E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Bishop Erik Swope-Wise
Bishop Erik Swope-Wise, right, and his husband Kelsey Swope-Wise stand before a unity candle on their wedding day on April 28, 2012. The photo was inadvertently removed from Facebook by the site after a complaint was made about the image.
A gay man whose wedding photo was pulled from Facebook after an anonymous complaint believes the social network’s reporting policy allows for a "subversive" type of harassment.
The photo of Pastor Kelsey Swope-Wise, 37, and his husband, Bishop Erik Swope-Wise, 49, of Elgin, Ill., was taken down from the Gay Marriage USA Facebook page on Monday after someone lodged a complaint with Facebook. The administrator of the page, Murray Lipp, said Facebook informed him on Monday that the image of the biracial couple standing together at their April 28, 2012, wedding "violates policies and community standards."
"It’s subversive, the type of harassment, meaning that you can do it anonymously," Erik Swope-Wise, who founded a local chapter of The Affirming Pentecostal Church International, told NBC News on Tuesday. “So you can throw the rock and hide your hand. There’s no accountability for somebody’s actions. So somebody could make that accusation, ‘Well this picture’s offensive.’ Well we don’t know who said that, so how can we even go back to them and say, ‘Why is this offensive? Tell me why it’s offensive.’”
Facebook restored the photo on Tuesday and apologized to Lipp, who told NBC News that the social networking site had initially blocked his ability to post for one week in addition to taking down the photo. This wasn’t the first time he has had problems with posts being reported.
“Sadly, Facebook's reporting system is so flawed that it allows people against equality to attack & target pages like mine and Facebook almost ALWAYS sides with those who complain. I was given no opportunity to respond or say anything … ,” he wrote in an e-mail.
Erik Swope-Wise said Lipp asked to post the image last weekend. He initially was pleasantly surprised by the outpouring of support in comments and likes, but then the messages turned “hateful” and “condescending.” Some who made comments were upset because the men are Pentacostal, which traditionally rejects same-sex marriage, though their church does not.
Facebook spokesman Andrew Noyes told NBC News in an email that the photo did not violate their “policies or community standards and was removed in error. The image has been restored and we apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused." A team reviews hundreds of thousands of reports every week, and occasionally mistakes are made, he said.
“I accept that … we’re all subject to human error,” Erik Swope-Wise said. “However the process by which Facebook uses to make those determinations is probably a little too mechanical. When a person puts an opposition to a post … it’s a list of choices that you choose to describe why this is offensive or inappropriate but there gives no validation, you know, as to what that really is.”
What might be offensive to one group may not be to another, and the term “offensive” was also “too general,” he added. “I think the scrutiny of it needs to be a little more clear before they take such harsh action.”
Rich Ferraro, a spokesman for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), said he has seen this happen before but that Facebook has always taken quick action.
“More often than not reporting tools on sites like Facebook are used positively to report anti-LGBT bullying or hate speech. Unfortunately, anti-LGBT users have also used these tools to target LGBT community members -- but when GLAAD has brought incidents like this to Facebook, they have always immediately restored the content,” he wrote to NBC News in an email.
Issues can arise when social networking sites wade into heated debates.
"This is involving a lot of judgment calls right, like what is hate speech and what is a political statement. It's extraordinary difficult some times," said Rebecca Jeschke, a spokeswoman for the nonprofit Electronic Frontier Foundation, which advocates for the public’s digital rights.
She said best practices would be to have a “really clear procedure for contesting any kind of take down and for that to be followed consistently.”
"Lots of activists use these forums for their activism and so if you censor their activity through Facebook then you're functionally censoring their speech activity on the Internet,” she said. “Facebook isn’t like a state government. It can restrict speech in any way it wants, but sometimes the ramifications are the same."
Leave a Comment:
Interracial and gay! Some ultra conservative religious zealot just had his head pop!
also add in that they both appear to be religiously ordained to some degree
You're absolutely correct Ray! That should cause the zealots to really see red!
Aside from being happy for people who have fallen in love and gotten married, the bonus of causing redneck hysteria cheers me up.
Hey! The issue actually had nothing to do with the content or who is doing who. It comes down to posting a photo that is owned by the photographer. People scan pictures and post all the time but it is not right. The photographer wants to get paid for his work.
Here's something I think they could do to help cut down on reporting abuse rather quickly. Institute a policy whereby they can deactivate the accounts of those who abuse it.
Make it so that, if you report an image or other material as offensive, you must select why. Is it pornography? Pictures of illegal activity that glorify said activity? Snuff videos? Etc. Unless it falls under one of these and other select categories, then make it so that it can't be reported without having to lie about it. And, if you report something as being in one of these categories when it isn't, the picture is reviewed by an administrator, and if they see that you lied about your reason for reporting it (rather than the image, video or other content being in a gray area that could conceivably fall under one of these categories, but really doesn't), they deactivate your account.
Why should the victims of liars be punished when the liars themselves aren't? That's like putting the burden of proof on the accused and not the accuser, and that's a seriously flawed way of meting out justice.
Deactivate report abusers. Plain and simple. Then, they can start figuring out other ways to cut down on such abuse even further, because they'll have a lot more time on their hands when they stop having to deal so much with false reports.
Jesus Christ died for all sinners, even the 'religious' biggots. Not all Christians are mean. Jesus loves everyone. Don't catergorize all of us Christians by those who show hatred. Don't lower yourself to the level of those who show hate. We all need help through this world.
You betcha, the Word of God is still true regarding same sex perversion. As evidenced by the number of here belching their indigestion with God's truth simply to intimidate. For every victory of this sin in the media, every victim of this agenda loses a part of their lives.... and is restored by the Grace and peace that passes all understanding. Jesus' words are still true, that without repentance there is no forgiveness or salvation.
Ben-
Where does jesus talk about homosexual relationships?
Pentacostalism is very strong in Puerto rico. While we dont know who did these reprehensible crimes, its not uncommon to have gays murdered, beheaded, and the bodies burned
The snake handlers have become the snakes IMO
BenSG1--Cite source, please--My partner is a Bible scholar and we will check your reference--unless it's outta your butt...in which case....never mind then.
Why would a god demand appeasement or else torture people for eternity? Why would anyone want to appease a god like that? No telling what it would do next.
@BenSG1. You forgot to mention that without ignorance and superstition there is no theistic religion.
Todd - You said, "Hey! The issue actually had nothing to do with the content or who is doing who. It comes down to posting a photo that is owned by the photographer. People scan pictures and post all the time but it is not right. The photographer wants to get paid for his work." I wish you would site a source because this article says something very different. By the way, it ~is~ legal for people to post photos they did not personally take if they are in the picture, or have the consent of those in the picture.
When will these silly christians realize that the sky being they worship does not exist. And the book of lies (bible) is nothing more than a fairytale.
The Bible is a wonderful tool. Sadly christians turn it into a book of hate and judgement to suit their inadequate selves.
Having worked for a photographer,use to be, you did not own your wedding pictures/portraits/etc... unless you contract for such ownership. Most photographer own the photos they take and to prevent you from getting cheap copies they put their companies names on the photo or on the back. Reputable photo shops will not make a copy of them,for fear of copyright, so you then have to go through the photographer to get copies(which is how the make a good portion of profits)..if you want to own them you just pay more up front. The up front is becoming more common as with our daughter, we paid a flat fee and got a disk with all the pics. We pick which to print.
Let's sit back and just enjoy the inevitable liberal love-fest.
They live for these stories so they can run on their tip-toes to their keyboard, disparage anyone and everyone who might have a different opinion than their own, criticize anyone and anything that has to do with religion, and then sit back, wink at their life-partner, and take a sip of their tea with a smug, self-important grin on their face knowing that, once again, they have stood up for the discriminated and the downtrodden and can now count on their vote for the next election.
So predictable...so transparent.
Jesus saves! If you all have questions about homosexuality read your bible.
Carrying concealed because you're afraid of getting your ass beat by some gay guy?
If THAT photo used on their page was taken by a professional photographer.....I'd sue that photographer because that picture was clearly taken by someone attending the wedding with a throw-away camera.
Why are social conservatives so opposed to GLBT marriage equality when it will not affect you or your church. The government cannot force you to marry someone that you don't want to and the government also cannot force your church to marry someone who isnt a member or who doesn't agree to the beliefs of the church? Divorce is legal but you cannot be divorced and get remarried in the Catholic church.
The reasons for opposing GLBT marriage equality have always been homophobia/hatred, slippery slope fallacies and religious bias.
The US is not now and never have been a Christian country because you obviously do not have to be Christian to get a civil marriage license from the state the you live in. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is very clear about the separation of church and state.
What churches/religions do is the sacrament of matrimony which is different than the secular civil contract of marriage. The ability to procreate is irrelevant to marriage because you obviously do not have to produce children or have your marriage annulled, You also do not need to be married to have children, so any claims that marriage is about children are laughably wrong.
If you dont like GLBT marriage then dont have one, but marriage is a civil right(SCOTUS decisioon of Loving v. Virginia). The citizens cannot use the ballot box to deny to any group a right that they already enjoy, (marriage)so DOMA laws are an example of tyranny of the majority and such are unconstitutional.
Hey genius, if the pic had been pulled for copyright infringement, it wouldn't have been restored. So I have no clue where the hell you came up with your 'explanation' but it might be time to recheck your crystal ball. I think the batteries are low.
I'm an atheist but I believe the quote you are asking the BSG troll for is the one in Leviticus
So while the bible doesn't use the word 'homosexual', what they are referring to is pretty obvious.
Having said that, I still lend it the same sort of weight I give to Aesop's Fables and the Grimm Fairy Tales :)
Or we could sit back and enjoy the inevitable conservative clambake.
They live for these stories so they can stomp to their keyboards, knuckles dragging the ground like the Neanderthals they are, disparage anyone and everyone who are "different" in any way from them, criticize anyone and anything that supports the Constitution of the United States, and then sit back, tell their life-partners to get them a beer, and guzzle that beer with smug, self-important grins on their fat, hypocritical faces as their eyes glaze over while their other hands are in their pants as they visualize rampant gay sex, knowing that, once again, they stepped on the discriminated and downtrodden, which they believe is nothing more than they deserve.
So predictable..so transparent.
I get so sick and tired of all these groups talking about how their rights are being violated. What about freedom of the press? Facebook has a right to decide what goes on their website.What about my right to not turn on the television and see two men making out?
I just wish there was a way to specify what is offensive. I find foul language offensive, yet it is nearly impossible to bar it from my page. I can block them from my page, but that messes the line up. It seems that fb has decided not to make it simple to police your own page.
@Clarkjoebob, You are correct that people have no rights on a private site such as Facebook, but Facebook also knows that many people would leave or protest if they did that, so they have extended free speech to their site, within some limits of good taste.
If you don't like the photos you have the right to complain on your Facebook site or to delete your page.
You do not have the right not to be offended by the actions or statements of others, because they have the same Free Speech rights as you do. You however can criticize them or complain because those are your free speech rights.
Wow that is sad I would be mad if thay pulled my wedding pic gay or not who are thay to do that.I feel you can live your life the way you want just so you dont hurt any one some of my good freinds are gay im not who gives a crap.Did that pic hurt any one no!
Wow that is sad I would be mad if they pulled my wedding pic gay or not who are they to do that.I feel you can live your life the way you want just so you don't hurt any one some of my good friends are gay i'm not who gives a crap are they afraid they are gay and don't want any one to know Did that pic hurt anyone no!I see 2 people in love that's all I see get a life that all
And, meanwhile, conservatives become more ostracized and marginalized as they should be. They're gasping their last breaths. As it happens, us victorious liberals who support America and all our great nation stand for will sit back and enjoy another cup of tea as watching the conservative demise and the rebirth of America.
@epistemologist
Originally, homosexuality was considered an ego-dysentonic mental disorder from which the sufferer had the inability to distinguish their condition, homosexuality, from themselves. I think lips actions really validate the original diagnoses. He considers it harassment, even though Facebook was just following protocol regarding an offensive picture.
This nation was founded for the freedom of religion, so I think it's safe to say we have a christian heritage if nothing else.
No. That's not specifically mentioned anywhere in the first amendment.
Erin - That was a good one. However, you only get half marks since I had already laid down the framework.
Jerry - You're not wrong about the demise of conservatives. It's tough to compete with a party that has systematically grown a bloated, loyal voting base of parasites through taxpayer-funded entitlement programs.
And you're also right about the rebirth of America if, by rebirth, you mean afterbirth. It's entirely possible that the Republicans will not see the Office of the POTUS again until you liberals have completely sucked the life out of this country and we hit rock-bottom, and that's assuming you haven't sold the country out from under us (if it meant another five-years of freebies from the government you'd hand over the keys in a second).
However, once that happens we'll take over again, we'll fix everything you've broken, and you liberals will go so far underground you'll never see the light of day again. Or not, and you'll experience fear and oppression like you've never imagined in your worst nightmare. You and all your rainbows and unicorns.
I noticed that CarryingConcealed and ErinNJ posted very similar things. Sock puppets?
However, it WAS mentioned by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, two of the Founding Fathers, in their writings, and the Supreme Court has used that exact phrase in numerous First Amendment rulings. Therefore, it can be said that the First Amendment is VERY clear about the separation of church and state.
Keep drinking that kool-aid, Carryingconcealed. Actually, it is you conservatives who are heading underground as we speak; your whole party is about to implode from your own greed.
BTW, here's another maxim for you to live by: you conservatives stop telling lies about us liberals, and we liberals will stop telling the truth about you.
We're just biding our time, Erin, and by the looks of things it won't be much longer. I'd give you another term or two and we'll be back in our rightful place at the helm where we belong.
As for who's telling the truth and who's painfully confused, we'll just agree to disagree as time will certainly bring some clarity to that naive, muddled little brain of yours.
Here's something for you to consider in the meantime, though: At the end of the day you liberals hate conservatives because we love money, we love the opportunity this country presents to make money, and we're disgusted by parasites who believe they're owed something and who lack the initiative and motivation to get off their lazy asses and go make a life for themselves - by themselves.
On the other hand, we hate you because of your vile, unnatural lifestyles (or the support of same), your willingness to murder millions of babies in the name of, "It's my body goddammit, and I'll do what I want with it!!!" Your desire to disarm the citizens of this country and leave us completely at the mercy of our corrupt government, your faux concern about others ostensibly less fortunate, even though what you're really doing is creating a voting base of parasites, your hate and disloyalty of your own country, your selfish disdain for the sacrifices better people than yourselves have made for this country, the ridiculous hypocrisy that defines your party, and your disgusting attitudes of entitlement.
Now, to the casual, objective observer on the outside looking in, you tell me which party would appear to be a better choice to chart the long-term course for this country.
As they say, it ain't rocket-science.
ClarkJoeBob,
Precisely. You have a right not to turn on your television. Period. If you don't like what's on TV, don't watch it. It's that simple. You have an incredibly over-inflated sense of entitlement if you think all of society should bend to your will and cater to your every whim.
You're part of the problem with this country, not us. We're just demanding to be allowed to exercise our rights...the same rights all citizens of the United States are guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment and that we already have, but which are being infringed upon by you and your lot. You're actually a bunch of federal criminals when it comes right down to it.
So, when Western Washington state passed gay marriage last year, and two male restaurant owners in Seattle announced their intent to marry in Walla Walla, Washington, this was business as usual, huh?
Some information: Walla Walla is on the other side of the state, a college town, and set amidst wheat, grape and lavender fields. Elsewhere it's scrub land. Neither man has a connection to Walla Walla, and Western Washington has oceans, mountains, vineyards, wineries, forests...anything one could want for a memorable occasion. So, why Walla Walla?
Walla Walla is deeply conservative, and the college there is a 7th Day Adventist college. The radio station ( www.plr.org ) broadcasts the church services on Saturday mornings. Walla Walla county is one of the counties that came out very much on the side of opposing gay marriage.
So, why would these two men from Seattle travel to Walla Walla, with all their friends and family and supporters and every gay person who wants to stick it to the religious types? Because they want to make people of a different belief bend to their will, because they can. It will also be VERY good for business. You can't buy that kind of publicity.
This isn't winning people to your views. It's ramming it down their throats. You want equal rights, and so you should have them. Then also expect that someone may hold up a sign declaring that gay marriage is demonic. And the media whores will definitely be on hand to witness the show, even fomenting the conflict for soundbites.
I don't know what will happen should these two men try to make good on their threat. I imagine a LOT of prayer will go into the response from Walla Walla.
Man was made to procreate with man. It is human natures way of telling mother nature to STFU.
I can feel the gay germs spreading through the interbook / facenet thingie as I type this. Must stop them!
You'd better watch out, you don't want to catch the gay.
Well, good for them. That photo isn't harming a soul, and anyone who doesn't like it should find the "un-friend" button and shut up about it.
I do find it interesting that Facebook will allow a page dedicated to domestic violence to stay up, even after multiple reports. There are things on that page that are most definitely hate speech and are clear violations of Facebook's own posted policy. Which makes this a huge lie:
Just shows you can be as nasty and potentially harmful as you choose to be on that site and Facebook turns a blind eye. Yet they pull a personal photo like the one in the article. Stupid.
please do
you might not catch the gay, but laugh your ass off when you catch the various viruses most commonly carried by homosexual males. Yeah, not a gay disease, right...... talk about real fairy tales..
Did you not know that you cannot post what's on your mind or say things random things on facebook? Freedom of speech on the socialist site Facebook have ceased due to over-sensitivity of human nature. Do not worry we are far from losing our freedom, we still have more weirdos that need equal rights. Next will be drug addicts/dealers, then prostitution, then maybe pedophiles along with any other large groups of people with mental disorders. Society has a long ways to go to squeeze out the moral normalcy and the straight forwardness of the human race.
There's got to be a balance between being able to file a complaint anonymously, and with holding someone accountable for false claims in an effort to injure or discredit another.
what if facebook started with a ban on the complainer for a week? If there were consequences for falsely complaining maybe it would be a deterrent.
I would also like to see administrative messages on the feed to be seen by all with regards to decisions (i.e., banned for week, removed photos or comments)
But they complained anonimously so they have no way of following up on who complained!!!
BTW, i think the picture is stunning and the two gentlemen look very happy.
"complained anonymously" only means that the people who posted the photo don't know who complained. Facebook knows exactly who it was. A punishment for false complaints actually sounds like a good idea.
Anonymous complaints should be ignored. Signed complaints that constitute bigotry, bullying or other antisocial behaviors should be censored and suspended or banned outright.
They obviously don't look at what they're pulling. It's a knee-jerk reaction. A friend's ex had her reported and a picture taken down of her with their daughter. It was an old picture of the the girl as a child, but she is an adult now and on Facebook herself. The daughter is the one who contacted FB and demanded that hey let her repost the picture. Meanwhile the ex posts his picture with his new wife simulating fellatio and not a peep out of the FB folks. I'm not a friend of the jerk's so I don't have to look at them, so I don't care if he makes an a$$ of himself.
Facebook needs to pull the plug on the account of whoever lodged the complaint. Talk about offensive and indecent: that descriptive applies to the complainant, not the two newlyweds.
I don't agree with that Tracey, That would be punishing someone for their point of view. It's OK that they complained. facebook needs a better way of handling a complaint. They should not remove a photo or other material simply based off of a complaint. They should make it policy to actually check for themselves and see if the object of the complaint really does violate Facebook's standards. If it does, then let the person know that they have violated the standards and that their material is going to be removed. If they haven't violated the standards, they can let the complaining party know that no standards have been violated and nothing will be done.
I do agree with Tracey - it's not censorship, it's community standards, and the FB community is a diverse group that should not tolerate bigots. Let them exercise their freedom to be backwards wherever their bigotry is welcome. Let's stop excusing the inexcusable cretins in our midst - and their influence in an age when love and reason is at war with ignorance and hatred.
The shear size of Facebook makes this whole process tough to manage.
Perhaps a reverse rating system, perhaps evertime a picture has to be restored a point goes against the original complainer and if thier point level hits a certain number they temporarily have thier ability to mark something offensive taken away. This way a person who is constantly and falsely causing blocks is stopped from blocking other photos.
Just a thought.
fb should reveal the identity of who falsely reported the photo as violating community standards.
All the best to Bishop Erik and Pastor Kelsey. Your changing the world for the better.
why not just click "Remove Content" and it blocks it from the *complainer's* viewing feed... Since they are the ones who want it removed, fine go ahead remove it from them and them alone.
There is such a thing--You can block any feed from anyone with two clicks--the complainer was just being an ass.
The bigger question is, why do people waste their time on something as insipid as Fazebook? It's such a loser site. It's no longer "trendy." Get with the 20-teens. Fazebook is yesterday's pet rock.
Human - "If they haven't violated the standards, they can let the complaining party know that no standards have been violated and nothing will be done." Actually, if you file a complaint and Facebook decides the item is within their guidelines, they ~do~ send a message to the person who filed the complaint. This particular photo never should have been pulled!
Jerry - how fortunate that you either have no friends or family, or you all live in the same little Mayberry RFD, never left, and see each other everyday. For those of us who have dared to venture outside our hometowns, served in the military, or have jobs or education that takes us to places around the globe, Facebook is the quickest, easiest way to keep in touch and share news and photos.
Just because you have no use for it does not mean there is no use for it. With such a myopic view of the world no wonder you have no friends. Especially if your sole social networking interaction is apparently posting anonymously on some news blog. Oh, wow, looky there. Someone liked your comment. You are validated as a human. Sad.
So Rick Santorum is on Facebook??
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. -God
Homosexual marriage is the ultimate oxymoron. -Me
Lonesome,
Why is it that anytime one of you religious types want to use the bible to discredit homsexuality, you use Leviticus? Also, why is it when a non religious type uses other passages in the bible regarding divorce, shellfish, cotton blends, slavery, etc.etc., we are told that all of those laws changed after the arrival of jesus? So, if the laws changed after the arrival of jesus, wouldn't that include the laws regarding homosexuality? if they did not change after the arrival of jesus, doesn't that make most christians sinners for eating shellfish and getting divorces and give me the right to own slaves? Which is it?
Nope, but you are the ultimate moron. According to your Bible, I should be stoned to death for refusing to go to church on Sundays. You and your bigoted little God aren't man enough to stop me from living as a free American, and you can't stop "the gay." Stick your so-called "Christianity" up your ignorant arse - Jesus would agree with me.
Well, now we know the reason you're "Lonesome".
Lonesome
And why is it that your religious beliefs has anything to do with a government contract?
We're not all members of your religion, Lonesome. So your religious doctrine does not apply.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual unseemliness – Lev. 15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev. 1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really
necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev. 24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
Good thing for Lonsome that his god doesn't make the laws of the United States. If he did, he'd already be stoned to death.
I don't expect Lonesome or any other religion fan to answer this, but I am curious to learn how exactly God wrote the laws of Leviticus. Did he dictate them to a scribe, or write them himself and leave the scrolls where someone could find them? If A, how do we know the scribe got them exactly right? If B, how do we know the person who found the scroll wasn't being punked by his neighbor?
Justme:
Literal-interpretation religious tradition holds that God dictated Leviticus, along with the rest of the Torah, to Moses at Mount Sinai and in the desert afterwards.
@iItsAboutTime -- that was superb.
thou shall not eat sheelfish or touch the skin of a pig. thou shall not divorce....grow up and stop your own braeking of the so called bible rules, and stop judging others , GOD will do that on his terms, as man was made in his image and his alone, so he must be male, female, black, white...etc, and yes gay!
No, you're just a m oron. No "oxy" needed.
Facebook is a free service. If people are going to "demand" things of them then they should be prepared to start paying for the service.
Why do Americans ( and I am one btw) feel they they are entitled to everything without paying or working for it. As long as FB is free, and it isn't required by law to use, whiners should just shut up.
What are you talking about? Who feels "entitled to everything"? Are you OK?
Kate, I think you missed the point of the article as no one was demanding anything but asking Facebook for further validation or details as to why a photo was seen as inappropriate when it wasn't. Essentially they asked Facebook to review the complaint and the photo. In doing so, Facebook found the report to be unfounded and reversed their decision on the photo being pulled.
Exactly... like those who whine about gay marriage and report photos that aren't violating any site policy.
Kate - turn off Fox News. They get paid to lie to you and make you mad, because your mis-placed anger helps them continue to reap untold CORPORATE WELFARE as you vote and even argue against logic and your own self-interest. Wake up, learn the true facts about the world around you (like how Ronald Reagan raised taxes far more than Obama and Richard Nixon signed the EPA and the Clean Air Act into law), and stop parroting idiotic slogans without any clue as to what they mean.
What did Kate say that was so wrong???
Nothing "wrong" with her post, just her opinion... murky as it seems to be.
Yep, it's free. Hard telling who the "people" mentioned in her post actually are; could be the ones who reported the photo, or those who understand that the "offended" have way too much time on their hands.
Do we not have more important things to worry about than who is marrying who? Answer: Yes we do. How does gay marriage impact the union of any straight marriage? Answer: it doesn't. I'm as married to my [male/opposite gender] husband as I was a year ago, 5 years ago, etc. I'll still be every bit as married to him tomorrow, next week, 5 years from now, assuming I don't get hit by a bus... it takes nothing from me. I wish more of the rampantly breeding "baby mama/baby daddy" crowd would sign on for that kind of commitment.
I'm an American also, and I don't feel I'm entitled to any sort of special treatment. I've worked my butt off since the age of 14, no one has ever handed me a single thing, and I don't appreciate being lumped into such a category. That statement paints all Americans with a pretty broad brush. Not really sure how it's even germane to the topic, but since you asked...
See #7.3.
They are not ordained ministers,
You know this , how?
That is True, Annefi
Wait, isn't Facebook a free service? Why get up in arms about something that was likely just a mistake and assume that someone providing you a free service should do a better job providing you a FREE service? If you can't stand someone making a mistake doing something that you're not paying them to do then what's to be upset about?
The world confounds me and somehow this is news.
There are ways for Facebook to profit off its users without charging them money. If you think Facebook operates solely out of kindness and that they get nothing in return for ALL of the information given to them, then you are poorly informed.
Will you please take pity on us, Human, and please stay off the nitrous oxide.......?
What is interesting here is that the photo was posted on Facebook, which means it was either visible through a group he belongs to on FB or on his personal FB page. Unless he has his page public, it was more than likely someone on his friends list or within one of the groups he belongs to. I would be less upset about FB and more upset that someone within my circle of influence would do such a thing as report it as offensive. What does it say about his friends or the people he communicates with?
Facebook is not in the wrong. I'd bet they don't even review things, they just accept them as flagged. Upon being asked to review it, they reversed the decision. In other words FB did the right thing. With the countless # of members and photos on FB it is irrational to think they have a staff of people who sit in front of computers all day looking at photos to determine if they should be removed or not when flagged.
I'd bet in at least 80% of the reports, it IS offensive and it SHOULD be taken down. As long as they are willing to review it when someone asks for it, then I see nothing wrong with how they handle reports.
If you don't like the way FB does things...don't use it. Write your own program.
On another note...I'm very pleased that those young men got their picture back. Real love is so hard to find. When you do, hold on with everything you have to keep it!
the only thing more gay than this story and those two in the picture is facebook. this story has just won the gay trifecta of the year. and when i say gay i mean lame not happy.
Dear Uncle: You do realize most no longer share your opinion? Fewer all the time, really. There'll be no return to the "good ol' days" of bigotry either, that ship has sailed.
(removed to put in the proper spot)
Ban Facebook
.
This is considered offensive but a grown man putting a gun in a kid's mouth isn't? I reported such photo on FB and they advised me they reviewed it and found nothing offensive about it.
I am offended by the photo the same way an atheist is offended by a Christmas nativity scene, or even the celebration of Christmas.....
I don't believe in gay marriage, and believe that homosexuality is an affront to Christ, and a sin.....
HOWEVER....
I wouldn't complain about a photo of a homosexual couple's wedding being posted on facebook...... first of all, its a completely voluntary website, everyone has a right to be there, and I have the right to not look at that group's page, or photos.
Secondly, if I spent all day complaining about things that offended me, I'd never have a life. To be honest, nothing "offends" me, because these photos aren't about me....... if they put my face on a photo to make me look gay, that would "offend" me, but they didn't..... So let's stop saying offended, and start saying "upsets me because I don't agree with......"
Third, I don't need to agree with it. I'm beyond positive that people are going to disagree with my beliefs, and I don't really care... I stand up for what I believe in, and don't worry about the rest.
Lastly...... who cares??? Its just a picture of two gay men at their wedding, posted in a dedicated group, on a completely voluntary website. It wasn't used to harm, malign, or falsify anyone else's beliefs, identity, etc.... so stop complaining about it, get a life, grow a pair, and move on!!!
As much as we may disagree with each other's beliefs or feelings, your reasoning is sound. It's absurd that people look for things that doesn't involve them and claim that they are offended by something. Someone walking by another person smoking gets offended by said smoker because they don't like the smell of smoke. Someone sees a baby dressed like a fairy and gets offended because they don't like fairies. Someone gets offended by seeing a couple (regardless of race or sex) holding hands in public. The examples are endless, but it shouldn't effect anyone as the person who is being "offended" is not involved and is not directly impacted by what they see. All it stirs is emotions that come and go in a heartbeat. It really is no one's business as to what people do as it doesn't effect anyones life but the people who are DIRECTLY involved. People just need to mind their own business and live their life without worrying about what other people are doing. Doing this simple act solves more problems than many people are willing to admit.
Other than the fact they are part of a group trying to debase a rite'marriage' that has already been SH** on enough without them getting santorum all over it
And yet, Zuckerman, who founded Facebook, is holding a fundraiser for an anti-gay politician.
his company corrected their 'mistake'.He is allowed to express himself,as we all are
People are free to dislike this picture. And they are free to complain about it. Bottom line.
This is true. People are free to dislike the picture and complain about it, but it is up to Facebook to determine if the complaints warrant a photo to be pulled. In this case, after Facebook determined that the photo was not inappropriate or offensive, they reversed their decision. It was an absurd move for a person or a group of people to report a photo as being inappropriate because they didn't agree with it. It would be like me saying that I don't like your screen name and found it offensive, so I will complain to someone in order to have your account closed. It's unfounded. I can dislike your name, but I am not in the right to report you for being offensive for it. That is just an example though as I don't have anything against your name.
this an disgusting to me an should,nt have to see it
Just curious, but would it have disgusted you if it turned out to be the groom and best man instead of two men who just got married? The photo shows the two men smiling, nothing else. Without the headline, you would just be seeing two men smiling at some event.
You don't have to see it. Just turn off your computer. Maybe not Googling the term "gay" would help you not see it.
You must be upset all the time.
Too bad.
yankee-2004655--You could always wear a blindfold for the rest of your life--that way nothing will ever upset you again.
Unbelievable. Doesn't Facebook check complaints out before they censor things? It's a wedding picture. I don't like the way a lot of conservative couples look (bright red lipstick, double D fake boobs for ladies and orange fake tans with cowboy hats for the guys). I simply look at something else.
As a work for social media I can tell you it takes days to follow up on the thousands of "reported" incidents. You cant even imagine. And people falsely report against conservatives just like the do liberals. It goes both way.
It's just as scummy when they report against conservatives. People have to learn to live with each other.
This happens ALL THE TIME to conservative websites. People reporting images as obscene and offensive that are simply pictures of people doing nothing but supporting their conservative beliefs. Where are all of those stories?
Facebook has to do this, in the "I will sue you USA" you have to take every precaution and review every piece of reported offensive material.
Everything that isn't porn offends me
Simply disgusting! A gay pair of so called preachers. Men of the word, eh?
I'm curious, how does that effect the way you live your life? Do they contact you and ask you to join in?
Pro life activoist---You mean "pro-birth until they's born then screw 'em" And it's Activist, Repubtard.
"State"/Numb; "62"/ Numb.
Very Much Men of the Word as well as two Men of Great Integrity and Dignity! I know both Bishop Eric and Pastor Kelsey and I can attest to their commitment to Christ and His Word! God Bless them both!!!!
I am continually amazed that people get so worked up because they think that this or that or something else is an offense to God. Do you think that an entity or the supreme being (we're talking about "God" as the creator of the universe here) really cares whether people of the same sex are attracted to each other. We're talking about the almighty power who had the ability to create the universe and everything in it. Something as insignificant as people having sexual relations is of no importance to Him. How could he think like us mere mortals? He does not. The Bible, while useful, was written by man in order to corral and herd the masses and to keep them in order and to put fear into them so that they would not live in anarchy with no "implied" consequences for their evil actions.
How do they decide who gets to be called the Husband?
The one that get on top first!
The prostate massagers make me want to puke.
BooHoo
If it is so disgusting to you, why are you automatically picturing a sexual act when all they are showing is too nicely groomed and well-dressed men smiling and looking very happy?
The most disgusting think about the act between two gay men is that it stinks when they pull it out! -;)
You do realize that the act between gay men happens between men and women too, right? Besides, it's not your business to be concerned about what anyone does behind closed doors. If you are going to go after gay men who do these types of acts, you should go after everyone who participates in that act. That includes heterosexual couples.
Homosexual sex is a disgusting and evil act. The evil is compounded by the fact that these two perverts claim to be men of God.
And they will be judged when they pass on, but until then, what they do doesn't effect your life at all. Again, it isn't your business to know what people do behind closed doors. Let them live their life, whether you agree or not. They are not contacting you to join their lifestyle or beliefs. You can dislike what they do, but you are in no right to judge as that is god's job. For all you know, you could be wrong and they could be right as there is always a little doubt as to what is the right path. It shouldn't matter what anyone believes as long as people live their life they way they feel is right and deal with the consequences when they pass.
Lately I detest reading the comments on these articles because of the rampant ignorance and hate. Not sure why it is so important that people feel such a need to post anonymously, usually under the banner of religion, all this hatred. They always seem to speak for God and Jesus, but I just can't help but believe that neither one would join them in their rantings. State of Awareness-thank you for speaking up. I like your style.
Generally, I hate reading the comments after most articles. Seems computers have made people think that it's OK to respond to these type of stories with rampant ignorance and hatred. Writing anonymous hate filled comments under the banner of religion, people seem to think they are rightfully speaking for God and Jesus. I truly cannot believe that either of them would agree with these people. I personally stand behind no religion even though I have studied most of them (in my opinion they all tell the same story), but would never disavow anyone's right to believe in what makes them truly happy. No where in the Bible does Jesus speak about people the way these uninformed masses do. Thank you for speaking up "State of Awareness". I like your style. (p.s new here so sorry for multiple comments)