How should we respond? (red equal signs on social media)

[3DOCTORS]

Yes, I know about hiding posts. I have hidden posts, especially during the election as the fighting got pretty intense and between that and the mud slinging tv ads, it got be too much. I understand your reason for hiding posts.

However, posters in this very thread “have” un-friended people “directly”. This is what I was addressing.

Well, I’m one of those weirdos who thinks that people who get “unfriended” on Facebook are taking Facebook WAAAAAAAAAY too seriously. And giving it WAAAAAAAAY too much power over our lives. Another reason, IMO, to question whether it is really necessary in any of our lives. A question each person must ponder for herself/himself.

Along these lines, I’ve been glancing at a few articles online about the phenomenon of disengaging from Facebook, just out of curiosity. And one newly-coined “word” that I keep seeing is “monetized,” as in how your presence on Facebook can be “monetized” via ads and so forth. My reaction is again to be a tad smug that I’m probably not very “monetizable” for them.

 

[mommyof4]

Well, I’m one of those weirdos who thinks that people who get “unfriended” on Facebook are taking Facebook WAAAAAAAAAY too seriously. And giving it WAAAAAAAAY too much power over our lives. Another reason, IMO, to question whether it is really necessary in any of our lives. A question each person must ponder for herself/himself.

My husband and I unfriended a few people over the past few days and wow, there has been a backlash in the family! Hurt feelings, etc. My husband made the comment that it’s for the thought police. It’s like the new Passover- our computer screens are the lentels, and if you don’t have the “sign,” you’re in big trouble.

 

[JimG]

Maybe this is one reason that I seldom use Facebook. It can be like a peer group pressure zone: Conform or else! But mostly I don’t use it because most of what I see posted there is just, well, a waste of time is the best that can be said.

The other thing is that the media elites, while proclaiming diversity as a god, are intolerant of any real diverse opinion, especially any opinion which is out of favor. What? You’re not for gay marriage? You must be a hater and a bigot. At the very least a dinosaur.

 

[Sjonesd3]

I constantly see it on there and instagram as profile pictures. I saw people doing an opposing picture one with the ≠ sign. So you could do that I personally just ignore it it’s just like talking to a wall.

 

[Faithdancer]

I think the reports that tell of vast numbers of people on Facebook replacing their profile picture with the same sex “marriage” equal sign are greatly exaggerated. I’ve just been purging my original FB account, which maxed out a while back, and I don’t think the number of “friends” who have made that unfortunate change to their profile pic exceeds 3 or 4 per cent. Most of my “friends” on that account are dance people, with some theater, music, photography, and other artistic types. And while it’s a myth that all male dancers are homosexual, in my experience probably 2/3 of them are. So in general, these performing arts people tend to be very liberal and would be most likely to support same sex “marriage” yet only a small number of them have changed their profile pic.

 

[Jaysuitical]

I posted a new thread on this before I saw that there was already a long thread pertaining to it.

With regard to the use of the red background, red is a power color, which arouses powerful emotions, especially when it comes to rousing people to follow it. Hitler put his black swastika on the red banner, traditionally belonging to communist revolutionaries, specifically in order to irritate them, but also to grab the attention of Germans who’d turned communist.

Likewise, Democrats once were designated on political maps by red and Republicans by blue, till conservatives decided to re-brand themselves with the red designation. (Nobody in my generation would’ve thought of calling ourselves “red Republicans”).

It’s a “hey, I want to join that! they’re on the march!” color. It’s designed to short-circuit argument and discussion altogether.

 

[BobCatholic]

This is how I’d respond.

on-this-rock.blogspot.com/201…beast.html?m=1

lisagraas.com/blog/archives/5644

I just want you to know that if this is your sign then you are actively supporting my persecution, torture, imprisonment, etc. Perhaps you know that already, and perhaps that warms your heart, but I wanted to make sure we’re all on the same page here.

The French didn’t wake up one morning and say “Hey, let’s kill tens of thousands of Catholics”…it happened over time. It was a process.
Amen. Amen. And Amen.

Especially this part!

Interesting that the “=” sign today turned red and went viral because the symbol for the movement was blue with a yellow = before today. It’s as if the “redefining marriage” movement is now out for blood, and I believe they will soon begin seeking to slake their thirst.

And he’s right on this!

amazon.com/Background-commonly-supporters-disadvantaged-opposition/dp/B0064NDZR2

 

[seeker5133]

you know i fail to see how granting equal rights to same-sex couple is an attack on anyone’s marriage or family. it comes down to this fact Noone is asking you or the church or any religous group who is opposed to samesex relations to recognize them. It is simply having the government live up to its 14 amendment obligations.

 

[Faithdancer]

What is funny is that this sudden frenzy of equal signs is the fundamental misunderstanding of the homosexualists about SCOTUS. The Supreme Court cannot and will not be influenced by Facebook, Twitter, or any number of slavishly liberal, homosexual-worshipping media rants about how wonderful same sex “marriage” is.

 

[Faithdancer]

I posted a new thread on this before I saw that there was already a long thread pertaining to it.

With regard to the use of the red background, red is a power color, which arouses powerful emotions, especially when it comes to rousing people to follow it. Hitler put his black swastika on the red banner, traditionally belonging to communist revolutionaries, specifically in order to irritate them, but also to grab the attention of Germans who’d turned communist.

Likewise, Democrats once were designated on political maps by red and Republicans by blue, till conservatives decided to re-brand themselves with the red designation. (Nobody in my generation would’ve thought of calling ourselves “red Republicans”).

It’s a “hey, I want to join that! they’re on the march!” color. It’s designed to short-circuit argument and discussion altogether.

Good point about the color choice. I couldn’t quite put my finger on it, but I believe you are quite right. Red is also the color of alarm, so perhaps it will backfire. I hope so. I find I am becoming less tolerant by the week because of this constant barrage of “gay.”

 

[3DOCTORS]

I posted a new thread on this before I saw that there was already a long thread pertaining to it.

With regard to the use of the red background, red is a power color, which arouses powerful emotions, especially when it comes to rousing people to follow it. Hitler put his black swastika on the red banner, traditionally belonging to communist revolutionaries, specifically in order to irritate them, but also to grab the attention of Germans who’d turned communist.

**Likewise, Democrats once were designated on political maps by red and Republicans by blue, till conservatives decided to re-brand themselves with the red designation. (Nobody in my generation would’ve thought of calling ourselves “red Republicans”). **

It’s a “hey, I want to join that! they’re on the march!” color. It’s designed to short-circuit argument and discussion altogether.

Well, I thought I was going crazy! What year did they change the red-state/blue-state thing? I was thinking my memory was failing me.

And you are correct, red does come across as a power color - it’s the color of blood, for one thing. Just sayin’.

 

[Carina20]

I feel like unfriending a bunch of people that I respect, because I just don’t want to see this in my feed.

You can hide all their posts. There’s a a little pointed downward sign beside each news feed post that gives option to hide or mark posts. You can hide all posts or just one in particular.

 

[jenwha]

Personally, my heart is breaking from seeing what was once the sanctity of marriage being dragged through the courts for want of changing it into something it was NEVER meant to be. Gay “marriage” has never been and will never be “right and good” because it goes against nature and it goes against God’s law. I accept that many people identify themselves as homosexual, but what they do sexually needs to be kept in their own bedroom and between them and God, and this gay marriage should NOT up for public vote because it is NOT marriage.

I realize my opinion is strong and may offend others, but I stand by it and my morals. All this talk just makes me feel like nothing is sacred anymore, least of all the very basis of home, family and community. What’s next? Pedophiles fighting for the “right” to “love” children in the way that they do? Bit by bit we have been removing GOD from this country and look where it’s gotten us. America has gone to hell.

I totally and wholeheartedly agree with you. Absolutely nothing is sacred anymore. I have problems living in the times I do…and I fear with this ridiculous gay marriage that will pass (it’s just a matter of time) that God may bring a harsh judgment against America. It scares me. I can’t imagine what our Lord must think.

 

[BobCatholic]

you know i fail to see how granting equal rights to same-sex couple is an attack on anyone’s marriage or family. it comes down to this fact Noone is asking you or the church or any religous group who is opposed to samesex relations to recognize them. It is simply having the government live up to its 14 amendment obligations.

That’s not how the gay agenda works. They MUST impose their beliefs on others.

Canadian Pastor Fined after Speaking Against Homosexuality
citizenlink.com/2010/07/15/canadian-pastor-fined-after-speaking-against-homosexuality/

Swedish Pastor Faces Jail for Preaching against Homosexuality
chalcedon.edu/Research/Articles/Swedish-Pastor-Faces-Jail-For-Preaching-Against-Homosexuality/

Canada - Catholic Priest investigated for quoting Bible
wnd.com/2008/06/66247/

Methodist Church loses tax exemption because they don’t do SSM.
chalcedon.edu/research/articles/church-wont-perform-lesbian-union-so-state-revokes-tax-exemption/

Same-Sex Marriage Shuts Down Methodist Camp Ground
blog.heritage.org/2009/01/06/same-sex-marriage-shuts-down-methodist-camp-ground/

I could go on and on and on…the examples are plentiful.

Those who are pro-SSM want to impose their beliefs on Christianity, and they will use the power of government to force people to either obey or be punished. This is a worldwide phenomenon, not some isolated incident.

And WHY are homosexuals asking for “marriage” anyway? 5,000 years of homosexual history where they never asked for it before, even in places like ancient Rome, ancient Greece and ancient Corinth where homosexual sex was celebrated and considered superior to heterosexual sex. This goes against their subculture. Why are they trying to copycat the heteros?

The answer is clear: Cultural Marxism.

 

[3DOCTORS]

That’s not how the gay agenda works. They MUST impose their beliefs on others.

Canadian Pastor Fined after Speaking Against Homosexuality
citizenlink.com/2010/07/15/canadian-pastor-fined-after-speaking-against-homosexuality/

Swedish Pastor Faces Jail for Preaching against Homosexuality
chalcedon.edu/Research/Articles/Swedish-Pastor-Faces-Jail-For-Preaching-Against-Homosexuality/

Canada - Catholic Priest investigated for quoting Bible
wnd.com/2008/06/66247/

Methodist Church loses tax exemption because they don’t do SSM.
chalcedon.edu/research/articles/church-wont-perform-lesbian-union-so-state-revokes-tax-exemption/

Same-Sex Marriage Shuts Down Methodist Camp Ground
blog.heritage.org/2009/01/06/same-sex-marriage-shuts-down-methodist-camp-ground/

I could go on and on and on…the examples are plentiful.

They are indeed, Bob, and I hope the skeptics among those who are misguidedly sympathizing with the pro-gay-“marriage” movement because they sincerely think they’re being fair and tolerant and just, will come to see what’s really happening.

We can help get the word out. It’s this big group of people who will make the difference. The radical minority would remain a minority but for those in the majority who are being seduced by this attitude of, “Well, I kind of see their point, it is unfair, I can’t really see why they shouldn’t be allowed to get married too.”

These are the people who could bring the numbers to the tipping point needed, and let the proverbial horse out of the barn. They are being manipulated about this just as people have been about abortion since 1973. “Well . . . I don’t want to impose my morality on anybody.”

Those who are pro-SSM want to impose their beliefs on Christianity, and they will use the power of government to force people to either obey or be punished. This is a worldwide phenomenon, not some isolated incident.

And WHY are homosexuals asking for “marriage” anyway? 5,000 years of homosexual history where they never asked for it before, even in places like ancient Rome, ancient Greece and ancient Corinth where homosexual sex was celebrated and considered superior to heterosexual sex. This goes against their subculture. Why are they trying to copycat the heteros?

The answer is clear: Cultural Marxism.

They want to use the courts to ramrod this through because, unlike Jesus, who spoke with authority, they don’t have any real moral authority to stand upon.

 

[BobCatholic]

These are the people who could bring the numbers to the tipping point needed, and let the proverbial horse out of the barn. They are being manipulated about this just as people have been about abortion since 1973. “Well . . . I don’t want to impose my morality on anybody.”

Amen. And then what happens that we have people imposing their amorality on others by use of the courts.

 

[seeker5133]

You little list forgets one of the basic protections of the US Constitution. The establishment clause protects the church in fact any religious organization from interference from the government. No church in the US would be forced to preform SSM nor would they be required to recognize them. They would be a purely civil matter.

 

[JimG]

You little list forgets one of the basic protections of the US Constitution. The establishment clause protects the church in fact any religious organization from interference from the government. No church in the US would be forced to preform SSM nor would they be required to recognize them. They would be a purely civil matter.

Apparently someone forgot to tell the HHS about religious liberty.

 

[Frank_Drebin]

Apparently someone forgot to tell the HHS about religious liberty.

Exactly. How anyone can claim that when the religious mandate is set to go before the USSC is beyond me.

 

[Julianna]

you know i fail to see how granting equal rights to same-sex couple is an attack on anyone’s marriage or family. it comes down to this fact Noone is asking you or the church or any religous group who is opposed to samesex relations to recognize them. It is simply having the government live up to its 14 amendment obligations.

yes, exactly.