not see, but he tells me how to live"... we would consider these people insane.

n.n. paddywhack,

So, I guess we just throw the 'Ten Commandments' out the friggin screen door also? WoooHooo, a couple of neighbors wives I'd like to commit adultery with, a couple of people I'd like to murder, and some neighbors have some goods I'd like to covet. Let's see incest was ok at one time in the Old Testament, so I guess that's back on the table for the perv's out there. Man the way you see it, it is Game On... Let's Party!!!

Christians, please explain something to me. You say the Old Testament Laws no longer apply because you're under a new covenant. So God just woke up one day and decided, "you know, all of these rules I have for you are pretty stupid. Let's just do away with those"???

And the below comment from mguy was the FUNNIEST thing I have read in a long time. I died laughing.

"Let's see... I'll take an order of Teach a man to fish, a side dish of Immaculate Conception... ummmm, oh I do not want Shellfish is an Abomination (I love shrimp). Oh, and I like to wear clothing from different crops.... you know what, let's just pass on all of Leviticus. WAIT! Forgot, give me two orders of Homosexuality is an Abomination, then pass on the rest of Leviticus. That is actually my favorite dish. Lastly, can I get an order of Love thy Neighbor? But I would like to change it to Love thy Neighbor unless they are gay... is there extra charge for that?"

It's incredibly hypocritical to criticize someone else's rather well-thought-out arguments as "not making sense" without actually substantiating WHY they don't make sense with anything other than ad hominem attacks.

So, basically, you lose. Play again.

OMG Really People said;

and to those who are bitching about god being fake or what ever, then this country is fake.

this country was founded on freedom of RELIGION.

This country was founded on the concept of inalienable human rights and that all people are created equal. Also includes personal freedom and separation of Church and State. The current trend denying equal rights to everyone (whether straight or gay/lesbian) is unconstitutional, and denying certain practitioners of certain religions the right to practice their religion as they see fit is also unconstitutional. See my post at 1.19.

so if you dont like religion, fine. but you are trashing 200+ years of the reason america was founded.

No we're not. We're just insisting that church and state be separated, as it is supposed to.

WoooHooo, a couple of neighbors wives I'd like to commit adultery with, a couple of people I'd like to murder,

The only reason you don't commit adultery or murder people is because of your religion? So, if not for the selfish desire to avoid eternal damnation, you would be killing other people?

Good to know.

I'm going to stick to the first couple posts and stay out of the religious arguments and other banter going on for the other 97 posts so far under this comment.

While the couple may feel offended, and insulted that something that they believe in and something that they hold dear was used as a criticism to push another political point of view, I don't see them winning any copyright lawsuit.

As per the US Copyright Office on Fair Use:

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair.

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes 
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

In addition further from the Copyright Office:

Copyright protects the particular way authors have expressed themselves. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in a work.

Emphasis added is my own. This picture was utilized by a non-profit organization for a completely political use to convey a message to voters regarding what candidates felt on a particular issue. While the photographer is correct that the organization could have utilized a stock photo from another source, that does not exempt her photo from fair use law. The second part is particularly important because while the couple may have intended this photo to exemplify their commitment to each other and to celebrate their union, (a union that some people object to as a matter of politics) that idea in and of itself is not protected by copyright and has zero bearing on Fair Use as a result.

TetherRestored

This is not hate it is God's rules. God says homosexual acts are a sin. He also says those who support sin are as guilty as those who commit the sin.

We don't hate the people in fact we love them enough to be honest and tell them it is a sin, instead of telling them it's ok when it's not. God holds all accountable for that as well.

Tether

You believe that this hateful message came from God only because you believe the MEN who have told you over and over since you were a small child that the Bible is the "word of God." Your faith is in MEN, not God, and that misplaced faith gives you some irrational justification to hate and/or deny human and civil rights to major groups of your fellow human beings. Here's a hint: Whenever someone tells you that God approves of your hateful thoughts you are being duped by someone who does not deserve your trust (or your faith).

I suppose you also believe those ridiculous stories about the Genesis men who lived for hundreds of years and were still fathering children at ages far greater than any modern man has managed to live, even with the benefits of modern medical science. I'm sure that you believe that God blessed you with your ability to reason. Why not use it?

Whether or not you hate homosexual human beings it is clear that you are willing to deny them their civil rights based on your medieval view of the world. Do you believe in all of "God's rules" or just those rules that fit into your very narrow mind?

It's a picture of someone in public...if it was done for profit I can see the issue...but Google Maps does this to plenty of people...and I don't see them paying out... This is them protesting their little affair being made public... If you do it in public, it can be made public...that's life. Google Maps has caught people in their backyards before...

Cniht:

The couple never gave permission for the political campaign to use their faces/images. the photographer who took the photo also has a copyright to the photo she took, and if she never gave permission for it to be used, it's infringement.

Mr. Burroughs,

You need to get hold of yourself Dude. The TEN COMMANDMENTS you so slavishly follow are NOT the same Ten Commandments as they appeared in the original OLD TESTAMENT language. They have been translated, "re-interpreted" and smoothed off quite a bit over the last three thousand years.

For instance, the original language in the Old Testament regarding coveting that neighbors wife actually listed her as..."thy neighbor's wife and other chattels." ie: the little woman was property. That's been cleaned up a bit over the centuries. But GOD'S ORIGINAL WORDS (if you want to go there) referred to women as "property". Care to defend that?

But here's my point. You can do the right thing simply because it's the right thing, like most of us try to do OR you can do it because you fear God's wrath. "Tossing the Ten Commandments out the window.." (I paraphrase) does not necessarily mean chaos will ensue. Most human beings have a pretty solid moral compass and sociopaths don't give a tinker's dam about the ten commandments.

The question regarding gay "marriage" is a civil rights issue. Will all Americans be treated equally under the law? Currently that is not the case. Married couples can inherit each others' property, they can visit their loved one in Intensive Care, they can include them on their insurance and so on. Gays cannot in those states which do not allow gay couples to marry. That's discrimination.

Straight couples who hold themselves to be "man and wife" can have a "common law" marriage and receive these benefits, but by your definition they are "living in sin." So, what's the difference? You regard gays as "living in sin" why can't they declare themselves married under the "common law" rules and enjoy the benefits. BECAUSE THEY ARE BEING TREATED DIFFERENTLY AND THAT IS AGAINST THE LAW.

The organization that hijacked the engagement picture of this gay couple is using that image to perpetuate a religious-based discrimination that classifies gay Americans as second-class citizens. That is wrong. It violates the Constitutional assurance of equal rights under the laws of this land AND the separation of church and state.

I hope these two men sue that organization until they have bled them dry. What they did is hate and it's hate with a religious pedigree.

While I am against gay marriage because I am a christian, I would have to agree that using someone's photos without their consent is unlawful.

However, this does not allow the liberal left to declare this a field day on "why they hate christians". If that is the case, then they refuse to see their own hypocrisy. You cannot spew tolerance and then curse another's views because you don't agree.

I'm also tired of liberals using the bible for hate. They seem to pick out the most obscure verses, and then claim christians are hypocrites when we don't follow them. Have they never read the bible?Don't you know that Christ has set the new standard of the way in which we live? The old laws don't apply anymore.

And for those christians who are on this site , the word christian means Christ-Like. Christ would have rebuked this couple for sinning, then offered them forgiveness if they were willing to accept. No name-calling in the process...

So, I guess we just throw the 'Ten Commandments' out the friggin screen door also?

CBurr: The laws of our country, NOR the laws of common sense, have ANYTHING to do with the OT, the Bible , or any other religious "laws". They have to do with humankind's growth from barbarians to civilized society.

The laws of common sense say you can't fornicate with your close family members because of the deformed 'mistakes' that result, and this comes from humankind's experience since man began to walk upright. By the same token, you don't 'covet' your neighbor's property or his wife, in order to keep the peace and live harmoniously, another indication of civilization. Unless, of course, you'd rather be beaten over the head with a club, which I see is OK with you, since your only ethics are derived from religious voodoo.

Religion is a subset of religion, my friend, not the other way around.

"It’s not clear how Public Advocate got the photo, which the pair had posted to a blog about their engagement and impending nuptials."

----------- So, how is it not clear how they got the photo? Perhaps because you posted it on a public blog. The powers of detection tell me these two are not very smart.

Amanda,

You don't get it.

The entire purpose of Fair Use is that you do not need permission of any copyright holder to utilize their material.

It's specifically in place to allow people to utilize copyrighted material for educational, political, informational, or research purposes. Without the permission of or (and more specifically) over the objections of the copyright holder. Particularly if it's non-commercial in nature, educational in nature, and political, satirical, or critical, in nature (1st amendment). The use of this photograph by the organization cited in the article fits that description in Toto.

Religion is a subset of religion, my friend, not the other way around.

(tee-hee) CORRECTION:

Religion is a subset of civilization, my friend, not the other way around.

(Sorry; I was so beside myself having to respond to such foolishness.)

Cnicht said;

T

The entire purpose of Fair Use is that you do not need permission of any copyright holder to utilize their material.

It's specifically in place to allow people to utilize copyrighted material for educational, political, informational, or research purposes. Without the permission of or (and more specifically) over the objections of the copyright holder. Particularly if it's non-commercial in nature, educational in nature, and political, satirical, or critical, in nature (1st amendment).

Mitt Romney's campaign recently used Twisted Sister's song 'We're Not Gonna Take It' in a campaign ad. Frontman Dee Snider spoke out against it,threatened legal action since he was not asked whether he consented to the use of the song prior to the ad being aired, and the ad was taken down.

Now the song was "used by a non-profit organization for a completely political use to convey a message to voters regarding what a candidate felt on a particular issue"--in this case that the candidate believed that the country was 'fed up' and 'not going to take it anymore'. If, as you say, "That idea in and of itself is not protected by copyright" then why did Romney's campaign take it down? If such usage were legal under Fair Use, they would have continued to use it. They did not.

Another example: at the beginning of school my sons teachers send home a bunch of forms to fill out. One of these is permission to use my child's face and name should an occasion ever arise in which someone photographs the class, or if educators making videos of children in school happen to film my child. It also covers if the media happens to be at the school and my child(ren) happens to be photographed/taped/interviewed. If Fair Use applies, then they would not need my permission to videotape and air my sons' pictures/photos/videos on the nightly news or teacher training videos. Also, the end credits to a movie would not have to list the stuntmen, actors, cameramen, grips and production people.

Janey Castro, and the rest of you fools who think it's ok to steal something because it's on the internet:

"Grow up, and understand that if someone posts a photo on the internet for everyone to view, it is fair game, and it will be in the public domain for a very long time, if not forever."

A copyright is valid as soon as an item such as a photo is created. It does not have to be registered, and it doesn't have to be marked. Some photographers will watermark their photos to stop someone from using them IF they think someone may have a reason to believe they will be stolen. If a photographer (or other artist) registered the item, they can get a higher payout when they take the infringer to court, and they have up until they walk into the courtroom to register it. Just because an entity is a political campaign, or a non-profit is not a reason to be able to use a copyrighted work free, and at no time are they allowed to just appropriate the use of that item. If the campaign or non-profit ASKS and is GIVEN permission to use it, often the copyright owner will just ask for recognition rather than renumeration or will reduce the cost of the use of the item. There have been several high profile copyright infringement cases lately - not just this non-profit stealing, but musicians sending cease and desist orders to prevent certain politicians from using music at rallies or in commercials.

Janey, with that attitude that everything is "fair game", you are going to end up on the other end of a copyright infringement suit - and I can tell you that it is very costly. Nothing is fair game UNLESS YOU CREATE IT. If I find you're using any of MY copyrighted work, it's going to be $10K a pop.

The photo that was used without permission was a photo of two men kissing. It was used to illustrate political messaging against people who supported same-sex civil unions.

It wasn't a photo of two men getting married, or even alluding to them getting married. Yes, the photo was taken on occasion of their getting engaged, but you can't tell that just by looking at it. All you can tell is that it is a posed portrait of two men kissing in front of the Brooklyn Bridge.

You can try to hide your opposition to gay people behind moral objections to their right to marry or enter into state-recognized relationships. In this case, though, it won't work. Some of you claim that people aren't hateful because they oppose same-sex marriage, but this isn't a photo of same-sex marriage. It's two men expressing G-rated physical affection to one another. When you collapse the image of affection between two men into a symbol of moral decay centered on marriage, it's clearly a flat objection to homosexuality that's the problem. The photo was presented as bait to stir opposition to same-sex civil unions; if it worked, it's pretty clear that opposition is rooted in hatred and bigotry, and not a desire to protect marriage at all, if all it took to was to show a picture of two men kissing.

Cniht: YOU don't get it. Fair use is not for something like an AD like this. Fair Use is for use in schools, criticising the art - not the subject of the art. While you can use it for free, you do have to ask permission from the copyright holder or you can get sued and then you will have to PROVE that it is fair use. In this case, it is NOT fair use, and the non-profit would be found liable. By the time it gets into court, that photo, if it hasn't already been, will be registered to allow that photographer to get the maximum damages from the infringement. Political use is NOT a part of Fair Use. Never has been.

Butt sex, anyone?

Amanda-2017567 - as soon as the "couple" posted the picture on a public blog space they then were guilty of opening it up to public use if they did not identify it as not for public use......

Unhappy-1583758

While I am against gay marriage because I am a christian, I would have to agree that using someone's photos without their consent is unlawful.

However, this does not allow the liberal left to declare this a field day on "why they hate christians". If that is the case, then they refuse to see their own hypocrisy. You cannot spew tolerance and then curse another's views because you don't agree.

I'm also tired of liberals using the bible for hate. They seem to pick out the most obscure verses, and then claim christians are hypocrites when we don't follow them. Have they never read the bible?Don't you know that Christ has set the new standard of the way in which we live? The old laws don't apply anymore.

And for those christians who are on this site , the word christian means Christ-Like. Christ would have rebuked this couple for sinning, then offered them forgiveness if they were willing to accept. No name-calling in the process...

Unhappy

Do you realize that your argument is totally irrational? You say the "old laws don't apply anymore" but you are against gay marriage because you are a Christian (which I capitalize and you don't for some strange reason). You are using the Bible to justify denying gay rights, but admit that you do not accept all of the prohibitions stated in the Bible. Why is the prohibition about homosexuality one that you DO accept? You reveal a great deal about who you are in the parts of the Bible you are willing to accept.

But then you ruined an intelligent response by charging bigotry and claiming "hate" which BTW is slanderous itself if stated towards a person in particular. But this is the problem with the liberal side: They stress the importance of "choice" - but only if your "choice" matches theirs.

pro business - sorry, but the feature add does reek with anti-gay sentiments, suggesting, as it does that allowing or supporting gay marriage is some type of utterly damning perversion. So spyder's statement is hardly slanderous, not if truth is still an absolute defense against charges of slander.

But I would agree that the people who designed and paid for the add can only be found liable for misuse of somebody else's image, not for the add's homophobic sentiments.

TruettCollins

Amanda-2017567 - as soon as the "couple" posted the picture on a public blog space they then were guilty of opening it up to public use if they did not identify it as not for public use......

Think of it this way, Truett. These anti-homosexuality groups don't have the right to use the picture for the same reason that the Republicans are denied permission to use Bruce Springsteen's songs in their political advertisements. Bruce doesn't believe in the Republican messages of exclusion and hate any more than this couple believes in the anti-gay marriage message.

And why is it that you put "couple" in quotes. Is that to emphasize that you do not accept them as a real couple? Maybe it is to illustrate the narrow gage of your mind.

How would some of you nice little heterosexual couples of the opposite sex like to have your photo posted in an ad for a politician advocating something you were vehemently opposed to?

Mr Binkie - I believe heterosexual couples also engage in Bu** sex, as you so eloquently put it.

You people are crazy

Dan, You need to check your facts. Homosexuality is not something you are born with, it is not genetic. If it were then all identical twins would be of the same sexual orientation and they are not. Since they come from the same egg and sperm and start out as one cell, they have the same genetics.

Tether, I'll start by saying I am not a geneticist, and I suspect from your comments that the same could be said of you.

However, I do know that current genetic science shows that many genes do not cause the automatic appearance of a particular trait. There are often environmental factors which trigger the genetic trait to become evident in the organism.

I have also heard strong evidence that sexual orientation is determined very early in the development of a child, possibly during gestation. For instance, the chance that any male child will be a homosexual rises with each older, male sibling he has. This factor only holds true for actual birth brothers, and is not influenced by whether or not the older siblings are raised in the same household.

It is hard to imagine an explanation for this which does not depend upon the mother's unconcious influence during the child's earliest stage of development, meaning in the womb.

So it possible and quite probable that people, or at least some men, are "born gay" as opposed to being recruited by older, conniving Gay men, or driven to it by bad experiences with women.

I've seen some great arguments for why certain churches should refuse to conduct marriage ceremonies for same sex couples. I've yet to see a good argument for why same sex couples should be legally prohibited from marrying.

PS: One man and one woman, with equal legal standing, freely choosing to marry each other because they are in romantic love is not traditional marriage. That form of marriage is maybe a century old, and it is much younger if you take into account how recently marital rape was criminalized.

Traditional marriage is polygamous, arranged, and allowed a husband to completely subsume his wife's legal rights (coverture). Traditional marriage frequently involved a barely pubescent girl being married to a much older man against her will because her consent wasn't necessary as long as her father/owner gave his permission. Biblical marriage includes some truly horrific things like forcing rape victims to marry their rapists (Deut 22:28-29) or allowing soldiers to kidnap virgins and force them into marriage (Deuteronomy 21:10-14).

Well, I read nearly every post here. And I must say, this nation is in deep, DEEP, trouble. Not because the majority favors homosexual marriage, or that a minority has a biblically inspired view of the law. Most posters are talking out their butts, frankly, which is fine since this is a place for opinions. But on the law itself there is almost no doubt that a "fair use" defense will prevail. Still, people who are wildly fanatical for homosexual marriage are commenting that without permission it was wrong to use the image, and so the remedy will be lots of money for the homosexual men, or the photographer, or both.

I doubt it. Yes, the purpose of the use was to support a political position you can infer both men in the photo, but not necessarily the photographer, oppose. But this isn't an actionable tort. Was the photo meant to inflict emotional harm on the homosexual men in it? Heck, it doesn't even have targets over their heads, and we know democrats are okay with that symbolism (so long as only democrats use it). What in the use of that photo demeans the men in it? It's a political question...Do you want this kind of America, or this kind of state, or this kind of city or county? So anyone who saw the photo and WANTS that kind of society surely doesn't oppose the homosexual men in it, or mean then any harm.

If the copyright is owned by the photographer (it must be else she would not be party to the suit) then the two men likely violated copyright law by posting it to a public-use blog, but those defending homosexual marriage here aren't making this claim. There is no commerical aspect we are aware of, so no violation there. All we are left with is that a claim is justified, so says homosexuallity advocates here, because the image was used to support a political outcome not favored by the homosexual couple depicted.

Um, this poses a huge problem for those of you, like Sarah, who have been rambling on about the First Amendment. If people can freely use an image without permission because those in the image or whoever took the image or owns it agrees with the political purpose involved, but a tort would be committed to use the same image in a way not approved of by those involved, then the entire "fair use" doctrine will go bye-bye. NO chance, none, that a judge will make that choice. The whole POINT of fair use is to provide a way to use material even though the creators of it disagree with your fair use of it.

It's funny how culture shapes things. In a large part of the world, homosexuality is an ugly crime that should have a practitioner branded as a registered sex offender for life or executed while a person that is into minors is considered normal. Whereas here in the U.S. the exact opposite is the case. And then, we claim that we're right. But I wonder, based on what? Where is our rightness in this coming from? I feel that we are right, that being gay is ok and being a pedophile is a sick and ugly crime, but a lot of the world disagrees with us, so where does our authority on this matter come from? If it feels good, it must be right, isn't that the motto? Serial killers enjoy killing and torturing people and it makes them feel good, so what have they done wrong?

I would also add to Rich's comment that the organization that used the image did not gain clear financial advantage from using the photo. For instance, they did not sell the image to others in order to profit from the image (and it's profit from a very legal stance dealing with financial profits, not profit from getting a political message across, heard, or agreed with).

pro business:

Am I allowed to refer to Reeses Peanut Butter Cups as a marriage between chocolatey honor and peanuty obedience?

Also, when you say "you liberals" and "us conservatives" you put everyone into two groups. In your mind, one group is right and one is wrong. With hundreds of millions of people, you might want to find a little more nuance.

I don't know what the big deal is about gay marriage? Why would anyone care if a gay man marries a gay woman? its their business

Yes, I am a guy and yes, two dude kissing makes me shiver...but that is because I am a hetrosexual male and I don't get how a man can feel that way and ACT that way with another man. HOWEVER, I also now know a LOT of gay men and gay couples and while I still don't "get it" that means exactly squat. They may do WHATEVER they want and more power to them. It is their right. They are adults and damn it, they tend to be better couples/parents than half the hetros I know. Now, the problem occurs when IDIOTS say that they are NOT ALLOWED to marry. They are. Marraige is between a man and a woman. BUT, clearly this arrangement does not work for them and we need one that affords them ALL of the rights and acceptance that we give married men and women. We need to re-frame this argument. Because a bunch of poorly educated, terrified fools cannot handle two people making their own choices we clearly need to stand up and say that it is time to acknowledge the fact that two men or two women can have strong feelings for each other and wish to raise a family/commit themselves to each other as a man and woman have been able to for eons. We can cicumvent the indiocy that comes from these MORONIC religious idiots (people who site the writings of 2000-5000 year dead people as reason for their morality) by simply saying that gay men and women may _______— instead of "marry" and then give them all of the rights they are entitled to. Just because I don't get it or find the idea of bedding a dude kinda gross means NOTHING. That is because I am not gay and that is it. Time to stand up and just give these people a fair stake.

But on the law itself there is almost no doubt that a "fair use" defense will prevail.

WRONG. One of the posters on this board is an attorney, and he pointed out that the photographer owns the rights to the picture (and will likely not see very much money for that, probably $250k tops), and the men in the picture own the rights to use of their likenesses -- THAT is where tort law enters into it, and THAT is where the big bucks could be realized.

We can cicumvent the indiocy that comes from these MORONIC religious idiots (people who site the writings of 2000-5000 year dead people as reason for their morality) by simply saying that gay men and women may _______— instead of "marry" and then give them all of the rights they are entitled to.

That would also mean rewriting the approximately 1,100 federal rights and responsibilities that attach to marriage so that same-sex marriage could be included in those laws, if we called it something different.

King

Marriage existed before the church, and will exist after the church no longer is. Marriage is NOT owned by the church,,,

That is one helluva statement there amidst your rambling king, its also very WRONG! Name 1 single marriage ceremony prior to the existence of religion that anything but a man and a woman. Homosexuality is not new, but homosexual marriage is a modern concept. So according to your logic, marriage next decade will include pounding your pets or choldren... what ever is socially acceptable according to one's loving feelings...

I don't know where some of you earned your law degrees, but demand your tuition back. This is a matter not only of copyright infringement, but also, under tort, invasion of privacy and appropriation of likeness. Granted, it has been a long time, but as I remember, first year of law school, torts; pretty simple stuff.

OMG,

I wasn't aware I had a pronounced forehead. Good to know.

C,

Your 10 Commandments have nothing to do with our laws. Things that may appear in our laws like stealing, or murder, or whatever, are there because the government has a compelling and they violate the rights of other citizens, to property, life, or whatever.

That's why, we don't have laws about worshiping false idols and coveting our neighbor's spouses.

Unhappy

Do you realize that your argument is totally irrational? You say the "old laws don't apply anymore" but you are against gay marriage because you are a Christian (which I capitalize and you don't for some strange reason). You are using the Bible to justify denying gay rights, but admit that you do not accept all of the prohibitions stated in the Bible. Why is the prohibition about homosexuality one that you DO accept? You reveal a great deal about who you are in the parts of the Bible you are willing to accept.

Don: My argument is totally rational to me. I do not go by your standards of what is considered "normal" so therefore your argument is irrelevant. I go by the standards set forth by Jesus Christ. Second, you claim that I do not accept all of the prohibitions as stated in the bible. But I do, because I accepted Christ..... To continue following the Old Testament Laws would mean that Christ's death was a waste of his time. Hence the name "Christian".

Hebrews10:8-10 states First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them”—though they were offered in accordance with the law.⁹ Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second.¹⁰ And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

As for homosexuality, it is one I will not accept and let me explain why. You are assuming that it is only stated in the Old testament; hence the prohibition. But Jesus never said any such thing.

For instance, he did not tell the woman caught in the act of adultery( John 8:11), that it was okay to do it , but rather NOT TO DO IT ANYMORE. In other words, the laws didn't really change when it came to sexual sin. And homosexuality is labeled as sexual sin.

So, only Liberals have gay members in their circles - there are no gay Conservatives?

Nice to see you require all gay Conservatives to stay in the closet. Funny thing is; once a Conservative family finds out that their family member is gay - they still love them...even Dick Cheney. Reality has a way of bringing haters back to their senses.

Those fliers were meant to play on your emotional responses - if it wasn't hate, then what emotional response was it? Don't even pretend to say your response is based in logic - who's logic. Never in my last Ethics class did the subject of sexual preference come up. You do unto others as you would have them due unto to you - end of discussion.

sexual sin.

You say potato, I say, for the love of god your religion doesn't matter to anyone but you, why can't some of you not get that through your heads and actually defend your legal positions without it!

Skip, mguy, & whoever else,

I'm well aware the the commandments are actually quite wordy! The post I made was meant to be sarcastic for everyone's info. Geeze can not anyone get it any more or is everyone so far Left or Right they just can't see it...?!

Tether when did you choose to be straight? Because if you chose to be straight you are either a bi-sexual or a closet homosexual. I never chose to be heterosexual, I just am, there was never any choice. The genetic thing is nonsense. Once born, people's genes mutate according to different factors even identical twins and they don't mutate the same. Two years ago my son was given a blood test for a possible genetic problem. The test found nothing and he recently had a new genetic test that had been developed in just that short period. Even if scientists find a "gay" gene the only reason they would announce it would be to shut up people who are so desperate to draw attention from themselves and what they are doing or thinking by putting others down.

Once the bible is brought up as a response you've immediately lost the argument. The bible was not written by god it was written by men. Strangers to you, it is like me telling you that the Walmart greeter told me something so that makes it true.

Brutally raped at 7, needed surgery to make corrections..

Have an androgynous appearance, every gay guy has something sickening to say to me as how they want to screw me in all sorts of manner..

Best friend after 20 years comes out and comes on to me..

From what I have personally experienced the gay community has serious moral issues. And if they were on fire I WOULD NOT PISS ON THEM TO PUT IT OUT..

How's that for hate?

You say potato, I say, for the love of god your religion doesn't matter to anyone but you, why can't some of you not get that through your heads and actually defend your legal positions without it!

Because Sarah, just because you have no morals does not mean we want to look up to you. Why do gays want marriage? Because they claim they do not have the same right as others when it comes to transferring property, etc; all of which can be avoided by putting into place a very well placed will, health care proxy etc ( all legal).

So the bottom line is why do gays want to marry? It boils down to a person's beliefs. Do you agree? Yes..... then it stands to reason that there is a morality involved, otherwise gays would be content to just live with that person forever ( no marriage). That is where the difference occurs. Morality is different for those who use God as an example compared to those whose morality changes with every passing moment.

Tell me, did you have the same ideas about morality when you were a kid? If they changed even in the slightest, then you know full well that YOUR morality is subjected to your personal feelings and can prove to be unreliable since emotions change often.

Okay?.... Case closed!

What really bothers you and everyone else on this vine is that christians refuse to accept your morality. When the real question is why should we when your feelings are not ours?

We know our emotions change, but it seems to me that you have yet to discover that.

L.J. Rhodes - said "Being gay is no more of a lifestyle (or a choice) than being black, female, etc."....can you please provide the scientific or medically proved universally accepted evidence to support your statement?

That is a rhetorical question .... because it doesn't exist.

The choice is yours but don't blame it on biology it has enough to answer for.

just because you have no morals does not mean we want to look up to you.

Religion has nothing to do with morals, as you demonstrate with every post.

Because they claim they do not have the same right as others when it comes to transferring property, etc; all of which can be avoided by putting into place a very well placed will, health care proxy etc ( all legal).

Proxies, powers of attorney, wills, etc., can be -- and are -- successfully challenged all the time.

Morality is different for those who use God as an example compared to those whose morality changes with every passing moment.

What you mean is that those who base their "morality" in fairy tales are more contemptible than those who base their morality in common decency and our secure knowledge in right vs. wrong. MY morals do not need any "god" to set the example; morality existed long before anyone believed in any "god" or your precious book of fairy tales; and my morality -- and the morality of millions of others like me -- does not "change with every passing moment". I consider it immoral that you think that you can judge others, as well as put yourself above anyone else, because the truth is that your attitude puts you at the lowest link of the food chain, no better than a slug -- or perhaps a slug is better than you, because at least it knows it's a slug, and doesn't pretend to be anything better.

What really bothers you and everyone else on this vine is that christians refuse to accept your morality.

This is not about the acceptance of christo-bigots like you; gays could care less what you accept. They just want equal treatment under the law.

BTW, how does gay marriage affect you? I can answer that: it doesn't.

OK? Case closed!

@Sarah

That's why, we don't have laws about worshiping false idols and coveting our neighbor's spouses.

Yes, We actually do. Somewhat hard to enforce, but they are there .

Here is the current Minnesota state law:

609.36 ADULTERY: Subdivision 1. Acts constituting. When a married woman has sexual intercourse with a man other than her husband, whether married or not, both are guilty of adultery and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both.

usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/adultery.htm http://www.ehow.com/list_6685714_florida-adultery-laws.html

too many idols to list here....

www.bing.com/search?q=removal+of+10+commandments+from+courthouse&form=DLCMHP&pq=removal+of+10+command&sc=3-21&sp=2&qs=AS&sk=AS1

www.bing.com/search?q=paternos+statue+removed&form=DLCDF8&pc=MDDC&src=IE-SearchBox

L.J. Rhodes - said "Being gay is no more of a lifestyle (or a choice) than being black, female, etc."....can you please provide the scientific or medically proved universally accepted evidence to support your statement?

That is a rhetorical question .... because it doesn't exist.

The choice is yours but don't blame it on biology it has enough to answer for.

Can you provide "the scientific or medically proved universally accepted evidence to support your statement" that it is a choice?

That is a rhetorical question, too, because no such evidence exists.

The choice is yours to be ignorant.

US researchers find evidence that homosexuality linked to genetics

• McClatchy newspapers
• guardian.co.uk, Monday 1 December 2008 13.14 EST

Compared to straight men, gay men are more likely to be left-handed, to be the younger siblings of older brothers, and to have hair that whorls in a counterclockwise direction.

US researchers are finding common biological traits among gay men, feeding a growing consensus that sexual orientation is an inborn combination of genetic and environmental factors that largely decide a person's sexual attractions before they are born.

Such findings - including a highly anticipated study this winter - would further inform the debate over whether homosexuality is innate or a choice, an undercurrent of California's recent Proposition 8 campaign in which television commercials warned that "schools would begin teaching second-graders that boys could marry boys", suggesting homosexuality would then spread.

Some scientists say the political and moral debate over same-sex marriage frequently strayed from established scientific evidence, including comments by Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin that homosexuality is "a choice" and "a decision".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/01/homosexuality-genetics-usa

Homosexual behavior due to genetics and environmental factors
Published: Saturday, June 28, 2008 - 17:21 in Psychology & Sociology
Homosexual behaviour is largely shaped by genetics and random environmental factors, according to findings from the world's largest study of twins. Writing in the scientific journal Archives of Sexual Behavior, researchers from Queen Mary's School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, and Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm report that genetics and environmental factors (which are specific to an individual, and may include biological processes such as different hormone exposure in the womb), are important determinants of homosexual behaviour.

Dr Qazi Rahman, study co-author and a leading scientist on human sexual orientation, explains: "This study puts cold water on any concerns that we are looking for a single 'gay gene' or a single environmental variable which could be used to 'select out' homosexuality - the factors which influence sexual orientation are complex. And we are not simply talking about homosexuality here - heterosexual behaviour is also influenced by a mixture of genetic and environmental factors.

The team led by Dr Niklas Långström at Karolinska Institutet conducted the first truly population-based survey of all adult (20-47 years old) twins in Sweden. Studies of identical twins and non-identical, or fraternal, twins are often used to untangle the genetic and environmental factors responsible for a trait. While identical twins share all of their genes and their entire environment, fraternal twins share only half of their genes and their entire environment. Therefore, greater similarity in a trait between identical twins compared to fraternal twins shows that genetic factors are partly responsible for the trait.

This study looked at 3,826 same-gender twin pairs (7,652 individuals), who were asked about the total numbers of opposite sex and same sex partners they had ever had. The findings showed that 35 per cent of the differences between men in same-sex behaviour (that is, that some men have no same sex partners, and some have one or more) is accounted for by genetics.

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2008/06/28/homosexual.behavior.due.genetics.and.environmental.factors

BTW, it really doesn't matter whether it IS a choice or not, because we are constitutionally protected in our choices, as well.

ProBusiness, I don't see how one can argue marriage is a religious or moral title, since there aren't any religious or moral requirements for a man or woman to be married. Men and women of different faiths, or of no faith, can marry. They can divorce and remarry. They can have so-called open marriages, comitting adultery or swapping partners with other couples, yet they are still married.

Rob, if the purpose of marriage is to produce children to pay for our social security, why do we allow childless couples to marry, or widows past the child bearing age to remarry? The idea that marriage today is strictly for procreation is rediculous.

Calling someone's God a "sky fairy" and dismissing his/her holy book as a "fairy tale" may be seen as just being "ironic" or "witty", however, many people do see that as a form of hate. Those who have opposed homosexual marriage have been branded as "haters" or "bigots" based upon their choce of words. Don't people understand the weight of such words as "sky fairy"? You are not only mocking someone's God (regardless of your own beliefs ) but deriding his/her entire belief system as well. Should I approach a Hindu, Muslim, Wiccan etc and call their religion a fairy tale or witchcraft, I would be immediately labeled a "hater". Don't people see the hypocrisy in this? You lose any of the moral high ground which you are so desperate to claim when you mock religion in such a way. You are not only mocking the person to whom you believe that you are addressing but you are insulting millions of Catholics, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Baptists, Episcopalians, Mennonites, Quakers et alia ad infinitum. Your battle is against those who oppose homosexual marriage. By blanketly insulting all who belive in God, you do your cause no favors.

Well everyone, Unhappy said case closed. I guess that's that.

Unhappy,

It doesn't matter what moral transformations I've gone through in my life. Just like your's don't matter either. The LAW has always been the same and has nothing to do with morality, seeing as morality is PERSONAL and INDIVIDUAL.

THAT was my whole point. That you can't make a LEGAL case, only a religious one, and THOSE hold no water.

And, I'm presuming they want to marry for love and the 1000+ benefits.

Thank you for illustrating it so perfectly.

Jim,

The difference is, although some may mock religion, NO one here has ever advocated for it being outlawed.

Calling someone's God a "sky fairy" and dismissing his/her holy book as a "fairy tale" may be seen as just being "ironic" or "witty", however, many people do see that as a form of hate.

Advocating the denial of civil rights to a group of taxpaying citizens just because you don't agree with who s/he is can also be viewed as a form of hate. By blanketly insulting an entire group of people that way, you do your cause no favors, either.

Cburroughs, I hope you see this. I just wanted to thank you for the civil response.

I'm happy to discuss issues and present my opinion as well as hear what you have to say on the matter.

Again, I hope you see this and have a nice day.

skip

K Truant:

That is one helluva statement there amidst your rambling king, its also very WRONG! Name 1 single marriage ceremony prior to the existence of religion that anything but a man and a woman. Homosexuality is not new, but homosexual marriage is a modern concept. So according to your logic, marriage next decade will include pounding your pets or choldren... what ever is socially acceptable according to one's loving feelings...

Rambling? Really? Where does it ramble? I was picking apart ProBusiness's post point by point, since he was so kind to present such an elegantly laid out series of illogical targets.

And, check your facts. Or take some cultural anthropology classes. Or study other cultures. Marriage was devised, originally, as a way to protect property and inheritance. It also can include the concept of sexual fidelity because, let's face it, we don't have to go too far into the past (or a lot of places in the present) to see that women were essentially glorified property.

That aside - are you trying to say that there was no such thing as marriage prior to Christianity? Prior to Judaism? Prior to belief in the Egyptian gods? etc. etc?

Is homosexual marriage a modern concept? I don't know. I believe it is, but what's your point?

And no, according to my logic, marriage next decade will NOT include pounding pets or children. Your analogy is, like that of ProBusiness, completely bogus.

Neither can consent, and frankly, your use of such a pathetic straw-man argument just shows that you have no real logic to fall back on in your attempted refutation of my post. Consenting adults vs those unable to give consent.

Homosexuality is not new, but homosexual marriage is a modern concept.

WRONG. Same-sex marriage existed in ancient times, and our own Native Americans performed same-sex marriages.

The early Egyptian and Mesopotamian societies that are considered important antecedents for Western culture apparently not only tolerated same-sex relationships, but also recognized such relationships in their culture, literature, and mythology. Evidence of same-sex marriage is at best indirect in these ancient societies, however. One finds slightly stronger and more direct evidence of same-sex marriages in Greek and early Roman culture, in imperial Rome, and in Western Europe for much of the Christian Middle Ages.

Further evidence of same-sex relationships may be found in Mesopotamian statutes, which have been preserved, escaping the fate of the lost Egyptian laws. None of Mesopotamia's early legal codes-the Laws of Urukagina (2375 B.C.), the Laws of Ur-Nammu (2100 B.C.), the Laws of Eshnunna (1750 B.C.), the Laws of Hammurabi (1726 B.C.), and the Hittite Laws (circa 800 B.C.)-prohibited or disapproved of same-sex relationships, even though sex and marriage were otherwise heavily regulated.

Although few written records of pre-Columbian Native American cultures are accessible to us, we do have the benefit of histories describing those cultures written by Spanish explorers, missionaries, and bureaucrats. 16 These sources provide early accounts of same-sex unions in the Americas.

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2503&context=fss_papers

So according to your logic, marriage next decade will include pounding your pets or choldren

That's the same dumb argument the dumb bigots tried to use against interracial marriage in 1967, and it is just as dumb today as it was then.

I think I asked a perfectly logical question and heard crickets, so I'll try again.

Christians, you say that the laws of the Old Testament no longer apply. Did God wake up one morning and decide that they were silly and outdated and you needed a new covenant? He decided that he set expectations too high and you weren't able to be as holy as he wanted you to be? Please enlighten me.

• I am a religious Jew and we believe in the Torah (old testament). Our sages have taught us that there is nothing written in the Torah that is not necessary, ie if there was no such desire to be gay it would not have been mentioned. We believe there is such a desire that some of us have but we are told to control it, and it does not mean you are an evil person that you have those desires. Everyone has their own tests in life I spoke to a therapist once and he told me he has clients that their desire is to rape someone (of course its not comparable to two consenting adults) and they feel disgusted with themselves "how can feel I this way" and he tells them that they are not bad people one can have any desire they want but as long as they control themselves they are fine. Im in no way comparing two consenting adults to a rapist Im only bringing up a point that we are not told to change who we are and how we feel because that is not in our control, but what is in our control is the choice to act upon those desires or not to and thats where we are told to control ourselves.

John,

Your point? Your religion and belief that they should "control" themselves has no bearing on anything. That don't have to.

Deal with it.

Sarah,

Many people falsely believe that having gay thoughts is wrong, I was clearing that up. Of course no one has to we live in a free country and a free world we are given the choice to do what is right or wrong. No lightning comes down because we do something wrong, we are here to become closer to G-d and he knows we will make mistakes but he wants us to continue the struggle against our evil inclination and even if we fall he wants us to get back up. Life is a struggle and no one is forcing you to make the right choice its up to each and every one of us to make this world a dwelling place for G-d.

Life is a struggle and no one is forcing you to make the right choice

See, here's the problem: right choice is subjective.

What is the right choice for you may not be the right choice for someone else. What's more, nobody cares about anybody else's god, and nobody is going to try and "make this world a dwelling place" for anybody else's god. As an agnostic, I'll fight every single religion until they can prove themselves, and none have.

allswell,

Im not sure what is an Agnostic, you believe there is a G-d?

Im not sure what is an Agnostic, you believe there is a G-d?

Agnostic literally means "to not know". As a simplification of the premise, I don't believe any religion or belief is wholly true and see no evidence proving any of them. What's more, I am highly skeptical of any religion which attempts to claim a form of supremacy (nearly all do), because the argument they use to claim this applies equally to every other religion.

allswell,

You do not know what? if there is a supreme being? Or which is the correct religion?

if there is a supreme being? Or which is the correct religion?

Both. There is no proof. I accept the likelihood that there exists some ultimate source (given that science always falls on a "what came before" theory), but that it is a being merely raises the further question of what created said being, and so on.

If you do believe in a ultimate source, do you believe that we have a purpose? (Not just to eat, drink, reproduce and die.)

If you do believe in a ultimate source, do you believe that we have a purpose?

As I said, I accept the likelihood. That doesn't mean I believe it is, just that I don't believe it isn't. Its a non-stance.

As to purpose, why do we need one? We could all be the result of utterly random chaos (which has been known to produce interesting results) for all we know. Cosmic purpose is unnecessary.

As usual ErinNJ your reading comprehension is questionable as neither of those excerpts provide accepted proof of anything if you could or would read them you could have seen that for yourself. Further the absence of proof of one theory does not prove another....sorry that's science probably missed that class in Jr. High School....in any event I have to agree just because one chooses to be gay does not mean they should be discriminated against, just as in your case if one chooses to be ignorant of the facts they shouldn't be discriminated against either....just be presented with the facts and have their "statements" and "evidence" held to scrutiny.

Cheers

And your evidence to the contrary is...?

As usual, you only have what you can pull from the encyclopedia of your ass -- that's why your head spends so much time up there.

You know, I always read these posts with amusement. I have found that no subject brings out the hypocrisy more than Homosexuality.

I consider myself a Christian. A bad one maybe, but one none-the-less. Well, here is how I see it.

According to my faith, God created everything. So that would include Gay people. I personally believe that the vast majority of people who are gay are born that way. It's not a choice. It's simply who they are...the way they were born. I do not believe they could change even if they really wanted to. (Which they shouldn't.)

Now, I see all you so-called Christians doing all this Bible thumping, however, i'm pretty sure that the Bible also say's not to judge others. I'm sure I could also find a bunch of other verses that most of you are violating. Well, I have news for you.

In the eyes of God, no sin is greater than another. So in other word, somebody being Gay is no worse than you judging them.

In the end, I simply do not see where another person being Gay has any effect on me whats-so-ever. Me or my children or my marriage. How could it? Not only that, but who are any of you to dictate what "Marriage" is. I'm not a genius by any stretch of the imagination, but I do know this.

A marriage is the joining of two entities. Period. So to me, that also includes two men or two women. (Come on man, two women together is HOT! And i'm betting that more than one of you "Christians" have watched Porn that has two women together. I'm also betting you watched it more than once.)

In the end, who a person wants to love or @!$%# is none of my God-Damned business. Nor is it yours. Period. I'm as straight as straight can be and i'm here to tell you, you people need to mind your own damned business.

However, that also goes for the Gay community. I will admit that I get a little irritated sometimes, with your constant pushing of your life-styles on me. My personal opinion is that maybe it wouldn't hurt to tone it down a bit sometimes. I do believe that sometimes you do things to purposely create a story or situation and then try to play the victim role.

In the end, all of you people need to practice what you preach. Do not pick and choose which parts of the Bible fit your particular needs. And all of you Non-Christians need to do the same. You condemn or talk @!$%# about Christians and i'm here to tell you, thats absolutely no different than the Christians bashing gays.....

I said "the absence of proof of one theory does not prove another".

And the presence of evidence provides weight to a theory. She provided you plenty of evidence as to a genetic link, you have provided nothing against it. Mate, you be in deep.

Allswell... theory is just that theory, a conjecture without a perponderance of evidence to support it. The prevailing scientific and medical theory in respect to the occurance of homosexuality in humans is, and there is a preponderance of evidence to support this theory and that is why it is the generally accepted theory (it is still a theory as there is no medical or scientifically tested evidence and unlikely that there ever will be an ability to undertake a study which could prove or disprove this) is related to psychological and environmental conditions and not biological or medical conditions.

You can undertake the research for yourself if you choose to do so......or ask your local scientist, but for Christ's sake don't rely on Error in NJ she wouldn't know a fact if someone slapped her upside the head with it.

is related to psychological and environmental conditions and not biological or medical conditions.

I have seen the evidence you don't link, and it stands no more valid than the evidence provided by ErinNJ; there is an equal amount of each in peer-reviewed science.

In addition, manipulating someone's NV handle into an insult is against the CoH.

overwhelming view of science and medicine is

...not overwhelming. Nice try though.

she comes out swinging with the most vile of insults but that does not seen to be against the CofH

So report her if you think she's wrong. Just like I continue to report you for continuing your chain of insults, whether you think you're clever or not.

So you agree there is no proof.

Apparently reading comprehension is another skill you lack. Allswell did not say "there is no proof;" he said that there appears to be valid proof on each side (however, I have yet to see peer-reviewed proof that homosexuality -- or any other sexual orientation -- does NOT have any biological causes).

Furthermore, since you provide NO evidence to support your claims (whether credible or not), and I provided peer-reviewed evidence, it would seem that the facts are all on MY side, not yours.

As for ERROR NJ.... I have been around here long enough to know that whenever she is confronted with the facts she comes out swinging with the most vile of insults but that does not seen to be against the CofH at least I am clever in the way I do it.

You're a legend in your own mind...and I suppose I could refer to you as "A Yank-off in Australia," since that's all you appear to be doing (and that's also where your brains appear to be).

So I guess manipulating my screen name is all you have in your pathetic world.

whenever she is confronted with the facts

And YOU have never "confronted" me -- or anyone else -- with any.

Ha Ha Ha to both of you and the "community" all your senseless triads, your thrusts and parries and yet you still have not presented one shred of scientific EVIDENCE because it does not exist....you can believe in the tooth fairy if you choose doesn't mean there is any evidence to suggest it exists.

You can throw all the BS, Insults, Community Reports, and theories you want at me or this subject and I will still get up in the morning look in the mirror and be able to live with the truth in myself and my life ..... I do not need Newsvine and the Newsvine wanna be's like you 2 to create a life where nothing exists....oh if you only knew.....dream on.

you still have not presented one shred of scientific EVIDENCE because it does not exist

Right back atcha; the evidence is all on OUR side.

Is your life so empty that all you can do is taunt others on the Internet?

"Senseless triads" -- you can't even speak proper English; what kind of "yank-off" are you, anyway?

See, we could easily post link after link to scientific studies and proofs of genetic relations in sexuality, but we already know your ilk: when confronted with facts, attack the community behind them as biased, attack the system of peer review, etc etc.

In fact those links have already been posted. No matter the source, no matter the review, you won't believe them. In the end, you're little more than another bigoted troll amongst hundreds, a slowly dying (but screaming as you go) group.

we already know your ilk: when confronted with facts, attack the community behind them as biased, attack the system of peer review, etc etc.

Although Yank appears to favor the ad hom attack: attack the person who provides the facts.

Ha Ha Ha there is no need to goad or insult....you have to live with yourselves. There has never been any reason for me to provide proof as I did not make the false statement in the first place and funnily enough the person who did make it has not responded but you 2 gay agenda propagandists have ..... funny, maybe he/she looked and realized the truth oops.

The proof is in the world around you get out of the cellar and have a look....if there was widely accepted proof then we wouldn't be having this discussion because.....it would be widly accepted....damn foiled by logic again.

End of disscussion.

Oh and honey where are my sucide pills Allswell reported me to the Newsvine Committee on Niceness and E___NJ insulted me and called me names I can't take it anymore....pass the razor blades!!!!!! L

The proof is in the world around you get out of the cellar and have a look....if there was widely accepted proof then we wouldn't be having this discussion because.....it would be widly accepted....damn foiled by logic again.

Did you know there are still people who believe the world is flat?

Damn, foiled by reality again! Must be so hard for you that:

Oh and honey where are my sucide pills Allswell reported me to the Newsvine Committee on Niceness and E___NJ insulted me and called me names I can't take it anymore....pass the razor blades!!!!!!

Its so childish its pitiful. You act like you're 10.

You make false statements all the time: claiming that we have not presented scientific evidence is only one example; you have many more throughout your posts -- which you NEVER support with factual data from unbiased, peer-reviewed sources, as we have.

The fact that YOU and your ilk don't accept valid proof does not mean it is not widely accepted; in fact, it gives that proof yet MORE validity, if it needed that.

Here are some arguments that I'll place against the people who believe gay marriage should not be legal.

There is no logical argument that has been placed to state that there is any issue with allowing the marriage of 2 people who are of the same gender. Even here it is being shown that the arguments are stemming from cherry picked passages from the bible, which is something that Jesus condemned people for doing(the pair of men who twisted a passage to give them the right to stone a woman but have them be free). When you look at Prop 8's smear campaign against allowing gay marriage, it is entirely built upon playing on people's emotions and fear of the unknown, so much so that even Futurama made fun of it.

Marriage in the US has been a legal term for some time and because of this is no longer protected under religious rule. A church is more than welcome to chose not to do the ceremony there, but they cannot deny a couple to get married.

To the mention of giving it to them but under another name. The issue you run with this is the same issue during segregation. Seperate but equal. They are never equal though. When you have it under 2 seperate names, then you can write laws to affect one or another, you can strip one without stripping the other. They are 2 seperate things which are able to be treated seperately. Call them 2 seperate things a company can also then choose to awknowledge one but not the other.

So perhaps we can look at a compromise. What of removing all legal meaning from the term "marriage." Give the term back to the churches, to the religions, not to the lawbooks. Replace the term in the law book with civil union. Man to woman, man to man, woman to woman, they would all be called Civil Unions. They would all be the same, they would not be seperated. Both would then be treated equally and the people who care so much for keeping the term marriage to themselves are more than welcome to.

Give the term back to the churches, to the religions, not to the lawbooks.

The problem, Ren, is that marriage never belonged to the religions. It was a civil institute long before religions inserted themselves forcibly as a manner to dictate social organization and kingmaking.

Sorry, Larry Craig.

Daniel Craig

Lots of 007 fans are a little confused.............but hey that's ok what he does off the screen is his business.

Since you are slandering some one, I hope you get a lawsuit as well!

I could care less how others five their lives, but I hate when small minded sheeple judge others as though their opinion is worth something

Perhaps he really meant Barney Frank and his partner. I would imagine that a picture of *that* would have the intended effect for the ad in question. The only thing I can think of that would be worse would be to see Barney Frank and Rosey O'Donnell kissing...yikes!

Since you are slandering some one, I hope you get a lawsuit as well!

Slander is spoken. In print, it's called Liable.

WilliamOfRites - they should have followed Republican Senator Daniel Craig into the airport restroom.

That was your guy and public rest room. Larry Craig was a different one..

In print, it's called Liable.

No offense, wee-bit, but it is actually called "libel". "Liable" is something else, entirely. (Just trying to add to your education...)

Paul,

First, both Daniel and Larry Craig, are public figures, you have a whole different level of and list of elements to meet in order to be hit with a defamation case against them.

Second, Larry Craig, really did that. Its not defamation if it's the truth.

So if someone disagrees with the gay lifestyle, they are a bigot... OK well if you people say so..

So please explain me how not to be a bigot and still disagree with the gay lifestyle....

Gee, I thought so..

Back East,

Apply the "but for" test. And no, in this case it isn't for pooping.

But for, some people's attempts to bring their anti-gay stance into the public realm and our legislation, with no rational basis or compelling state interest, ergo effecting the entire nation, would we have anything to say about your belief?

But for, their being homosexual, which is none of your business and does not effect you...

Do you see the difference? No one's saying you have to like or accept gay people, but when you ACTIVELY work against them, that's a whole different can of beans.

So if someone disagrees with the gay lifestyle, they are a bigot

There is a difference between 'disagreeing' and 'being intolerant of' gays.

I disagree with the rabid-sports fan lifestyle. It's not my thing, I think it's all pretty inconsequential. But if someone enjoys it and it's their thing... more power to 'em. I may disagree with their fandom, but they have the right to it.

That disagreement is different than intolerance. Intolerance is advocating for legislation against sport fandom, supporting hatred against sports fans, and spreading lies and misinformation to support an agenda which is anti-sport fandom.

One is a bigot, one is not. Guess which one most anti-gay folks fall into? I know it's not the live and let live category of mere disagreement. Calling bigotry 'disagreement' is not fooling anyone.

So please explain me how not to be a bigot and still disagree with the gay lifestyle....

You sit in your home and shut your god damn mouth about it. You want to stew in your own hatred, fine... have at it. You want to live a life full of hate towards other people because your personal beliefs don't agree with theirs... fine. You want to consume yourself with the lives of strangers you do not know... well, that's extremely pathetic, but go ahead.

However, you DO NOT have the right to pass legislation as a form of punishing a group because your personal beliefs do not coincide with theirs. Your personal beliefs do not trump the personal beliefs of others. You can still have that belief, but you do not get to pass legislation as a form of punishment onto them.

Did that clear everything up for you, cupcake?

Back East

So if someone disagrees with the gay lifestyle, they are a bigot... OK well if you people say so..

So please explain me how not to be a bigot and still disagree with the gay lifestyle....

Gee, I thought so..

It's very easy if you give someone a chance to respond:

Disagree all you want, but when you publicly rant and rave about the subject, like Westboro Baptist Church ( and thier homepage http://www.godhatesfags.com/ ) you've crossed the line into bigotry.

Im sure the senator like the Public advocate are now in Gay hell...huh? Well good for this couple justice is demanded.

Daniel Craig is gay? Huh, who would have thunk?

Anyway, I don't know what they are suing about. Well, maybe it's the sweater vest...

@mguy-478

If you took your own advice about how certain people should conduct themselves, I doubt you'd get out much. Stop calling people names, and try to represent your cause in a productive way. Your attitude, represented through your rhetoric, really reflects the same bigotry and hatefulness you accuse of others of having.

really reflects the same bigotry and hatefulness you accuse of others of having.

I guess if it were possible to be a bigot against bigots - that would make some sense. Unfortunately, such projection tactics really don't fly in reality. Oh poor bigots, being victimized by all those other people who are bigoted against bigotry.

It seems to me you're bigoted against bigots who are bigoted against bigotry.

Shuck,

So I guess I'm, bigoted against bigots, who are bigoted against bigotry, who are bigoted against bigots?

Janey

Your attitude, represented through your rhetoric, really reflects the same bigotry and hatefulness you accuse of others of having.

You miss one major point... I am not trying to pass legislative laws against the people I hate.

Now, do I hate religious people? Yes, I have no problem being honest about it. I firmly believe that the religious right are the most evil, vile, disgusting, and dangerous people on the planet. I view them the same as terrorists, and I hate terrorists. Both groups actively try to convert people to their way of life, through various means... both politically and aggressively. I completely oppose this practice. I think people should live and let live.

However, the difference is I DO NOT try to pass legislation and laws against religious people. I accept that you are free to believe in whatever fairy tale you want. I may think the religious right is morally wrong, I may hate them for what they have done and what they currently do, I may have a personal issue with them which has led to this belief. But I have NEVER tried to pass a law against them. THAT is the difference.

So, like I said, YOU are free to hate whoever you want... just as I am. But you are not free to pass laws as a form of punishment against the other group, simply because you do not agree with their belief system.

gay homos: We rest our case.

Mguy: Brilliant post. But bigots never let facts get in their way. Reminds me a "Christian" friend of mine who called me a "bigot" when I objected to her using the "N" word to refer to blacks. The human mind never ceases to amaze me!

So I guess I'm

According to anti-gay apologist logic, that seems to be how it works. It goes something like: being irrationally intolerant is actually not bigotry; it is just 'disagreeing' and is totally ok, but being intolerant of irrational intolerance (or "disagreeing") is bigotry.

And somehow, this 'logic' makes enough sense in their minds so that when they articulate it in debate their brains don't ooze out of their ears. It might be the development of such thick skulls that makes this possible.

You sit in your home and shut your god damn mouth about it. You want to stew in your own hatred, fine... have at it. You want to live a life full of hate towards other people because your personal beliefs don't agree with theirs... fine. You want to consume yourself with the lives of strangers you do not know... well, that's extremely pathetic, but go ahead.

The above quote and below quote is by the same person..................WEIRD.

Now, do I hate religious people? Yes, I have no problem being honest about it. I firmly believe that the religious right are the most evil, vile, disgusting, and dangerous people on the planet. I view them the same as terrorists, and I hate terrorists. Both groups actively try to convert people to their way of life, through various means... both politically and aggressively. I completely oppose this practice. I think people should live and let live

He did say it was fine... so ... no inconsistency noted.

Sarah's gay. Otherwise, she wouldn't be so outspoken about supporting 'gay rights'.

He did say it was fine... so ... no inconsistency noted

He also said.

You sit in your home and shut your god damn mouth about it

So he isn't following his own advice but I do like the way he states that both his hatred and those that have hatred toward gays are "extremely pathetic" in having that hatred. I agree with that.

I see my fan club is out in full force.

Homie,

Why you think, that I would think, that that's an insult is beyond me. However, as I've said before, when guys follow me around and pick on me, that normally means they have a crush. Just, saying.

Gay,

The proper spelling is doUche bag. I use it plenty, trust me, I know.

I don't think "sit in your home and shut your mouth" was meant to be taken literally. It seems he was referring to people who go out and advocate in support of anti-xyz policies and legislation based solely on their unsupported opinions.

It's interesting that the religious right clings to its gay-bashing but supports a Presidential candidate with SIX grandmothers (think of all those bizarrely-colored sweaters at Mormon christmas.) They hate "gay marriage" but support a candidate who has first degree polygamy in his immediate family.

This also applies to immigrant-bashing and then supporting a candidate whose father was an illegal immigrant from Mexico (covered extensively in the press during George Romney's failed Presidential bid.)

And the worst of all is that the religious right calls Obama a Muslim then supports a non-Christian for President.

Not brilliant thinkers these right wingers! Certainly no match for @Sarah. ROFL

Sarah: "However, as I've said before, when guys follow me around and pick on me, that normally means they have a crush."

So true! You and Feisty have quite the fan club! You go girl!

Chris: Right on! (post 2.29)

And don't forget Romney's dad was on Welfare--one of those "victims" who took "government handouts!"

Amazing but true!

Waaaaa waaaaa....bigotry bigotry....waaaaaaaa

grow some balls...

Marriage is not a Christian value. You can argue until you are purple, but I have some friends that are married and they are not Christians, have never been Christians and will never be Christians. They are a man and a woman, she is Jewish and he is an Hindi, they got married at the courthouse and they have a legal document titled "Certificate of Marriage".

I do not care if you call something a civil union or a marriage, no one religion has a monopoly on the right for two people who are in love to be legally joined to one another. You do not have to agree with it; it can offend your sense of morality, but hey, just do not do it yourself, don't tell me I cannot do it.

I am a woman married to a man and we are both non-practicing Methodists who would not walk into a church for a million dollars because we believe the entire institution to be corrupt, we read the Bible and believe in Jesus, but man has twisted the Word of God to suit himself and we will not follow that crooked path.

Sarah,

How are you doing? Popular as ever I see!! Are you gay or just happy?? Just kidding of course!

mguy will probably go into shock and need medical attention, but I am going to agree, except that I see what gtouch is saying to you!!! Your point is valid, but temper it a bit?!!

gtouch

So he isn't following his own advice

You keep ignoring the fact where I say that I AM NOT TRYING TO PASS LAWS against the people I hate.

Of course, I know why you ignore that little fact... because it invalidates the point you are trying to make.

But let's be honest, everybody hates someone. That's reality, and everyone has that right. A lot of people hate the Westboro Baptist Church... and they have a right to do so. However, they are not allowed to make LAWS against them (see the recent court decision regarding their protests).

Now, I may think it is pathetic to hate gay people. That is my right. You may think it is pathetic that I hate religious people... that is your right to think that way. I have a personal issue with the religious right, which has led to my belief, but that is neither here nor there. Either way, we both have the right to "think" however we want.

But passing legislative law against people you hate, simply because you do not agree with their belief system, is where we draw the line. You do not get to legislatively punish people you don't agree with, just because your fairy tale belief tells you so. On the same token, they do not get to punish you legislatively for your belief system.

You have the right to THINK whatever you want about people, as do I. But you do not have the right to punish them legislatively because of your thoughts.

someonewho,

I do not care if you call something a civil union or a marriage, no one religion has a monopoly on the right for two people who are in love to be legally joined to one another. You do not have to agree with it; it can offend your sense of morality, but hey, just do not do it yourself, don't tell me I cannot do it.

I agree and that is actually how I came to know Sarah on here. She helped me see that side of things and I am glad to be free of the chains quite frankly.

mguy,

I have actually agreed with two things you have posted today!! Can that be possible??

Actually I don't think you have to be for or against homosexuality to know that this is just wrong at its core!!

They did forget the manger scene with their snowy trees!!

The proper spelling is doUche bag. I use it plenty, trust me, I know.

Just FYI, the modern medicine tells that douching is unhealthy and disturbs the normal function.

I can honostly say that I don't hate anyone. I disagree with different people on a number of things like Politicks, Religion, alternate life styles, etc. but hate? that's barbaric. I'm a Christian but I don't try to force this down anyones throat and true Christians following In Christ's Footsteps and the Bible do not either but like in all things you have those who are misguided and fail to live in Faith and be an example by their lifestyle. I've had close friends that are Christian, Jew, Black, Asian and yes Gay! A persons lifestyle is his/her own business unless they intentionally commit acts in publc to affront people. I feel sorry for people who hate because hate in itself is evil and evil can only begot evil. Open up your eyes and open up your hearts live a life of love and watch as things begin to change for better day by day! For God is love and He awards those who love!

Maxwell,

Thanks! I need haters in my life, they keep me humble. And trust me, I'm VERY humble. ;)

I have actually agreed with two things you have posted today!! Can that be possible??

*collapses into seizure on the ground*

Actually I don't think you have to be for or against homosexuality to know that this is just wrong at its core!!

Sorry, but I believe that two beautiful women together is the most elegant thing you will ever see. The first time I witnessed it, in person, it brought a single tear to my eye. Like God had reached down, sent me two angels, and gave me a high-five.

Alex,

Oh Lord, I meant the insult. Obviously didn't proof read that one.

TX,

I collect more fans by the day, apparently.

Oh Lord, I meant the insult. Obviously didn't proof read that one.

I understood what you meant the first time, but now that I read it his way... LOL

@Shuklack who wrote: "I guess if it were possible to be a bigot against bigots - that would make some sense. Unfortunately, such projection tactics really don't fly in reality. Oh poor bigots, being victimized by all those other people who are bigoted against bigotry."

Weak attempts at comedy aside, the definition of a bigot is: "a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bigot?s=t

If you are intolerant of someone because they have ideas outside of your own, that in effect makes you a bigot.

So what I said makes perfect sense: if you are intolerant of a person just because you believe he or she has bigoted ideas, you are, by definition, a bigot yourself. It may not make sense to you, but in the logical world, it makes perfect sense.

ALEX but a person can still be a douche bag, like txhorseman, mguy, svenolafson.... you three need to reevaluate your own lives.. if you think you are christians you are sadly mistaken.. JUST REMEMBER KARMA IS A VERY powerful force you'll know when it happens and so will those around you

YOU go Sarah.. love your posts..

but a person can still be a douche bag, like txhorseman, mguy

Hey... What did I do?

Max,

you three need to reevaluate your own lives.. if you think you are christians you are sadly mistaken.

Now when did I say or imply that? Mguy and I do not agree on religion. We DO agree on how people should be treated and the constitutionality or lack there of, of christian morals. What he is saying is that you can't legislate morals. Christian or otherwise.

Further you tell ME to reevaluate My life and then call me and others names???

ALEX but a person can still be a douche bag, like txhorseman, mguy, svenolafson.... you three need to reevaluate your own lives.. if you think you are christians you are sadly mistaken.. JUST REMEMBER KARMA IS A VERY powerful force you'll know when it happens and so will those around you

Yes it is and remember your own words!!!!!

PaulShadowCat - I am pretty sure Larry Craig was not slandered here - he did plead guilty to the charges, thus admitting to homosexual solicitation.

So what I said makes perfect sense: if you are intolerant of a person just because you believe he or she has bigoted ideas, you are, by definition, a bigot yourself. It may not make sense to you, but in the logical world, it makes perfect sense.

No, not really - because it helps to know what other words mean in the definition - such as tolerance. It also helps to understand the connotation being used.

Bigotry is most often used to refer to an unfair, irrational, obstinate or unreasonable intolerance of something. Some definitions include such caveats to the meaning of the word bigotry - the one you happened to cite doesn't. But in speaking, most people understand that is the type of intolerance one refers to when they use the word 'bigotry'.

Some intolerance makes sense. Like - I am intolerant of rattlesnake in my bathtub. I would be intolerant of science teachers teaching my child that the earth is flat.

Bigotry, in the connotation cited above - is harmful to society and rational discourse. Being intolerant to that sort of bigotry does not make it EQUAL to that sort of bigotry. So semantically you may be able to technically use 'bigot' for someone who is intolerant of other opinions and leave it at that... a weak semantic argument.... but in the proper connotation; intolerance toward bigots is rational - when bigotry in the context of racism/homophobia/hate etc is fundamentally irrational.

Also, if you want to get semantic about it - it notes intolerance of 'ideas or opinions' : I am not intolerant of ideas or opinions - I listen to them all the time. What I AM intolerant of is someone who crosses the line to where they support legal action against other ideas or opinions..... which is true bigotry in its truest sense.

William of Rites,

You should have just used that Fat, Old, Gay, Democrat Barney Frank, as your example, everyone would have known who you were speaking of then. You know, No Confusion!

What he is saying is that you can't legislate morals. Christian or otherwise.

Pretty much. In fact, my belief actually protects Christianity because if another religion suddenly became more popular (like Islam), my belief would keep their laws and rules off of Christians. I don't think any religion should have the right to legislate their laws on other people.

Wow... I agree with TXHorseman... I think I need a drink.

You keep ignoring the fact where I say that I AM NOT TRYING TO PASS LAWS against the people I hate

Actually I not ignoring it. It is you who seem to ignore it. Have you ever heard of all the legislation about "Federal Anti-Gay Hate Crimes Laws". What I don't get is if someone beats up my wife because he thinks she has money and someone beats up a gay person because he hates gays.............one has additional protections or legislations and penalties. I can honestly say my wife's injuries will be just as bad to her as the gay persons injuries are to them. Laws have been passed against people who "hate" gays none have been passed against people who hate "poor people". I'm not a very religious guy at all and I'm in full support of gay marriage. Now YOU may not be trying to pass laws and I am certainly not but there have been laws passed to punish "hate" speech and actions towards gays (not that in general that is a bad thing) but you can beat up someone who you hate because they are fat, skinny, pretty, ugly or even people who hate gays etc. etc. with no additional hate crime punishment. I just think it all needs to be tempered down.

"Daniel Craig

Lots of 007 fans are a little confused.............but hey that's ok what he does off the screen is his business"

------ You people need to stop slandering 007. This will not be tolerated.

Signed,

Rachel Weisz

Tether has got to be the world's biggest, most ignorant dumbass I've ever had the inconvenience of knowing existed.

I wish people were not so quick to lash at each other with instant labels such as "librul", "bigot", "repug", "fairy tale", etc. This devalues the argument a lot.

By the way, the Old Testament is a collection of quite a few historical accounts, though some might have been through quite an "evolution" and embellishment when copied over and over many times. Many figures of Bible are proven to have existed. Whether all their deeds are 100% legit or not, that's another question.

mguy,

Wow... I agree with TXHorseman... I think I need a drink.

HA!! It is okay, we will disagree somewhere else......!! Good Lord, I blame Sarah!!

"What I don't get is if someone beats up my wife because he thinks she has money and someone beats up a gay person because he hates gays.............one has additional protections or legislations and penalties"

That's because if someone beats up your wife for money, the only person he's trying to hurt is your wife. When that same person beats up a gay person for being gay, he isn't just trying to hurt that one person. He's trying to hurt and intimidate gay people as a group.

The laws treat those cases differently for the same reasons that murder and terrorism are treated differently.

I only want to chime in to second my concern that someone is still using douche. It really isn't good for you!

Cat,

My use of it is limited to its value as an insult. That's what I meant. I don't think I'm ever gonna live that one down.

Ok Spellchecker you got me. I had to look up the Rachel Weisz and Daniel Craig connection.............didn't know they were together. You are a true light shining into the darkness of all that I don't know yet.............with me I think you will need a bigger light.

Exactly. I suspect the group that used the photo w/o permission feel that the couple have no right to be happy since they don't have the same 'beliefs'. How perfectly typical.

This isn't about gay marraige. It's about copyright laws. I find the content disturbing, but fully support the rights of the PHOTOGRAPHER to sue.

Nuke: Legally, it's about copyright laws. Ethically, it's about 'inalienable rights'.

But whatever works for you...

Because to these groups - gays don't have rights; not even to their own likenesses.

Question...how did this picture get into the hands of this Anti-Gay organization?

Question...how did this picture get into the hands of this Anti-Gay organization?

It was on a wedding announcement blog.

But it doesn't matter; copyright is owned by the photographer and can (and likely has as part of the package) be signed over to the couple as well. The couple also has rights because it was misappropriation of their image.

11.5 has a good by the book explanation.

This is not a gay thing. It is not about homosexuality. The number one fantasy of men is two women together. That is not offensive. NOBODY wants to see two men together. That makes people crazy.

Amazing. People arguing about religious vs legal marriage or union. People arging about whether or not they should have a law (legal) to do something that is inalienable...

If it's inalienable having a law makes it alienable.

Religious marrige and legal marriage are two different animals.

Question: Why does anyone need a legal document to simply be together? Oh! So they can have those benefits from the government...making it again a legal issue. If they just want to be together they don't need any paper or special benefits do they?

Then why demand that Churches (i.e. religion) conform to your legal wishes?

Then why demand that Churches (i.e. religion) conform to your legal wishes?

Nobody on the pro-gay marriage side is demanding that churches conform to anything. If they don't want to marry gays, they don't have to. Hell, some churches still won't marry interracial couples... and it's within their rights to do so.

But the anti-gay marriage side is indeed demanding that pro-gay churches conform to THEIR religious view on marriage it seems. Since they think pro-gay churches should not be allowed to perform a state-recognized marriage between two people of the same sex.

As far as marriage as a contract - there are benefits, but there is WAY more than that. Legal rights, familial rights, immigration, inheritance. visitation in the hospital, military housing, loans, etc etc etc all take one's marital status into consideration. In these cases, just 'living with someone you want to be with' isn't enough. State-recognized marriage acts as a legally enforceable contract that comes with a variety of obligations and capabilities otherwise not attainable. Enforcing contracts is the primary purpose of all governments since the beginning of time.

Slimyone said;

This is not a gay thing. It is not about homosexuality. The number one fantasy of men is two women together. That is not offensive. NOBODY wants to see two men together. That makes people crazy.

Did you actually read this before you posted it? First you say its not about homosexuality, then in the very next sentence you bring up two girls and two guys. That IS homosexuality.

Of course it's about homosexuality. and its about double standards. Two guys kissing, two girls kissing, what's the difference? Why is one a fantasy, and another taboo? Why isn't it the same for both?

Why does the bible say lying with a man as with a woman is an abomination, yet says nothing about two women lying together? Does God fantasize about two women together and that therefore makes it okay?

Or did the Council of Nicaea in 329 CE, when they got together all the scrolls of Christian teachings to that time and pick out the ones they liked, decide that they (as living, breathing MEN) liked the idea of two girls together and decided to leave that in the Bible because that is what THEY believed?

NOBODY wants to see two men together. That makes people crazy.

Speak for yourself. It doesn't make me crazy.

But this is the problem with the liberal side: They stress the importance of "choice" - but only if your "choice" matches theirs.

No one is saying you can't be a hateful bigot or a racist if you choose to. Just be prepared to face the consequences if you exercise your right to free speech to express your views. Just because someone disagrees with your choice doesn't mean you can't make it.

Sally

Xabre banned, re-reg of banned user Ruken.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Totally agree. Let's hope this makes them millionaires. Now that is a nice dowry.

Although I agree that the couple should sue, I highly doubt millions would be appropriate.

If that group wasn't ashamed of the inflammatory literature that they created, they certainly won't be shamed by violating copyright laws.

Janellect, you highly doubt millions would be appropriate. What a downright fascinating statement to make. If the photo had been - instead - a movie or a song, downloaded illegally off of the internet, copyright trolls would be all over them for doing it. And the millions you talk about? Do a little research and discover how harsh penalties are being levied and people are paying serious infringement money to the troll-sharks.

The plaintiffs owned the photo. Why not let me take something of yours, use it to my advantage, and see how you feel about it. Why not let me have your family photos or something of equal value to you, and let me use it in my online members-only blog (if I had such a thing, and I don't), and then profit from their use. Or, better yet, how about your own wedding photos, if they exist, so that I can create a newsletter that ridicules or harrasses you.

You're right, they don't deserve millions. They deserve much much more.

.

FailedSystem

A dowry is the money, goods, or estate that a woman brings to the marriage

Robert, I didn't even sue when a dog bit me... why would I sue over something that did not cause me physical or emotional trauma. I am more traumatized by a dentist pulling my tooth that wasn't fully anesthetized or hearing a child being abused in an apartment (btw I did call them out on it and notify management). Please tell me how they were traumatized.

Yes, they stole, but millions? Credit card fraud can't even get a person jailed nowadays... ever try calling people for hours trying to explain someone used your card number and still get bills?

I don't care what anyone says...that was funny.

LOL! I damn near spit my water out. That's great!

LMFAO!!!

Thank you for the laugh.

I know, right? They keep trying to argue "fair usage" for their deviant ads, but it's not natural, and it never will be! If this perversion ever becomes the norm intellectual property is done as an institution!

It's a FACT that the copyright violating lifestyle is morally disgusting, and makes me sick to my stomach! Their 'trademarked' agenda will cause our entire society to buckle and collapse in a new age of 'fair use' pandemonium!

LMAO! Thanks for making me laugh today.

LMAO! Thanks for making me laugh today....I needed it!

A.ScooterTramp

i for one am tired of this constant rehash of old issues. when a politician cant run on their record fire em. that damn simple.......

Hmmm ..... but wouldn't that mean having to actually know what a politician's record is before you vote for them? Damned inconvenient, isn't it?

If Romney went on stage and said, I'm going to veto any bill that attempts to regulate what happens in your bedroom, he'd be much more likely to get my vote, but he'd lose about 20% of republicans. (the santorum block)

It's really a weird collection now. You've got people that want to legislate every social more they can find, make anything they think is yucky illegal... and then you've got people who think Government is "too big" and needs to stay out of everything. All thinking they can vote on the same GOP ticket.

It just doesn't make sense. You can play pretty fast-and-loose with your party members, but not THAT fast and loose.

100% agree. That would include removal of any mention of marraige from ALL law, including the tax code. No more different rules if you're married. Can you live with that?

dan -

You've got people that want to legislate every social more they can find, make anything they think is yucky illegal... and then you've got people who think Government is "too big" and needs to stay out of everything. All thinking they can vote on the same GOP ticket.

Sadly, I think these are the same people. They want smaller gov't...unless it is to legislate against something they don't like.

Dan: " You've got people that want to legislate every social more they can find, make anything they think is yucky illegal... and then you've got people who think Government is "too big" and needs to stay out of everything."

Yep! No "big government" -- "no government intrusion" UNLESS it's government in our bedrooms, our bodies and our marriages--how much more INTRUSIVE can government get?!!!

You all for firing Obummer, then? That socialist moron has NO record to run on!

Except for the one he's running on...

I hope they take these hateful bigots to the cleaners!!!

The only 2 words a liberal knows and got them both into the same sentence. Impressive.

Who said liberals can't F*** themselves???? I guess they can..

Is "hate" the new "rascist" or what?

And all these alleged "rightie" "conservatives" who are so AGAINST big government--unless it's in your bedroom, your body and/or your marriage!

Give me a break!

Don't you have more important things to do?

o, yeah, here we go again w/an idiot who can't define what "hate" & "bigot" mean!

If you just differ w/any homosexual or 1 of their non-homosexual defenders, you "hate" homosexuals and/or their defenders.

If you believe that homosexual behavior is wrong, is deviant, is perverted...you're a bigot. Just like that. The fact of the matter is, is that homosexual behavior meets the definitions of "perverted" & "deviant," because that exactly what the behavior is, yet homosexuals resist having their deviant, perverted behavior characterized as such.

Not my problem, for sure. But I'd really like it for some homosexual or homosexual defender to give me the name & location of just ONE homosexual who can claim to have met & talked to me, & believes that I "hate" him/her based on his/her homosexuality, after having conversed with me.

Just one. Not a lot to ask, now, is it?

They are hateful bigots. One may not like the connotation, but the words both apply. In this instance they stole the likenesses of someone else to malign those said people. That is hateful. Being a bigot merely means: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance. This applies in this situation as well. Just because someone doesn't like the words doesn't make them not true. If those words are offensive and true, then the offended party needs to take steps to correct the issue.

It has nothing to do with being liberal. It only has to do with being a hateful bigot. So stop trying to make the words something they aren't. Fluency is your friend.

Yep Barry, if the couple loaded it up onto the internet they have no case...

Wrong. Better read up on how copyright works.

I'm not a copyright lawyer so you could be correct. But it would have been easier for them to have just got a stock photo that has been ok'd. I can see this couple's outrage when their photo is used counter to their own beliefs.............it's just wrong if not legally then at lease morally for their photo to be used.

Barry in La Jolla,

That is incorrect. You can't use someone else's photo without permission, even if they put it on the internet. And in this case the photographer holds the copyright and has the right to sue for copyright infringement and the couple has the right to sue for using their likeness without permission.

Barry...I see what you're getting at, but that's not necessarily true. You cannot just run around the internet hijacking people's photos because they were on a "public forum."

This is why sites like Pinterest can potentially find themselves in hot water without intent.

If, however, the offending organization was present at the moment of the kiss and took their OWN photo, and the kiss took place on public property....then yes, they can use that photo because the couple was consenting to be seen in public.

But the organization simply cannot take another photographer's photo...because photos are art and therefore seen as the property of the photographer.

They posted it on a blog; it's right there in the article. But that doesn't mean that it can be used by anyone. A photo, even posted online, is the copyrighted work of the photographer until that copyright is waived (voluntarily or by court order). It is illegal to use a copyrighted photo for profit or for political gain without the express permission of the photographer and of every person shown in the photo.

Chapter 5: Copyright Infringement and Remedies

Infringement of copyright³

(a) Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122 or of the author as provided in section 106A(a), or who imports copies or phonorecords into the United States in violation of section 602, is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be. For purposes of this chapter (other than section 506), any reference to copyright shall be deemed to include the rights conferred by section 106A(a). As used in this subsection, the term “anyone” includes any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this title in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.

(b) The legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under a copyright is entitled, subject to the requirements of section 411, to institute an action for any infringement of that particular right committed while he or she is the owner of it. The court may require such owner to serve written notice of the action with a copy of the complaint upon any person shown, by the records of the Copyright Office or otherwise, to have or claim an interest in the copyright, and shall require that such notice be served upon any person whose interest is likely to be affected by a decision in the case. The court may require the joinder, and shall permit the intervention, of any person having or claiming an interest in the copyright.

More information on Copyright Laws can be found here:

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

As the photographer is the owner of the images and has copyright over them, they have the right to sue. And since it was the couple's likeness, they have a right to sue as they had a contract (verbal or written) with the photographer under which the photos were to be used for. In this case, personal use to document a special day. Just because an image can be seen online doesn't necessarily mean it's free for use in such a way that this group chose to go about it. They'll lose the suit with no doubt.

"I'm not a copyright lawyer..." -gtouch

Obviously.

If the owner (i.e., the couple or the photographer, depending on the facts of the case) did something to put it into the public space unprotected, then it can be used by anyone

Wow, so wrong it hurts. This case is not just an issue of copyright violation (which it is), but also misappropriation of likeness (which is where the real damages come in... just ask Maxwell House).

if you put it on facebook they can because once you do facebook owns it and they can do whatever they want with it!

"They" being Facebook, not a third-party.

Wrong, Barry.

According to the Copyright Act of 1976, a picture is copyright protected from the moment it's created, and the ONLY way that such can be transferred is by signing a release. The photographer has the right to copy, and only the photographer (in most cases, wedding photographers sign over copy rights to the couple as part of the package paid for.)

Any copying without permission is liable for civil and criminal penalties.

All of this is easily findable online (But I've given talks on copyright law. I have it to hand for a reason.)

Thank Disney for this.

A number of us have taken to calling these 'Mouse Laws' for a reason.

OK ... interesting comments about the copyright law.

Two things to consider here:

1) I said "unprotected", and that matters ... no law is ever interpreted out of context. We need more information.

2) On the other hand, this wouldn't be just a misappropriation case. The perp would very likely have known that this use of the photo would have caused great distress, and yet did it anyway. So, if there are damages, they would need to take into account either negligence (at least) or willfulness (possibly).

Moral: don't do this.

I may be mistaken, but if the picture was not registered with the Library of Congress, then the amount of judgement that can be recovered is pretty limited. But for unauthorised use of the plaintiffs' likeness, the defendants may be up to an unpleasant surprise.

And yet, this worked out for the defendants because they were successful in their campaigns. So, depending on the amount of the judgement, it may be chalked up to campaign costs, which in their cases, appear to have been worth it.

Whether people like it or not, or whether they agree with it or not, the pro-gay candidates were defeated, with the photo being a large part of that. At least in these regions, the message was loud and clear.

Wrenn .. I should've done some research before posting, but I believe that the terms of service for Facebook grants them limited rights to the photos. It would just about have to, or they wouldn't be able to store and display them. But, again, that's between the user and Facebook, not a 3rd party.

O MY. There's that "Hate" word again. I'll bet that shuts down all those pesky fact-based arguments.

Nuke: "O MY. There's that "Hate" word again. I'll bet that shuts down all those pesky fact-based arguments."

Judging from your "fact free" "non-argument" nonsensical comment--I guess you're right! Happy now?

And so you are encouraging a mob mentality. Remember what happened with the George Zimmerman case when the WRONG individuals names, phone and address were publicly released? Remember the death threats these poor people received? Let the courts handle it.

The muslims are coming! The muslims are coming! Lions and tigers and bears! Oh my!

sfox hates muslims too.

how about you just live your life and dont get your knickers in such a twist because someone doesnt agree with your lifestyle choice?

Thanks for making the point in such an amusing fashion. My sentiments exactly.