They object to us using a photo of a crowd scene, which symbolizes the tens of thousands of New Hampshire voters who are part of our effort. They're upset that the photo was not taken at a NOM rally. Seriously?! NOM using a common use photo in the public domain is considered a great scandal, yet they can redefine marriage—the most important social institution of society against the wishes of New Hampshire voters—and nobody is supposed to object? It's as if the institution of marriage gets mugged, and they complain about speeding in the neighborhood when someone rushes it to the hospital!
38 comments
One small problem Brian...
Those photos you lifted and edited? They. are. NOT . Common. Use!
To quote from the New Civil Rights Movement article on this matter:
"A photograph taken by a Reuters photographer and published and copyrighted by Reuters is not “a common use photo in the public domain.”
Photos posted to Flickr with a Creative Commons license requiring attribution??which NOM neglected to do??are not “common use photo in the public domain.”
But what’s just as bad as Brian Brown lying about the photo theft is his sloughing it off as no big deal."
Brown, I know your crew have been caught doing this several times already, but you are clearly not even trying to hide it anymore. Now you're just a thief crying foul because your victims slugged you too hard when you were breaking into their home. Thank you for proving yourselves the charlatans we knew you were. You have done well in advancing the cause of marriage equality.
NOM using a common use photo in the public domain is considered a great scandal, yet they can redefine marriagethe most important social institution of society against the wishes of New Hampshire votersand nobody is supposed to object?
The old "tu quoque" fallacy: "OK, I did something wrong, but you did something worse, so you've lost your right to object."
If the use of the 'common use' photo was to represent the tens of thousands of New Hampshire voters who are part of your effort, why not just, i dunno.. organise to take a photo of the tens of thousands of voters supporting your effort?
yet they can redefine marriagethe most important social institution of society against the wishes of New Hampshire voters
Look, you don't get to vote on peoples' rights. They wouldn't be rights if you allowed a self-righteous majority to decide whether people should have them or not.
Redefinition of marriage, whatever your views on the morality of it, is at least open and honest. People want x to happen, they say they want x to happen, and are jolly happy when it does.
Using publicly available pictures of crowds to make it seem like you have much more popular support than you in fact do... Immoral and dishonest. Oh, I see you in fact the pictures aren't public and you didn't have the rights to use them. And you still think this is the right way to behave? I'd be honestly surprised you don't see that this just isn't on, if I didn't see shit like this from your lot on a daily basis.
Anything goes if its in the name of this ridiculous cause you've invented, right?
NOM? Is this the National Organization for Marriage? Sound more like the National Organization against Tolerance.
Did you use a generic crowd picture, just any crowd? Yup, that's dishonest, very dishonest.
We don't want to redefine marriage, we still want it to mean "two individuals who intend to spend the rest of their lives together and share everything with each other".
Marriage has been redefined so many times over the millennia. A few hundred years ago, only the gentry got married. In some societies you can get another wife, if the first one isn't fulfilling her marital duties.
The most important social institution of society? Sweden must be crumbling then, as fewer and fewer get married, and more and more people wait until they have lived together for years and have a child or two, before they marry.
However, it seems many people are getting married next Friday, so that they can have 11-11-11 as The Date. That is how important marriage is nowadays...
"It's as if X gets mugged, and they complain about speeding in the neighborhood when someone rushes it to the hospital!"
Are you SURE you want to use that analogy? 'Cause lemme tell you what I've been hearing from conservatives and health-care spending...
It's interesting how they defend fake news, they don't care at all about being truthful.
I never heard of this event but it mirrors foxnews tactics. Fox showed Obamas inaguration crowd scenes to imply they were a Washington Tea-Party event, they used MCain/ Palin 2004 campaign clips to pretend Sarah Palin book signings drew such crowds.
Even when exposed they try and claim such stunts are accidents or the crowds were equal,,like Hell, they have the actual footage and realize how dismal and unimpessive it is.
marriagethe most important social institution of society
Sorry, Brian, you're wrong. In the USA, the most important institution is C-A-P-I-T-A-L-I-S-M.
Learn it, know it, live it.
So misrepresenting people and using pictures that were NOT public domain is okay, but two people who love eachother getting married isn't?
Someone needs to get their priorities straightened out.
Really, I'd think we should be used to this kind of thing by now;tThe cheering crowds after the Iraq invasion, the anti-Gaddhafi protests, etc. By now we can just assume that, unless someone in the clip is speaking about the specific news topic, then they just used stock footage.
"OK, we used a fake photo to make it look like there were more of us than there were. But that's nothing compared to people trying to legalize gay marriage!"
Seriously, dude, just stop already.
They're thinking of the old definition: MARRIAGE, n. The state or condition of a community consisting of a master, a mistress and two slaves, making in all, two.
Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
Using a public domain photo? Not a problem.
Using a public domain photo that has nothing to do with a particular event but saying it was taken at the event? That is lying.
And you defend this? You disgust me.
Hey, you know lying isn't a big deal when you're doing it to spread the Lawd's Troof!
^^ Paraphrasing that douche.
So, you are more concerned with activist's efforts to "redefine" marriage than you are with NOM's efforts to redefine honesty?
You've got some seriously screwed up priorities Brian
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
