Video: Prop 8, the musical
posted at 12:50 pm on December 3, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Noteworthy mainly for the A-list (well, B- and C-list) cast. And the lack of any scenes involving blacklists or old ladies being bullied.
Believe it or not, this isn’t the first time Jack Black’s played Jesus.
See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 ... 6 Next »
For those libertines who think this is a non-issue, I’d ask you to turn your eyes towards the post-marriange future: the American black experience of the past forty years.
Since the welfare state destroyed black marriage in the 1960’s and 1970’s, a skein of pathologies has played out that ought to give everyone pause. When marriage is no longer important, illegitimacy soars, childhood poverty increases dramatically, educational achievement drops precipitously, lifetime earnings decline and life expectancy falls. Societal sanction and/or incentives have impacts that are far removed from the root cause.
Society has a huge stake in the well-being of traditionally-defined families and it is inconceivable (no pun intended) that re-defining marriage would have no impact upon the family. It is not my responsbility to defend the millenias old status quo: the burden of proof is upon those who would have us make this radical change to show that it will not precipitate and proliferate the same kinds of harm wrought on the black family.
PD Quig on December 3, 2008 at 2:23 PM
Not even close. Adjust your sights.
Count to 10 on December 3, 2008 at 2:24 PM
arrogant scum
bill30097 on December 3, 2008 at 2:24 PM
We’re not. You’re obviously an evolutionist… figure out how the laws evolved.
Skywise on December 3, 2008 at 2:28 PM
I with the “it’s no big deal to have gays get the same legal protections and rights as married couples” contingent here. If you don’t want to call gay unions a marriage, then fine. Don’t do it. I personally define marriage as a man and a woman, but two gays getting hitched (or “unionized” – heh) somewhere in the eyes of the law doesn’t affect my marriage one way or the other.
What should REALLY be the focus here for all the passionate traditional values advocates is the greater than 1-in-2 divorce rate in heterosexual couples.
Is that the fault of gays?
Good Lt on December 3, 2008 at 2:29 PM
Well, the church used to kill homosexuals (as Islamic nutjobs currently do) a long time ago. I guess that means that church law has “evolved” as well.
Unless you want to go back to the purer, Biblical form of “justice” for homosexuals, which is an abortion of justice.
Good Lt on December 3, 2008 at 2:31 PM
I’m truly interested in how Prop 8 “violates church and state.” Really. Is Gay Marriage a religious establishment? Is it a religion? No? Then gay marriage is a state function? It’s a vital interest of the state such that a church commenting on it is interfering with the business of the state? That’s pure insanity, since government has for oh, several thousand years functioned well without needing to marry two guys who only want to have a rather disgusting sexual practice.
So it must be a violation that a church dared to speak out! That’s right, everyone has a freedom to speak, unless you are a religion now. That’s the standard we have to expect: you can only speak if you support the gays–if not, we shall shut you up. By force, if necessary, just like Canada’s gaystapo is doing up there to various religious leaders. It’s coming, and Noneya is eager to stomp on the 1st amendment once again!
Vanceone on December 3, 2008 at 2:32 PM
Yes, because nothing says “totalitarian” like giving people more freedoms.
You have failed to show that gay marriage will make anything worse, other than through postulation. Your link actually shows that the Dutch are doing better in one vital area of family life. Thanks for that by the way, I’ll be sure to use it in future arguments.
And please take your own advice and don’t rely on “anecdotes and wishful thinking” when saying that gay marriage will be the end of civilization.
justfinethanks on December 3, 2008 at 2:36 PM
The government has no business being involved in this issue. That said, I think the gays do themselves a disservice to single out the Mormons and not the nearly 80% of black clergy who had their members vote for this. This may be good for fundraising for their cause but it will have no effect until they go after the black and latino groups that are also against the gays.
As for the Mormons — I dispise their leadership so anything that is done to bring them down is fine by me. Even if that means more Jack Black.
grdred944 on December 3, 2008 at 2:37 PM
Good LT: Lemme clue you in. The biggest “culprit” here, the LDS church, that evil bunch of Mormons who delight in torturing gays while cackling as they rip the beating hearts out of poor innocent gays (to judge from the rhetoric I hear)–spends a great deal of time emphasizing strong families. And they do a great deal to combat divorce, and preach about how to stay married and offer all sorts of ideas.
I would wager that the Church spends almost fifty percent of its time on arguing and trying to strengthen regular families.
And it works, seeing as Temple marriages among LDS families have a much lower than average divorce rate. So you saying that we don’t focus on the divorce rate is asinine. We do, it just doesn’t get the focus of the “Oh NOES! My Right to demand all my butt-sex be legally forced down the throats of everyone as a great, moral, and to be desired practice might possibly not be realized–it’s a terrible crime!” people.
Vanceone on December 3, 2008 at 2:37 PM
So did governments.
That’s not the point. If you don’t believe God exists then these laws evolved out of a common societal structure.
But maybe the more important question you should be asking is why there is 0% birthrate in homosexual marriages?
Is that the fault of traditional marriage laws?
Skywise on December 3, 2008 at 2:38 PM
This is why I wonder about it being an issue at all.
Since the family unit is the basis for a healthy society (believe what you will-but look at what no-fault divorce has done to this country & its families), it is imperative we keep it defined as a man & woman.
Gays still get everything they want EXCEPT to be able to force their lifestyle down our throats as being OK.
I do not have to EVER think it’s OK to be gay.
But I don’t hassle those that do. I just don’t associate with them. But they are still human beings for God’s sake.
Badger40 on December 3, 2008 at 2:38 PM
Straight people already redefined marriage. Marriage used to be one man acquiring the property of another man, a daughter that became a wife. Straight people redefined marriage to be two individuals who commit to each other because of a bond of love. Gay couples are just as enabled to this right as any, and before any of you bust out w/ the “slippery slope” fallacy, unlike incest, polygamy, bestiality, being gay is lawful and in no way psychologically damaging. Discriminating against these couples, however, is hateful and psychologically damaging. Civil unions are “Separate but equal” all over again. We must settle for nothing less than full marriage equality and will put it up for a vote every 2 years until we do. The margin was down to 4% this time, it shall be eclipsed the next….
Noneya on December 3, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Because of that pesky thing called biology.
Does this mean, then, that a couple who chooses to abstain from having children is sinning? How about if they’re unable to procreate? Is that somehow sinful?
Good Lt on December 3, 2008 at 2:40 PM
Our 50% divorce rate must be protected! It’s sacred!
therightwinger on December 3, 2008 at 2:40 PM
Um, the problem is that gays want the government to force people and their churches to call it marriage. If this were about rights, gays would be focusing on getting civil unions recognized at the state and federal level. But it’s not about rights, it’s about spitting in the face of the Christians they hate. And just a little reminder for the idiots in the video, Barack Obama is against gay marriage.
clearbluesky on December 3, 2008 at 2:41 PM
Yes! We must place a ban on marriage between older straight couples and infertile ones as well, because they also have a 0% birthrate! It’s not what “god” intended!
Noneya on December 3, 2008 at 2:42 PM
Are people not allowed to let their religious beliefs influence their votes? I guess I should only base my beliefs on what the norms of society are at the time, and who tells me those?
The church and state argument is so dumb, it is painful to see so many cry it. Churches are not bound by the constitution, churches are allowed to influence society any way they want as long as they remain politically neutral which the LDS church is, I wish Harry Reid would get involved in these anti-Mormon issues, he ignored it when Romney was under fire and he’s silent now too.
Lastly, there has been no hate on the side of Christians.
Iceman on December 3, 2008 at 2:43 PM
Can’t lesbians produce twice as many kids?
dedalus on December 3, 2008 at 2:44 PM
You keep wanting to inject religion into this and I don’t understand why.
You seem to understand that Marriage was traditionally about making babies.
Can you extend that to “Why does the government need to be involved at all” with any relationship if it doesn’t involve children?
Or do you just want to Christian bash?
Skywise on December 3, 2008 at 2:44 PM
Not to mention quickie divorces, drive-thru Vegas weddings, marriage after divorce, marriages being officiated by Elvis….
Noneya on December 3, 2008 at 2:44 PM
“Celebs” showing their support for gays. How brave of them.
RobCon on December 3, 2008 at 2:45 PM
Not if they were married. Then that’d be adultery and it’d be illegal. ;)
Skywise on December 3, 2008 at 2:45 PM
We don’t need a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. What we need is a Constitutional amendment that restores the rights of the rest of us to object to the behavior of others without being harassed into silence and/or forced into conforming by the threat of fines and losing our jobs.
Christians are not the only people who object to gay behavior. Many of us do not object based on any religious beliefs at all, but simply on the belief that we should not have to put up with the disgusting private personal habits of others. The Constitution already has the basic right of freedom of association and that means we also have the right to decide who we will not associate with. Gays want to take that basic right away from the rest of us.
If you pick your nose and eat it it’s not enough that I never see you do it. I don’t want to know that you have ever done because I simply find it to be a disgusting personal habit and I do not want to have anything to do with anyone who does something that disgusting no matter how many other people find it a swell thing to do.
Let gays get married. Just give me the right to be disgusted by it and stop trying to teach my kid that it’s “normal” and “beautiful”. It ain’t.
I know! Treat gays like smokers. I’d be cool with that.
Jaynie59 on December 3, 2008 at 2:45 PM
Christian Taliban Alert!
Noneya on December 3, 2008 at 2:45 PM
They are, and the anti-ghey activists are fighting that, too. That’s what the discrimination issue is about.
Churches are a private matter. If a church refuses to sanction or perform a marriage, the government can’t make it. The couple can go either to another church that will or can get married at a courthouse. Apart from the militant-like mini-mob that broke into that Mormon church, gays are not “coming for your church, too.” This is paranoia. The government is not forcing churches to do anything – they’re ensuring that people legally entered into a union get treated the same regardless of gender and arrangement.
Good Lt on December 3, 2008 at 2:46 PM
I dunno about Gay Marriage, but casting Jack Black as Jesus is an abomination.
Hell, casting Jack Black as anything in anything is an abomination.
Kasper Hauser on December 3, 2008 at 2:46 PM
Over 30 states have passed similar statutes or constitutional amendments. every time “man+woman=marriage” has been put to a vote, in blue states as well as red, it has passed. In California it passed largely on the strength of Obama voters.
Social cons aren’t the only ones who draw the line at redefining marriage.
sulla on December 3, 2008 at 2:46 PM
We have laws against cruel and unusual punishment.
:-)
Good Lt on December 3, 2008 at 2:47 PM
I’m guessing by Jack Black’s waistline that he was portraying Jesus before the 40 days and 40 nights of fasting.
dedalus on December 3, 2008 at 2:52 PM
Hey I don’t judge where your husband may put it, and straight people insert it into many places that don’t produce a baby. Who says sex is ever “normal” or “beautiful”?
And also I take it you want a gay tax then?
Noneya on December 3, 2008 at 2:52 PM
Something tells me the actors who played the pro-Prop8 characters
are not actually real conservatives.
I don’t know, just a hunch.
/sarc
silverfox on December 3, 2008 at 2:52 PM
Intolerance of intolerance is not intolerance.
crr6 on December 3, 2008 at 2:53 PM
Gays are pushing to have tax exempt status removed from churches that openly oppose gay marriage, that’s not paranoia, it’s reality.
clearbluesky on December 3, 2008 at 2:53 PM
Gay people are free to get together and call their unions “marriage” or anything else. What they don’t necessarily have a right to is an endorsement by the state and a re-definition of an already existing institution. We likewise refrain to endorse a wide range of relationships.
Yes, you are free to misuse statistics in future arguments – and to pretend that what’s meaningful is the comparison of two absolute states regardless of all other factors. You can be dishonest as you like, and it will be a burden to others to point out the obvious fallacy in your construction. I suspect that you’re fully aware of that fallacy, since the difference between relative and absolute states is something that even a child understands intuitively, but that you lack the intellectual honesty to acknowledge it in this context.
The Dutch scholars point to evidence that marriage in the Netherlands declined from a state of relative health. That the state it arrived at remains superior from some statistical perspective to the norm in the U.S. says something about how the state of family in the U.S.
o
Your absurd construction. There would likely be a civilization following the widespread acceptance of gay marriage as equivalent to traditional marriage. The question is whether it would be a better civilization.
CK MacLeod on December 3, 2008 at 2:55 PM
Noneya: you are deluded. Gays DO suffer from a whole host of biological and psychological issues. Higher suicide rates, much earlier deaths (being gay is, on average, about as healthy as being a heroin addict)–there’s tons of evidence just on health reasons alone to not favor gays. AIDS would have not been near the issue it is now if the gay gestapo hadn’t shrieked and raised bloody murder about how they deserved to, you know, break any and all sorts of good health practices. And it’s not just AIDS–STD’s are a incredibly higher risk and much higher prevalence in the gay population.
Psychologically, there has never been any evidence that gay’s do not suffer from serious problems. It was removed as a mental issue from the APA only by politics–not by science. Suicides, abusive relationships, etc are all much higher in gay relationships and with gay individuals. This is true, even in the Netherlands which is a very accepting culture and thus this is not an effect of “bigotry.”
Philosophically, the gay message is a ruinous one: we are slaves to our biology. The message from gays is, “we are born this way and cannot control ourselves, so we need these rights.” Bullocks. That is a total assault on the concept of free will. I don’t care if you were “born that way” or not. I think I was born as an alcoholic, or I could be if I drank. But I choose to not drink. I’m no slave to my body, and gays are not either. But if their arguments are accepted, then we are all slaves–the criminal who murders because “I was born that way” cannot be punished either. I reject this philosophy either.
Men are born with various advantages and disadvantages. Some are born with some tendancies towards being gay. Is this a reason to give them rewards for failure to control themselves? Not at all.
But what about the divorce rate among heterosexuals? Adultery? Yeah, those are wrong too. Saying that homosexuality is just as good as adultery isn’t a winning argument. That should be discouraged as well.
Vanceone on December 3, 2008 at 2:56 PM
Actually, it is.
Being a jerk to a jerk doesn’t make you any less a jerk.
Two Wrongs don’t make a Right.
sulla on December 3, 2008 at 2:57 PM
The 50% (or higher) divorce rate is a myth, and a particularly flimsy one. It isn’t true.
Kensington on December 3, 2008 at 2:57 PM
Really? Can this be true? Let’s take a stroll down Bill of Rights Lane, where we learn that…
Now, in light of that wording (the relevant section of the First Amendment, for those of you keeping score at home), ALL LAWS ever passed to regulate public (and even private) behavior, are essentially an attempt to impose a form of morality. You know, don’t steal, don’t kill, that sort of thing. So where is this proverbial “separation of church and state” I keep hearing about?
Nah, didn’t think so.
manwithblackhat on December 3, 2008 at 2:57 PM
Works for me.
Sounds like you’ve really thought this through. That’s not at all a bad way to handle the situation.
1. The open bigotry is always so awesome from people who claim to be tolerant.
2. You obviously care nothing about separating religion from the state if your only concern is homosexual marriage. Many other marriages are already prohibited as well. If it’s a right, then it’s a right for everyone, not just straights and gays.
Except that, that’s the only reason for Prop 8. Homosexual unions were already protected in California. The only thing missing was the word marriage.
Jackass atheist alert!
Esthier on December 3, 2008 at 2:58 PM
Extreme example to illustrate my point, but let’s say I am intolerant of the Klu Klux Klan. Am I a bigot?
crr6 on December 3, 2008 at 3:00 PM
Heh. More like 40 days of Bacchanalia.
silverfox on December 3, 2008 at 3:03 PM
I like how the gay-bashers keep citing ‘facts’ such as ‘gays are insane’ or ‘gays are as healthy as heroin addicts’ or ‘gays love little boys’ without a single reputable source behind this claim.
I love it how the Christians are imposing THEIR believe (waah waah marriage) on others and then get shocked when people that believe otherwise try to do likewise. But then again, it is the evil gay mafia.
A Axe on December 3, 2008 at 3:03 PM
No. Tolerant doesn’t mean you agree with them.
Esthier on December 3, 2008 at 3:03 PM
As a country we do tolerate their right to association, free speech, marriage and reproduction. The rest of us are free to denounce or ignore them.
dedalus on December 3, 2008 at 3:05 PM
Ok. I am not tolerant of them either. In a pluralist society we all have to respect each others opinions and beliefes unless those opinions and beliefs explicitly harm or limit the rights of others.
crr6 on December 3, 2008 at 3:05 PM
Test.
starfleet_dude on December 3, 2008 at 3:05 PM
And I love it how homosexuals complain about Christians shoving religion down their throats and then turn around and do the exact same with homosexual marriage.
Isn’t hypocrisy fun?
Esthier on December 3, 2008 at 3:06 PM
Marriage is NOT a right.
dpierson on December 3, 2008 at 3:08 PM
If you feel that way, then you do not support free speech.
Words and opinions (excepting commands) don’t hurt others. I’m a woman, but I want men to be free to say all the sexist things about me and women without fear of legal ramifications. If we don’t allow those comments, then we allow the state to decide what is and what is not appropriate, and I will not live in a society like that.
Esthier on December 3, 2008 at 3:08 PM
Jesus had to walk A LOT in his lifetime. I can’t imagine he was ever that fat.
Esthier on December 3, 2008 at 3:12 PM
Do you worship other fairy tales you idiot? Like the Easter Bunny? We should base our laws on what the Easter Bunny said 2000 years ago! That makes perfect sense!
Noneya on December 3, 2008 at 3:12 PM
+1
You’re making WAAAY too much sense right now.
Good Lt on December 3, 2008 at 3:13 PM
This video reminded me of how tedious it is for us Christians to be “schooled” on what the Bible says by people who have literally never cracked one open. Re: the shrimp cocktail gag – can someone please explain to the world what Mosaic law is? PLEASE?! Do they really think Christians are shocked to hear excerpts of OT law?
Sorry if someone’s already mentioned this, but I just had to say it.
krispy on December 3, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Esthier on December 3, 2008 at 3:06 PM
Amen, Sister. Preach.
They want the word so bad they can’t stand it. If they are allowed that word, it will give them the illusion their lifestyle is accepted by society.
They already have “civil unions”. They want the word.
Until the 80’s, that lifestyle was included as part of the college course, “The Sociology of Deviant Behavior”. Whether you consider that right or wrong, it was a part of history. I know, I took the course as an elective.
The times have changed.
kingsjester on December 3, 2008 at 3:14 PM
I prefer to ridicule the Klan and Klantypes. They are quite a source of derision for me. The Klan is a bunch wimps who proclaim their Christianity by burning crosses? That’s made me despise, sneer and jeer at them since I was able to speak.
What’s the difference between a Klansman (think Sen. Byrd [D-WV]) a bucket of s#(t? yeah, yeah the bucket – an oldie but goodie Daddy taught me about the Klan in the early, early ’70s in Atlanta)…..my $0.02
Branch Rickey on December 3, 2008 at 3:14 PM
It is considered a fundamental right by the Supreme Court, as is reproduction. When dealing with a fundamental right lawmakers are required to use strict scrutiny with regard to interfering with an individual’s freedom to exercise that right.
dedalus on December 3, 2008 at 3:14 PM
Can you post a link? Not 50%? 45% then, or 40%? that lower number must make you so proud!
Noneya on December 3, 2008 at 3:15 PM
Good point.
Count to 10 on December 3, 2008 at 3:17 PM
Good point. Not as many Krispy Kreme’s back then either. It looks like Jack hasn’t passed by too many doughnut shops without stopping in.
dedalus on December 3, 2008 at 3:18 PM
Ah a typical enraged atheist..
Evidently breaking the terms of use here while being atheist is not a bannable offense..
SaintOlaf on December 3, 2008 at 3:18 PM
Again, “separate but equal” didn’t work out so well, did it? The majority was against integrating blacks too, and the courts corrected that. I’m sure the CA Supreme Court will do the right thing as well.
Noneya on December 3, 2008 at 3:18 PM
Just because I’m a Christian, it doesn’t mean we can’t get along. :)
You are one f-ing angry person. If I were a better Christian I’d pray for you. I hope you get peace in your life at some point, or else this world will always be extremely hard on you.
Esthier on December 3, 2008 at 3:18 PM
Idiot straw man argument alert! Unless one agrees with the fact that the bible is a fairly tale than your follow on conclusion makes no sense.
Assume the bible is simply a written version of societal norms developed over the ages to ensure that people can live together and thrive. These norms form the basis of all law and, ignoring the religious meaning for the bible, have served civilization well for a long time.
No one has Right to get married so there is nothing to take away. The only thing left is the need of societal acceptance by gays.
dpierson on December 3, 2008 at 3:19 PM
{I empathize with ya don.}
Or shove rusty nails up your finger nails – that’s what the “musical” made me want to do. Besides Dougie Howser, Jack Bleck, that Maya chick from “Idiocracy,” the guy who played the loser husband in ‘Chicago’ & the voice of the starfish from ‘Finding Nemo’ – who in the heck are these people.
This why Hollywood and Broadway should be taxed at 99% rates. Too much free time and cash to annoy the rest of who make the country work.
Branch Rickey on December 3, 2008 at 3:19 PM
Sounds like another example of bad SCOTUS rulings.
Count to 10 on December 3, 2008 at 3:19 PM
I am fully aware that correlation does not equate causation. If you are aware of this as well, why did you bring up the Dutch in the first place? You apparently understand that it proves nothing.
We have no evidence to suggest that it would be worse. And it would give people a lot of rights that they don’t get with civil unions, such as the right to waive taxes on property transferred from your spouse in a will, as just one of many examples. So I think the obvious answer to that question is yes.
justfinethanks on December 3, 2008 at 3:20 PM
Show me the evidence. Case laws etc. otherwise I don’t buy it.
dpierson on December 3, 2008 at 3:21 PM
It’s hard not to, except for me, because they close too early. Every time I want a warm, fresh donut, it’s past noon on a Saturday. They’re missing a precious demographic, really.
I actually did not know that. Do you know the case?
Esthier on December 3, 2008 at 3:22 PM
Noneya is a perfect example of why we can’t let gays get their legal demands met. His attacks on religion in this thread pretty much guarentee that he ( I presume Noneya is a he) would then work to eliminate any “fairy tales” such as Christianity.
Noneya–go protest in front of a Mosque for a while if you hate religion so much, okay? Put you butt on the line for once!
Vanceone on December 3, 2008 at 3:22 PM
What do you mean by “intolerant of”? Do you fly into a spittle-flecked rage any time you hear “KKK”? Do you annoy the hell out of all your friends with endless reasons to hate the KKK they may not have thought of yet? do you spend most waking hours trying to destroy the KKK out of society, even as your family packs up to leave you to your obsession?
Then…yeah. You’re a bigot. And a loser.
Opposing a group is not the same as being intolerant of it. You can oppose the KKK and still let it march in Skokie; just set up your own counter-protest. Outclass them, and let them marginalize themselves.
But if you become an anti-KKK extremist, burning stuff on suspected KKK lawns, lynching suspected KKK people, because you just cannot tolerate the KKK…then you’re no better than they are.
That’s the difference. You can be against something without being “intolerant” of it. If you consider any outrage acceptable as long as it’s against “the haters” then you’re just another hater with a different target.
sulla on December 3, 2008 at 3:23 PM
If Muslims donated 50% of the pro-Prop. 8 propaganda like the Mormons did, I would.
Noneya on December 3, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Although over 50% of marriages may end in divorce (I don’t have stats in front of me) that doesn’t mean over 50% of people who marry end up divorced. There’s a lot of repeat offenders in there. Heck, 5% of the total divorces are probably covered by Mickey Rooney, Liz Taylor, and the rest of musical-altars Hollywood.
sulla on December 3, 2008 at 3:27 PM
Noeya – Do you have any Black friends that agree that the Gay Marriage Issue is equivocable to their Civil Rights Struggle?
I doubt it.
kingsjester on December 3, 2008 at 3:27 PM
Noneya,
Why don’t you pick a nice black church and go there to protest. You could also check at the same time how they appreciate their struggle for civil rights being equated with the gay movement.
dpierson on December 3, 2008 at 3:28 PM
But since 50% of marriages do end in divorce, wouldn’t it be fair to say that straights have failed that institution, and maybe it’s them who should be banned from marrying? i’m just following the “logic” here on hot air….
Noneya on December 3, 2008 at 3:31 PM
No one here believes you even for a second. You post insults to safe groups here under an assumed name, and now you want us to believe you’re courageous?
How about this, just protest the mosques that support Iran or any other country that hangs homosexuals under their law. Surely gay executions are enough to get pissed over?
Esthier on December 3, 2008 at 3:31 PM
Noneya: Muslims hang and stone people like you. Yet you scream, cry, and bellyache about the Mormons. You are a pussy, a coward, and pretty much a nonentity. Muslims are a far greater threat to you than the LDS church will ever be. But you refuse to protest against them.
I bet you want to strip the LDS church of its tax exempt status, don’t you? You want to confiscate their property, and probably applaud the terrorist tactics your gaystapo brethren are using, right? White powder, assaulting old ladies, breaking into church services–its all okay with you and yours.
You and your beliefs are the reason why gay marriage can NEVER be allowed in this country, for it would mean the end of religion here. And I’ll not let you and your kind throw me in jail for my beliefs.
Vanceone on December 3, 2008 at 3:32 PM
Since no one else seems to be able to Google this here are:
Divorce Statistics: http://www.divorcereform.org/rates.html
Supreme Court Ruling establishing marriage as a right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
And welcome Noneya. Next time bring in the facts with the argument.
dpierson on December 3, 2008 at 3:33 PM
sulla on December 3, 2008 at 3:23 PM
well said
rcw on December 3, 2008 at 3:33 PM
Again, did they donate 50% of the pro-Prop. 8 propaganda? If Taco Bell did, I’d picket in front of there too. Bigots are bigots, religious or not.
Noneya on December 3, 2008 at 3:33 PM
Why should I bother? Your response shows that it wouldn’t dent your sneer regardless.
But do some Google searches if you’re really interested. The truth is out there.
Kensington on December 3, 2008 at 3:34 PM
Yeah, cause Moslems are only STONING GAYS TO DEATH, not just giving LEGAL money to a LEGAL election.
Oh, and the Mormon church gave NO money to the pro 8 movment… its practitioners did… Just as Christians did… athesists did… I’m sure a few Moslems did… Catholics did…
Heck, my 85 year old MOM voted against it… gonna go protest her?
You lost for now… get over it… all you are doing is agravating people like me, who are sympathetic to your cause… because of your Jackboot thug tactics.
Romeo13 on December 3, 2008 at 3:35 PM
Gay Marriage is a sickness. Here’s a story from Australia where they were tolerant of gay unions, and the next thing you know the Gays were trying to steal the kids of the straights!
Gays try to kidnap kids of straight couples
Personally, I think it is the work of Satan.
Kasper Hauser on December 3, 2008 at 3:37 PM
Actually donating money to a cause someone believes in does not make them a bigot, it’s their right under the First Amendment. I disagree with Obama but I don’t go around calling everyone who donated to his campaign a bigot.
Face it, the people voted (in California and 29 other states) and you lost – end of story.
dpierson on December 3, 2008 at 3:37 PM
You certainly prove that, don’t you.
Esthier on December 3, 2008 at 3:38 PM
So, if marriage does actually matter, what does? Do you honestly believe that McCain/Palin being pro-life and other “social issues” is what caused McCain to lose the election? I smell a big hairy Troll Viking….
It would not have had anything to with republicans losing their “fiscal” ways and McCain being a “stooge / tool” for
moderatesDC insiders for the last 25 years?btw: If A. Obama won California significantly and B. Prop 8 passed by 4 pts in said Californication; then how does C. = “it’s all the social conservatives fault?
Did you not do well on word problems, Erik?
Branch Rickey on December 3, 2008 at 3:38 PM
Meant against Gay marriage…. just to be clear.
Romeo13 on December 3, 2008 at 3:38 PM
And zealots are zealots, gay, religious, or otherwise.
TheUnrepentantGeek on December 3, 2008 at 3:38 PM
Here’s the MA Supreme Court ruling, for your reference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Massachusetts
Again, does that divorce rate, whatever it my be, make you proud? If marriage is so “sacred” why don’t you ban divorce too?
Noneya on December 3, 2008 at 3:39 PM
Original statement
“Intolerance against intolerance is not intolerance”
Follow up question
“Extreme example to illustrate my point, but let’s say I am intolerant of the Klu Klux Klan. Am I a bigot?”
crr6 on December 3, 2008 at 3:00 PM
The keyword being intolerance. With the simple definition of bigot being one who is intolerant of those who differ from them I think the answer is clear.
Intolerance is intolerance no matter who or what it may be against. However intolerance may not always be a bad thing.
Tim Pancoast on December 3, 2008 at 3:39 PM
I’m the wrong one to ask. I probably would support a three-strikes law for marriage. If 3 people are willing to take you to court to get away from you, your license to wed is permanently revoked. Alternately, the only person you can marry as your third spouse is also in THEIR third marriage, and there’s no way out but death for one or both.
Cull the herd: that’s my motto.
On a more serious note, I think society should do more to bolster marriage. Mandate counseling before marriage, and before divorce. Eliminate “no fault” divorces. Eliminate the get-out-quick Mexican and Reno divorces.
It should be harder to get married (so people won’t wake up in Vegas with someone they were too drunk to run away from before they reached the Elvis Chapel o’ Love) and harder to divorce. People should enter it with eyes wide open, do all they can to make it work, and exit it only in extreme circumstances. Marriage shouldn’t be easier to get out of than the friggin Columbia Record Club.
But that’s just me.
sulla on December 3, 2008 at 3:40 PM
She can’t procreate, so she must be banned from marrying too.
Noneya on December 3, 2008 at 3:41 PM
Romeo13, thanks for your post. My question to you, a gay rights sympathizer, is this: Who will keep the Noneya and the other jackbooted thugs in line? Noneya has pretty much stated his determination to destroy religion, and I don’t see the gay rights movement or any of the socially liberal types standing up and saying no, we can’t do that.
It’s like the Moderate Muslims: there’s gotta be some, but they are doing nothing to rein in the Wahabists or the terrorists from perverting their doctrine. So, ergo, the entire religion is suffering now as an image of terrorists. The Gay rights Gaystapo is becoming the face of the social liberals. Who will wrench it back from them? Because if people like Noneya are given free reign, then there IS plenty to fear from the gay movement.
Vanceone on December 3, 2008 at 3:41 PM
This money argument is a joke. So what that the Mormons donated money to a cause they believe in. Did the anti-Prop 8 people donate money to a cause they believe in? Should we start boycotting their businesses as well because they support gay marriage? Black churches may not have had the money to give to support marriage, hence the overwhelming amount from one church, but they did the next best thing. They VOTED.
sugarandsass on December 3, 2008 at 3:41 PM
Boy you are slow.
I already found the US Supreme Court decision: who cares about the individual states.
The problem seems you are not looking at the various lower court decisions that do not equate sexual orientation with race. Since that is the foundation of the argument I do not think you can make a clear cut determination the homosexual marriage is a fundamental civil right.
dpierson on December 3, 2008 at 3:42 PM
The same as civil rights?
No way.
There is no way you can compare skin color with personal decisions?
If that’s the case we might as well create special rights for people who prefer Budweiser over Heineken and ban the free speech of anyone who disagrees with them.
It’s the same thing.
SaintOlaf on December 3, 2008 at 3:42 PM
People were getting married legally long before Loving v Virginia (and you’re probably too young to remember), so that ruling was not required to establish marriage as a right, so much as for people of different races to exercise it.
As long as we’re citing the need for facts…
manwithblackhat on December 3, 2008 at 3:44 PM
Oh, and for the record: no fault divorce should go away too. Then I bet we’ll not see any real movement for gays to marry. From what I understand, the definition of a gay marriage usually includes sleeping around with anyone you want anyway, for most “married” gays. Which isn’t the definition of marriage to me anyway, but according to Noneya and others, marriage is whatever you want to call it anyway and certainly doesn’t mean anything like faithfulness, commitment, fidelity, and self sacrifice.
Vanceone on December 3, 2008 at 3:45 PM
Thanks but no thanks. I have already been to Madison, WI. So I am exempt.
Branch Rickey on December 3, 2008 at 3:46 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 ... 6 Next »