A verse from Leviticus was posted today on the Facebook page of Minnesota for Marriage, a group that is supporting the November constitutional amendment that encases the state's existing ban on same-sex marriage into the state constitution.
In a tweet today, however, the spokesman for the group says it wasn't his work...
It's an entirely plausible explanation, but the group clearly has control of its Facebook account back, judging by this post, which was added to the page around 10 this morning...
But the original post is still on the Facebook page.
Once you have access to your page, deleting a post on Facebook is easy, simply click the "pencil" and click "delete."
So why is it still up?
Sounds like a lie to me. They could've easily removed it.
It may be possible that the story is true from Minnesotans for Marriage, but what's really sad is that 45 people liked the status.
B.S. The post was made from M4M's account. Therefore, they don't need Facebook to verify anything. All they need to do is go to Account settings > Security > Active sessions and put the cursor over the session that was active when the post was made to view the IP address used.
Did the fellow there just call a quote from the Bible "garbage?" I think he did. Fascinating.
For all the passages that condemn homosexuality in the bible, there are many more that praise love and compassion.
Luckily there are people like Matt Nevels in this world that understand that.
This section of the bible condemns MANY other things - like eating shellfish, wearing clothes made with more than one fabric, a LOT of things. They aren't condemning homosexuality, but something that was done differently during that time. We need to read with context people. Marriage and relationships have changed a lot since this was written - learn from Jesus - love everyone and love with all you have - and that means letting people have basic human rights!!
God says nothing about Gay marriage, and the things that are said about straight marriage can be upsetting - I think we need to keep in mind God is still actively creating the world as it turns and is looking for us to love one another fully. Acceptance, love, equal rights. Praise be!:)
If facebook isn't logging all traffic (including ISP address) for a page, their lying about their business model.
I find the excuse for not removing it weak as well. First of all you could "hide from timeline" which I would think would make it invisible for people other than the account owner. I know the Facebook IPO wasn't the success that some had hoped, but I would think it shouldn't take more than a few minutes for tech support to determine the record id of the post and then use that to track it through the logs. But then I don't work for Facebook.
People who cite Leviticus like the alleged hacker clearly have never read Leviticus. By those standards, we are pretty much all an abomination to the Lord.
I think there's something in Leviticus about entering misleading posts in Facebook. I swear there's a verse or two about social media practices....
Here's another example from Leviticus (19:28)
"You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the LORD."
Now that of course is the modern language version, I think the King James version says "nor print any marks on yourself"
Stephanie points out the same section of the Bible prohibits eating shellfish. Personally I don't like shellfish. I am not saying everyone who eats a clam should be killed, but I don't want you seafood eaters to redefine "food" for the rest of us. So I am going to be introducing the Protection of Dinner Amendment to legally define an entree as consisting of a fatted calf, goat or lamb.
What does the bible say about liars? Andy Parrish should brush up.
Kevin W - Wait a minute.
Jews were the transcribers of Leviticus ( God told them what to write, of course. He was too busy smiting the uncircumcised to worry about that writing stuff.)
And Jews love Chinese food. Better include that in your Protection of Dinner legislation to assure the necessary financial backing.
Regardless of if this was a "hack" or not, many religious people use this verse as a justification for banning gay marriage. If one reads the verse carefully, it is specifically addressing "sexual relations." Marriage does not necessarily mean the parties will actually engage in "sexual relations" as any stand up comedian might tell you.
Marriage is a civil contract by state law. There is no justification for denying the right of consenting adults from entering into a contract. If the state wants to provide standard language contracts (like marriage or purchase agreements), they need to be available for everyone.
Eric - "Marriage does not necessarily mean the parties will actually engage in "sexual relations" as any stand up comedian might tell you."
Stand up comedians and married people. :-)
"Redefine marriage for all society"?
Come on people, if you really want marriage to be between one man and a woman's father and involve live stock then say so. Otherwise your argument is mute and you should be as well.
There are a lot more scriptures condemning adultery than there are condemning homosexuality. Perhaps we should legislate that behavior as well, particularly as it affects many more families than those affected by a same-sex partnership.
Yah, and then there's that whole bit about coveting. 'Coveting' was even listed in the All Time Top Ten of Bad Things To Do Called Sins by Moses.
Coveting is merely desiring to have something that belongs to someone else. Jealous?