SMBC around the world!

[smiley_cow]

what would he have done had they properly rehosted the image?

I'm sure they either will eventually or take it down completely.

Also if we want to say that the comments are the views of the person posting than we have to admit that CNN occasionally thinks Obama is literally a colored feller hitler.

I wasn't saying that. I was saying here's one person who interpreted that way, so it's entirely possible whoever made the decision to post the comic in the first place did too. They put it up for a reason. Possibly they just thought it was funny, but it does make sense that they interpreted it in a way that matched some of what their organization believed in and that's why they thought it would be appropriate for their blog.

[Oldrac the Chitinous]

I am not impressed.

So, the NOM posted a comic of Zach's. It's reasonable that Zach wouldn't want his name attached to that organization. But he could have picked a better way to deal with it than trolling the NOMs. A good option would be to ask them to take it down. If that didn't work, he could have redirected the image to an "Image removed by creator" message or something, or blocked it altogether.

By putting a pro-gay image on the NOM website, Zach has accomplished two things. One, he gets pats on the back from people that agree with him, because he scored a hit against the dastardly conservatives. Two, he gives the NOM folks one more reason to believe that pro-gay types are out to get them. So everybody gets to pat themselves on the back because clearly they have the moral high ground and the other guys are all a bunch of douchebarons. Which feels good, but it isn't really what anyone is after. The Defense-of-Marriage types are not the enemy, and this kind of sniping isn't going to turn anyone's hearts or bring us closer to a mutually satisfactory solution.

Or, if Zach redirected the image to one of his gay-favorable cartoons, at least it would have been funnier.

ADDENDUM:

I missed the part where it was very clearly presented as a defense of heterosexual coupling rather than a comic that they found funny

Also this.

ADDENDUM ADDENDUM:
I wish I could express a simple opinion without taking hours. That would be nice.

[Edminster]

Well said! You've put words to all the vague concepts i had surrounding why what he did was stupid. Admittedly my goatse idea would not have helped but then i was focussing more on 'teaching them that hotlinking is bad' than 'scoring a hit on those terrible subhuman things with backward and stupid ideals'.

edit: for the record I am one of those people that is more comfortable with marriage being between a man and a woman, but then i am also of the opinion that physical gender does not determine if you're a man or a woman.

[Eikinkloster]

By putting a pro-gay image on the NOM website, Zach has accomplished two things. One, he gets pats on the back from people that agree with him, because he scored a hit against the dastardly conservatives. Two, he gives the NOM folks one more reason to believe that pro-gay types are out to get them. So everybody gets to pat themselves on the back because clearly they have the moral high ground and the other guys are all a bunch of douchebarons.

That's what I was thinking when I read twits such as this:

BadAstronomer Phil Plait
You should all know that @ZachWeiner stands among my pantheon of heroes. http://is.gd/IrcXJ2 #LGBT #FightTheMan

People get so happy when they find other people who agree with them

[Lethal Interjection]

I've gone into this entire debate (such as it is) assuming that NOM is a relatively hateful organization. Now, scrolling a bit through their site I realize that isn't the case. There isn't a lot of love, but there isn't outright hate. Some people might take their conservatism as anti-rights (as Zach seems to, judging by what he put up), something I'm not convinced of, exactly.*
On the other hand, NOM should know better than to hotlink anything, nevermind blindly (without figuring out what the context of SMBC is). On the other hand, Zach did the same thing by assuming they were using to further a negative (to Zach) agenda (though it is up to Zach whether he wants it attached to them one way or another). If NOM were to have done more than simply post the image, and perhaps explain why it was posted, and in a way that appeased Zach, this might not have been a problem, either.
So, as far as I'm concerned, while Zach didn't do the "request" thing first as maybe he ought to have, they didn't do the same in regards to their posting. If they hadn't hotlinked, it would have forced Zach to request, if he cared enough, and much of this would've been avoided.

So, in summary. NOM, NOM, NOM.... (shakes head).

*I've actually been debating with myself lately at what "human rights" actually are, being a little skeptical of the entire idea. But I can discuss that at length elsewhere.

[Amerika]

shhhhhhh

shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[Astrogirl]

You guys have some serious issues with your priorities.

Hotlinking: Abominable crime that should be punished by exposing thousands of innocent people to goatse.

Taking a comic and contorting it to support the view that gays and lesbians are less than human, that same-sex marriages and civil unions must be banned and that existing same-sex marriages and unions must be anulled: Completely legitimate view, which must be accepted and nicely asked not to use it.

Edminster: Your claim that they might have posted it because they thought it was funny and not in support of their agenda to ban and anull same-sex marriages and civil unions is at ridiculous as the claim of that guy recently that there are regulars of this forum who do not know xkcd. No, actually it's even more ridiculous. Just look at any or all of their other damned blog postings. 100% gayhating. 0% comics or other things posted for fun.

Also, just because you happen to be fine with only co-habitating, consider that other gay people might want to enjoy the over 1100 federal and additional state and local benefits that hetero couples get by marrying. Good luck with setting up a contract with all of these.

Oh, you're saying the real problem is that a religious concept got mixed in with state stuff and shouldn't be, i.e. there should be no laws regarding marriage whatsoever and no benefits from being married whatsoever? I.e. marriage should be abolished as a legal concept? Three ideas to consider: (1) Christians didn't invent marriage. (2) All other countries recognize marriages. (3) Until now it was a lie when N.O.M. claimed that gays are trying to destroy hetero marriages. You want to make that true?

Lethal: N.O.M. is an officially recognised hate group: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 05573.html . It is one of the more sneaky hate groups. Not the kind that shows up at the burial of a gay person and holds up signs that they are going to hell. The kind that treads carefully. Look at the first of their talking points, it makes it very clear: "Language to avoid at all costs: "Ban same-sex marriage." Our base loves this wording. So do supporters of SSM. They know it causes us to lose about ten percentage points in polls. Don’t use it. Say we’re against “redefining marriage” or in favor or “marriage as the union of husband and wife” NEVER “banning same-sex marriage.” " They are totally for banning same-sex marriages and civil unions and anulling existing same-sex marriages and unions. They are just careful not to use the word "ban" and instead to talk about some supposedly evil "redefining" because this avoids resistance.

Moreover it is one of the more dangerous anti-LGBT groups as they were actually successful in removing existing rights. See Defense of Marriage Act and the anulling in California.

Besides opposing same-sex marriages and civil unions, they also oppose students being taught in state-run schools that homosexuality is okay.

They hate gays and just pay lip-service to "the gays' rights to live as they want" because that is better for their results at the polls.

[Eikinkloster]

Taking a comic and contorting it to support the view that gays and lesbians are less than human

The comic is saying the times are changing. To Zach that is funny. To NOM that is scary. They wouldn't need to do any contorting to use the comic as an illustration of their worries.

Lethal: N.O.M. is an officially recognised hate group: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 05573.html .

Are you serious? Didn't you even bother to check that the Southern Poverty Law Center has about the same competence to make official statements as NOM itself?

They hate gays and just pay lip-service to "the gays' rights to live as they want" because that is better for their results at the polls.

I don't hate schizophrenics, but I don't think it would be wise to give them the right to fly airplanes. But I'm also against forcing schizophrenics to take medicines to make them more like the rest of us (those meds make them suffer in unimaginable ways) In general, I think schizophrenia a behavior as valid as ours. It's just not very compatible with flying airplanes.

I don't think two persons of the same sex form a couple eligible to raise a child. I'm against giving them the right to adopt children, and marrying them gives them this right. But I'm also against any measure that forces them to behave in a heterosexual way. Even if I think it's as deviant a behavior as schizophrenia.

Of course you may ignore everything I said and just cry "you hate gay people, die die die!". I won't hate you for that. Just as I don't hate schizophrenics for eventually thinking I'm out to deprive them from the throne of Antarctica.

[DonRetrasado]

I don't think two persons of the same sex form a couple eligible to raise a child. I'm against giving them the right to adopt children, and marrying them gives them this right. But I'm also against any measure that forces them to behave in a heterosexual way. Even if I think it's as deviant a behavior as schizophrenia.

So, by this logic, a single parent is even worse at raising a child. Right?

[Amerika]

DR you idiot, you see a single parent is like a puzzle piece of terrible parenting, it's only completely terrible when it has another puzzle piece of the same kind, but a heterosexual couple is like two different puzzle pieces that compliment each other perfectly and never goes wrong ever

[Sahan]

DR you idiot, you see a single parent is like a puzzle piece of terrible parenting, it's only completely terrible when it has another puzzle piece of the same kind, but a heterosexual couple is like two different puzzle pieces that compliment each other perfectly and never goes wrong ever

This is a scientific FACT.

[smiley_cow]

I don't think two persons of the same sex form a couple eligible to raise a child. I'm against giving them the right to adopt children, and marrying them gives them this right. But I'm also against any measure that forces them to behave in a heterosexual way. Even if I think it's as deviant a behavior as schizophrenia.

Have you any kind of support that gay couples wouldn't make good parents? Because most studies I've seen have said the opposite. Also how does allowing gay marriage or civil unions or what have you force gay people to behave like straight people? Seems to me all it does is give them the option if they so choose.

[Eikinkloster]

Have you any kind of support that gay couples wouldn't make good parents?

Good point, but not the one I'm trying to make. 99% of the conceptions we have aren't based on scientific findings either. For instance: what would be better: to have biological parents raise their children, or to handle the children to boarding schools from the day they are born? I think most people will cringe at the second idea, without knowing any scientific study about it. I, however, would take the boarding school. My point is that simply labeling my choice as "hate for families" is disingenuous. I don't hate families. I just don't trust them much with caring for children. Way too much power for two people to bear.

That doesn't mean I'm not interested at all in studies on both homosexual parents and boarding schools. I actually am. I'm not, however, withholding my judgment for when I've studied these studies at length. Nor am I going to be convinced by simply reading a meta conclusion such as "studies have failed to find any significant differences". If I'm going to study the studies, I want numbers. I want methodologies, samples. What were the *insignificant differences*? What were the adjustments? I would be baffled, for instance, if they didn't find any significant *advantage* in the children's intellectual outcomes, since I'm pretty sure gay people *are* at the higher end of the intelligence spectrum. It was refreshing to find at least one of the studies you mentioned going out of the weasel way and admiting they did find some advantages in the gay familes:

Compared with heterosexual fathers (as well as with heterosexual mothers) lesbian parents have also
been found to be less likely to use or to endorse the use of physical punishment (...)
Researchers (...) have found that (...) the children in the 78 families had been sexually abused at rates “strikingly”
lower than national rates (...)

Wow. Will they, however, mention any negative results and run the risk of having a Zach Weiner crusade called against them?

Also how does allowing gay marriage or civil unions or what have you force gay people to behave like straight people? Seems to me all it does is give them the option if they so choose.

No, no, I'm trying to contextualize my hatred (or absence thereof) of gays and schizophrenics. People in the recent past would try to force gay people into chemical castration, like happened to Turing. People in the present still force schizophrenics into chemical lobotomy. Did you see the movie Equilibrium, about the perceived pressure to force depressive people into emotional lobotomy via prozac? I think all of these pressures can be perceived at some length as hate, and I reject them all.

[DonRetrasado]

kids have never been put into boarding schools ever and no one has ever thought to study this :V

[Eikinkloster]

kids have never been put into boarding schools ever and no one has ever thought to study this :V

What about Harry Potter? He turned out ok.