Video: Prop 8, the musical
posted at 12:50 pm on December 3, 2008 by Allahpundit
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
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 5 6 Next »
So you’re one of those strange people who can still be friends with an ex. Your story makes sense. I’ve just been wondering about it mostly because of my two cousins. They both just had children and are living with their boyfriends but aren’t married and don’t seem to plan on it any time soon.
Oddly enough, considering this discussion here, marriage just doesn’t seem to be that important anymore.
No offense, Joe, but I think you must be drinking something heavy. That will never happen. The self-proclaimed “tolerant” only tolerate their own, just like those who admit to being intolerant.
Esthier on December 3, 2008 at 4:49 PM
What part of the domestic partnership contract in California can’t a same-sex couple comply with?
nitzsche on December 3, 2008 at 4:49 PM
I think you are a wee confused about what the word “proof” means.
justfinethanks on December 3, 2008 at 4:50 PM
The efforts to call gay “the new black” didn’t seem to fare well with black voters in CA.
Just saying.
sulla on December 3, 2008 at 4:51 PM
Funniest part? I’m good friends with the X Girlfriend who I was with for 10 years… but not with the X wife who I was with for 5 years….
Life is to short to stay angry though.
Romeo13 on December 3, 2008 at 4:51 PM
You really NEED to start reading some of the scientific journals, pal. Science has ALREADY proved that homosexuality is DEFINITELY NOT genetic in its origins. There DOES appears to be a significant biological influence on the gender preferences of males, but that influence has been identified as hormonal, not genetic. (It appears to depend upon the level and kind of hormones that a male fetus is exposed to while in his mother’s womb.)
Even this scientific finding is not the end of the story. The science of statistics has also proven that there is a very strong influence that arises from the environment, as well — most notably, the seven-fold increase in the instances of a “gay preference” outcome for a child that has been sexually molested.
As for your assertion that Christians somehow subscribe to the idea that science is a tool of the devil, all I can say is that you CLEARLY know NOTHING about history. The modern scientific method, as we know it, simply would NOT exist without the devotion and innumerable contributions to it that have been made by Christians over the centuries.
All in all, I’d say that my dog has a better grip on the facts than you do — and he has fleas.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on December 3, 2008 at 4:53 PM
I’m not sure how. You claim that genders are more alike than races, but that doesn’t mean that races aren’t alike and therefore different from other races.
No, I’m not sure Noneya can.
You want to compare what women have to deal with to a few @ssholes who call gay people names? Can’t say I’m surprised.
Esthier on December 3, 2008 at 4:53 PM
Noneya,
Jim Crowe laws = Prop 8 is insulting to blacks on a number of levels. The protests and this bit of dumb are so very stupid because the people spoke and trumped the court and there’s nothing that can be done except for another amendment or repeal of the future CA Constitution’s article 36 through another proposition. There is no doubt that you will get the requisite votes one day and then there will be nothing we can do, and shockingly we will do nothing as opposed to to the hypocritical and futile displays of anti-8 idiots who are doing something despite its uselessness. Gladly and ironically, that day has been postponed because of the prop 8 backlash; you all have given us quite a lot of ammunition for future ads related to this issue btw.
Question: Do anti-prop 8 people support any limits on marriage? I know of three men who love each other and live together now, can they get married? What about bisexuals who feel they should have a marriage for two gender-distinct true loves? Must married couples cohabitate? Note-I have not extended the slippery slope to zoophilia or standard polygamy.
Lastly, there is no proof that you’re born gay. (identical twins study) Is it a choice?-I don’t think anyone consciously chooses to be gay, but is it correctable? Lots of people say and have proven yes.
Iceman on December 3, 2008 at 4:53 PM
But why are you free to dictate to me whether I can marry or not? Even if I don’t believe what you do?
When we learn to respect one another’s freedom to choose (even when we believe the other guy is choosing badly), and give up on trying to force one another to agree, America will be a better place.
I wish you’d respect my freedom.
Grow Fins on December 3, 2008 at 4:54 PM
Ha. Maybe not having to get a divorce helped.
Esthier on December 3, 2008 at 4:54 PM
Great, now I want a shrimp cocktail.
Typhonsentra on December 3, 2008 at 4:55 PM
It’s not proof?
If you can look at this picture and tell me it’s a good idea for perverts to adopt children…i don’t know what to tell you.
http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/images/gallery/rosie-odonnell-daughter-photo.jpg
SaintOlaf on December 3, 2008 at 4:55 PM
Since when do you respect the freedom of others?
Esthier on December 3, 2008 at 4:57 PM
Oh, MAN!! I just realized these were written by the SAME PERSON!!! How funny is THAT!!
Since you are such a fan of science, you surely wouldn’t consider it scientific to begin with your conclusions, and accept only those data that support those conclusions, would you? Because you seem quite certain of what WILL be CONCLUSIVELY proven. If it isn’t proven yet, then (to the “Scientifically minded”, anyway) IT ISN’T KNOWN YET.
Then, after trying to use science as a tool of sodomites, you (this is just too good) accuse Bible believers of thinking science is a tool of sodomites!!
Garsh, you just can’t make up stuff like this! Thanks, Gropin’s, you totally made my afternoon!
RegularJoe on December 3, 2008 at 4:57 PM
If a court determined that marriage was a “right,” it would have had to be “self-evident,” which is to say given the benefit of the natural law. So, legal precedent or not, the right already existed where a man and a woman was concerned, inasmuch as that was how society had heretofore defined a marriage.
The same cannot be said for… well, you know.
manwithblackhat on December 3, 2008 at 4:58 PM
I agree with everything you say, but love should be kept out of this discussion. Homosexuality is about sex not love. I can love my brother and not be homosexual.
dpierson on December 3, 2008 at 4:58 PM
The one-of-each-sex part is the entirety of the dispute. If you don’t have that minimal requirement, what you’re seeking isn’t a MARRIAGE contract, but some other kind of contract.
sulla on December 3, 2008 at 4:59 PM
I rest my case…
Weirdest thought I have on this whole subject…
Why in the Heck do Gays want to get married Anyway? Divorces really really suck….
While a contract is easy to break… by mutual agreement with no Judges or Child welfare advocates involved…
Romeo13 on December 3, 2008 at 4:59 PM
There is even a book on it. I heartily recommend How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization by Thomas E Woods Jr. It’s the perfect Christmas gift for discriminating collies everywhere.
manwithblackhat on December 3, 2008 at 5:03 PM
I find it interesting the the anti-Prop 8 crowd singles out the religious as the object of their ire. I recall distinctly that black voters voted around 70-30% for Prop 8 (i.e. against gay marriage). It seems to me that if the anti- crowd were being logical, they’d direct their indignation against the black voters who actually defeated their cause.
But then, shoving old black women to the ground and mailing white powder to black churches apparently counts as prejudice, and we just can’t have that, now, can we?
The irony is, apparently being religious is the “new black”.
commenter on December 3, 2008 at 5:04 PM
Really a good point actually. Which is why the only thing I can come up is acceptance.
Esthier on December 3, 2008 at 5:04 PM
Well, only if you count these anti-prop 8 fanatics as the norm.
Esthier on December 3, 2008 at 5:06 PM
Iceman on December 3, 2008 at 4:53 PM
I agree with everything you say, but love should be kept out of this discussion. Homosexuality is about sex not love. I can love my brother and not be homosexual.
I agree, it is lust, not love. The word love is very subjective though so I was illustrating how to use it as an argument for the validity of a marriage is absurd.
Iceman on December 3, 2008 at 5:06 PM
I guess that is what bothers me about this decision. I am not lawyer, but if you pull in natural law to support your decision and that natural law in its actuality excludes the same behavior, does that not disprove the whole decision.
I am not advocating reinstituting the ban on mixed race marriages, but if the right existed for a man and woman already and that is what is codified into law in this decision does that not automatically exclude homosexual marriage?
dpierson on December 3, 2008 at 5:07 PM
Still new at this commenting thing, epic fail of attribution to dpierson on December 3, 2008 at 4:58 PM
Iceman on December 3, 2008 at 5:08 PM
Agree but I see the argument against homosexual marriage often framed as being against love.
dpierson on December 3, 2008 at 5:09 PM
I was saying that using the differences between races as a reason to not let different races marry was not legitimate and was rightly overturned, whereas using the difference between sexes as the very reason we only call the union of a male and a female “marriage” IS legitimate.
If I’m being clumsy in my arguments, I apologize. I’ll humbly step away from any “drivel” I may be spouting.
sulla on December 3, 2008 at 5:10 PM
I want those 3+ minutes of my life back.
Livefreeordie on December 3, 2008 at 5:12 PM
sulla, the law once said two persons of different race couldn’t legally marry either because they were of different races. But there was nothing else that could be argued as a reason to deny them the choice to legally marry. Is there anything about a gay couple that you’d say is a reason to similarly deny them the right to legally marry?
starfleet_dude on December 3, 2008 at 5:12 PM
I’m QUITE extensively on record as being in favor of government getting out of the marriage recognizing business. This is the ultimate respect for everyone’s freedom, by giving the minimum governmental respect for anyone’s choice.
Remember, you can DO anything you want. You and your loved one can put on matching tuxes, or matching dresses, or whatever, and go before the Metro Church preacher, and take vows, and go on a honeymoon…. Whatever. But calling it ‘marriage’ is, ultimately, about beliefs — or at minimum, definition of terms. Our society recognizes this thing on my foot as a ‘shoe’, not a ‘muffin’, so it’s a shoe and it is not a muffin. That doesn’t demean muffins; it merely defines ‘shoe’. Similarly, our society recognizes ‘marriage’ as a man and a woman, so that’s what it is. But you can do what you want, and you can call it what you want; just don’t ask me to call it that, because I don’t believe that it is.
For now, though, government does recognize marriage. And, to the degree that my government represents ME, IT calling a gay union marriage is ME calling it that. You’ve got your freedom to act, but I’ve got my freedom to believe. As long as this choice remains for me, my vote has to be ‘NO’ — not to restrict your choices, but to exercise my personal conviction.
RegularJoe on December 3, 2008 at 5:13 PM
Marriage has very little to do with love. If it was about love, no legal contracts would be needed. Besides, the best way to trump ghey marriage is to outlaw ghey divorce. When gheys whine (and they will, they’re ghey) ask which part of “life-partner” don’t they understand.
TMK on December 3, 2008 at 5:13 PM
Not if mixed-race marriage (still between a man and a woman) is incomparable with same-sex marriage (not between a man and a woman).
When I said “natural law,” I was referring to matters pertaining to nature, as opposed to that which is, uh, contrary to nature.
manwithblackhat on December 3, 2008 at 5:15 PM
It’s fine. I’m not sure that we agree, but that’s not a problem.
Esthier on December 3, 2008 at 5:17 PM
Call gay people names, deny them rights, treat them as less than human, you are right you have it so much tougher….
Noneya on December 3, 2008 at 5:17 PM
Again, no one is denied rights in California.
nitzsche on December 3, 2008 at 5:19 PM
Er, my kid plays war all the time. In what weird world is that warping a child?
SouthernDem on December 3, 2008 at 5:20 PM
rosie’s worse than these straight people? i know all you straight people are the same, just like them.
Noneya on December 3, 2008 at 5:20 PM
Right, cause that sh!t never happens to women. Women are never, ever treated as second class citizens; we’re never called names (hell, if it was just name-calling, that’d actually be a plus).
Esthier on December 3, 2008 at 5:21 PM
Wow, escalating. Less than human – get of the victim trail and do something with yourself. People call gays names not because they are consciously trying to hurt the other person for no reason but because they find homosexuality repulsive.
And try as you may by redefining words you will not change normal human behavior. You will always be on the other side of normal. Either enjoy it or change. Gays remind me of the little black haired freaks with all the face piercing who want the right to look how they want but get all upset when people stare at them. What part of abnormal is in question here?
dpierson on December 3, 2008 at 5:24 PM
The only way to separate church and state is to keep religious folks from voting.
AbaddonsReign on December 3, 2008 at 5:27 PM
Women can handle it. Women are strong. Gay men are far more fragile.
nitzsche on December 3, 2008 at 5:29 PM
… which begs the question: how do we separate IDIOTS and state?
RegularJoe on December 3, 2008 at 5:30 PM
A little quiz: what class of people has been proposed, on this very page (assuming this doesn’t go to the top of the next page, heh heh), as deserving official disenfranchisement?
Not unprecedented, I might add. Not even surprising. But VERY instructive.
RegularJoe on December 3, 2008 at 5:33 PM
And I believe this thread amply demonstrates why many many people just plain stay out of politics.
We have two diametricly opposed Radical viewpoints, now calling each other names, and screaming so loudly that any middle ground or rational discourse is drowned out.
Romeo13 on December 3, 2008 at 5:35 PM
Looks like he kept all the loaves and fishes for himself.
Jim Treacher on December 3, 2008 at 5:36 PM
That’s why I like to discuss politics while drinking. That way the raised voices and name-calling makes more sense. Plus, by the end of the night, we all love each other again anyway.
Esthier on December 3, 2008 at 5:40 PM
I am getting tired of the “reason police”. People get worked up because they deeply believe in their viewpoint. That is passion, and politics without passion is bureaucracy.
If you feel that people commenting to this thread have violated some unstated etiquette known only to you I suggest you find a kinder and gentler thread.
dpierson on December 3, 2008 at 5:40 PM
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
There’s a difference between people that just want a certain legal status and those that want everyone to think about them a certain way and consider failure to do so “hate”. Are you the former, or the latter, I wonder?
Will you be satisfied with the right to marry, or does the thought of a minister in a church somewhere calling your behavior “sin” rile you enough to try to punish them via the legal system? Given the willingness of gay activist to physically harm their ideological opponents, that seems rather likely. Keep in mind that Canada has already levied outrageous fines against ministers for “hate crimes” for doing just that.
The simple truth is that I don’t care enough about who other people screw to get overly excited about this topic. What I can’t abide, however, is the control over language (and through it, the minds of others) that gay activists appear to seek. The consistent portrayal of even reasoned opposition as “bigots” make that goal clear.
TheUnrepentantGeek on December 3, 2008 at 5:42 PM
LOL… be careful… we’re in a Gay thread here…
Romeo13 on December 3, 2008 at 5:42 PM
How do people know if someone is gay? Is the flag, the bumper stickers, the nun outfits?
Did you ever think that most decent people don’t want people to advertise their sexual appetites no matter what they are? Most Americans don’t care what people do in their bedroom, but just keep it there.
Gays have a really hard time distinguishing what is appropriate with kids. We don’t want kindergarten kids discerning any sexual scenarios. I know sex is all that defines you in your universe, but get a friggin’ hobby and maybe people will stop telling you to put a lid on your distorted perspectives.
Hening on December 3, 2008 at 5:43 PM
Hmmm…. feeling a bit defensive?
Snark over a general comment… intersting…
Romeo13 on December 3, 2008 at 5:46 PM
The law never needed to define what “marriage” was until recently; it was a commonly understood term. The legal wranglings were over who was allowed to do it. The current struggle is over the nature of the word itself.
Put another way, back then the folks opposed to interracial marriage were against the two races being together at all. (miscegenation also referred to “illegal” shacking up or copulation, married or not.) Today, many who are against “gay marriage” are not opposed to civil unions, but they draw the line at redefining the term. Those people don’t want to dictate who you can love, who you can live with, even who you can contractually bind yourself to; only to say that what you call the contractual arrangement is different from “marriage,” because “marriage” has a specific and unalterable definition. (others might object to same-sex cohabitation or union of any kind, but where the push for gay marriage continues to lose at the ballot box is in the center, those who see the nuance between black and white, all and nothing.)
sulla on December 3, 2008 at 5:48 PM
They must be feeling ill right now.
Tzetzes on December 3, 2008 at 5:50 PM
Don’t care-Won’t watch.
ScottMcC on December 3, 2008 at 5:51 PM
Thanks.
I think we agree on the larger issue. Disagreement over one particular argument or its effectiveness is relatively minor, and I’m not (pardon the expression) married to mine.
sulla on December 3, 2008 at 5:56 PM
Very well said.
Hening on December 3, 2008 at 5:57 PM
Heh. That’s true, but as a woman, I’m generally more attractive if I appear gay. In college my roommate and I drove a friend of hers crazy with our innuendo, and one almost convincing fake out. Though, looking back, I think my roommate was bi.
Esthier on December 3, 2008 at 5:57 PM
He’s ‘Jack Jackass’; a moronic Hollyweirdo if there ever was one.
Richard Romano on December 3, 2008 at 6:03 PM
Well,its colourful,and they do like the sound
of money,I give it two thumbs down,and four out
of ten *stars!
Like I’ve said before,here in Ontario,gay marriage is
legal(for those trolls,I’m not talking about Ontario
California!).
Back to the video tho,let it die!Haha.
canopfor on December 3, 2008 at 6:05 PM
Hot Air is no place for comments like that, young lady.
The place for comments like that? Ace o’ Spades.
Be prepared to provide specifics. And creative elaborations.
And pictures, if you got ‘em.
sulla on December 3, 2008 at 6:07 PM
Noteworthy mainly because it reveals there are alot of deluded people who have replaced the foundation that God is Creator, with a foundation that says, man decides truth for himself. All of them dancing around like fools endorsing male-male anal sodomy to be the law of the land. Cute.
“In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” Judges 21:25
apacalyps on December 3, 2008 at 6:18 PM
Uh, (clears throat) ah, nevermind.
apacalyps on December 3, 2008 at 6:23 PM
Yeah. Sometimes my sense of humor outpaces my sense of decorum.
sulla on December 3, 2008 at 6:25 PM
But see, if it’d been Muslims who were the ones on the forefront of support for Prop 8, would these showbiz types had asked Jack Black to play Mohammed?
NorthernCross on December 3, 2008 at 6:30 PM
LOL… but the major question… do you know how to get bourbon off a keyboard???
Romeo13 on December 3, 2008 at 6:32 PM
This is such old material, stolen from “The Simpson’s” mind you…….when Spingfield made gay marrige legal to make lots of $$$$ off it.
bobeast on December 3, 2008 at 6:35 PM
We’ve all said things like that. I certainly have in the past. But, I really try to avoid filthy language as no whoremonger will inhereit the kingdom of God. See Ephesians 5:5. That said, we know that it’s wrong, but I can’t really blame you for falling prey as a young woman’s charm is her capital. Satanic forces are using a certain lady, ahem, woman, (who is also married, thank you very much!) in this message forum as a depraved tramp. Be careful!
apacalyps on December 3, 2008 at 6:45 PM
Nope, never figured that out…so now I just have everything ScotchGuarded™.
sulla on December 3, 2008 at 6:51 PM
Yea,maybe you can start this genius idea by applying it
to Obama:
HOPEFULS DIFFER AS THEY DEBATE GAY MARRIAGE
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/01/us/politics/01marriage.html?em
By PATRICK HEALY
Published: October 31, 2008
Still waiting for all the people who think that “the people have voted”and “listening to the will of the people” only matters when it accommodates their ideology or political gain are going to hold Obama to the same standards as they did President Bush.
Bush was called a right wing bigot trying to impose his fundamentalist ideology down our throats in his quest to form a theocracy when he talked about his religion and stand
against gay marriage.
But Obama gets a pass right.
All you have to do is have a (D) beside your name and everything is alright.
Baxter Greene on December 3, 2008 at 7:02 PM
Well, that’s not true at all. Clinton got a lot of crap from gay groups for don’t ask don’t tell, and there is a lot of pressure on Obama to repeal both that and the Defense of Marriage Act. If he balks, which he might, he will receive a lot of criticism, like Clinton did.
Despite what you might think, most Obama voters think he was just the lesser of two evils, not The One.
justfinethanks on December 3, 2008 at 7:12 PM
I just love the old tired arguments from the left that take the Bible out of context and try to present themselves as the experts on it. That’s like me taking a few pages out of my car manual and trying to tell the mechanic how to repair my tie rod.
VoxRobotica on December 3, 2008 at 7:16 PM
Well, I suppose I can now add Jack Black to my own personal black list. Granted, he’s never produced anything of artistic merit yet, so it’s not tht hard.
As to those who want to whine about personal black lists – geese, ganders, etc.
ChePibe on December 3, 2008 at 7:17 PM
By the way………………..
Marriage vs Civil Union, how about:
VS
………… so when did the Homosexual community hijack the work “gay”?
Seven Percent Solution on December 3, 2008 at 7:18 PM
It is not about what “I think”.
It is about the obvious fact that Blacks,Latinos voted in large numbers against Prop 8.
Obama,the liberal messiah also feels the same way that the people who voted for Prop 8 feel,that marriage is between a man and a woman.
There are no protests in Black neighborhoods or church’s.
There are no protests in Latino neighborhoods or church’s.
There is no condemnation,protests,or people carrying signs
calling Obama a bigot,homophobe,or crazy Christian.
They are all over the Mormons,Christans, and independent business people.
The gay marriage supporters are showing a total double standard and have no credibility.
They are Obama progressives.
Troops staying in Iraq=..Bush/bad…Obama/good
NSA wiretapping=…Bush/bad…..Obama/good
CIA interrogation methods..Bush/bad…..Obama/good
Using Religion as guidance…Bush/bad…OBama/good
The double standard goes on and on.
The fact that “Obama is the lesser of two evils” is not translating in their actions or out on the street so that is a pretty pathetic excuse.
Baxter Greene on December 3, 2008 at 7:32 PM
Effing pathetic.
BallisticBob on December 3, 2008 at 7:55 PM
Most Obama voters believed that he was going to exit Iraq in 18 months. Many current supporters are dismayed by his conservative appointments.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/jstreet/385427/left_out?rel=hpbox
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=10088
Oh, how the Netroots went nuts when Obama voted yes on that bill.
Netroots Activists Mad at Obama for Spy Bill Flip-Flop
Nothing’s official on changes in interrogation techniques. I guess we’ll see how that plays out.
Religion as guidance is fine. Saying that God talks to you is something else entirely.
Do people give their guy a little more leeway? Of course. McCain voters probably looked the other way on the Amnesty issue, even if they were to rail about it when Dems propose the same policies.
In regards to the protest, they fixate more on Mormans than blacks because the bill would have passed even if not a single black voter showed up at the polls. It couldn’t have passed without that Morman money though.
justfinethanks on December 3, 2008 at 8:00 PM
The people who yell the loudest about tolerance,open mindedness,and free speech are always the ones who practice it the least.
Violent Mob Of Gays And Lesbians Attack Elderly Christian Woman
Posted on November 12, 2008 by 84rules
The next time someone accuses me of hate speech against gays and lesbians, I am going to remind them of how a violent mob of gays and lesbians attacked Phyillis Burgess, slapped a cross out of her hand and began stomping on it as they surrounded her.
VIDEO:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VziklUbtHAE
DO YOU THINK OBAMA WOULD GET THIS TYPE OF TREATMENT?
These people are simply out in the street expressing their opinions like so many liberal activists do on a daily basis.
Anti-Prop. 8 Mob Watch: Christians in San Francisco’s Castro district
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/11/17/anti-prop-8-mob-watch-san-franciscos-castro-district/
When are they going to go to a mosque and treat Muslims this way.
When are they going to Obama’s church and threaten to burn it down and all the bigots and haters inside.
Will they show up in large numbers to denounce the crazy Christian bigot at his inauguration?
Baxter Greene on December 3, 2008 at 8:16 PM
You know, why is it that the Gay Movement always tell us the greatness of being gay? I always remind myself of the medical problems that comes with anal sex. I remind anyone who dares to argue that gay is okay. I am a Christian, and believe that ALL immorality is sin. I was once a lesbo, but came to the conclusion that its not what God had designed. I speak with authority! I love Jesus and the Bible!
Mercy4Me on December 3, 2008 at 8:24 PM
Funny, but at the same time stupid. Once again, biblical text taking extremely out of context. Once you do that, anything sounds horrible coming from the Old Testament.
Classic.
cabbageheat on December 3, 2008 at 8:27 PM
I’d be more pro gay if they looked like Halley Barry or Kate Beckinsale.
But..
instead they look like Rosie odonell.
Once they start lookin like Halley Barry (and that includes the guys…call me, We’ll talk then.
Handel on December 3, 2008 at 8:28 PM
What others may call “tolerance” and “open mindedness,” I prefer to call “ignorance” and “lack of ability to reason.”
I also suspect that most of these “tolerance” folks also flunked basic Biology and got poor grades in History.
“Marriage” confers benefits upon the parties involved in return for their commitment which promotes the preservation of the society which grants the marriage. There is no such reciprocity present in “gay marriage,” nor can there ever be.
landlines on December 3, 2008 at 8:32 PM
The men at the mosque would tear them to bits if they touched their wives and daughters in inappropriate places.
mram on December 3, 2008 at 8:57 PM
Prop. 8 is the Alamo for gay marriage opponents in CA. Maybe not the next election cycle, but soon, the amendment is going to be repealed, and it’s never coming back. People keep threatening to take government out of the marriage business. That’s pretty much all they have left, might want get started on that.
RightOFLeft on December 3, 2008 at 9:35 PM
That’s your opinion,certainly not a fact.There are many well financed campaigns that failed.
Kerry/Edwards comes to mind.
The fact that it could have passed without the black vote does not strike down the fact that the black community overwhelming is against gay marriage.
Where is the outrage.
It would not have passed without the black and latino vote though.
Where is the outrage.
Muslims kill people for being homosexual on a regular basis across seas.The muslim communities in this country are extremely anti-gay.
Where is the outrage.
Your examples of a few articles chastising Obama hardly parallel the hatred and indignation directed at President Bush from Capital Hill,hollywood,liberal groups like code pink,move on,the world can’t wait,news anchors and journalist who compared him to hitler,stalin,and called him a war criminal that lied us into a war for profit.
Have there been any calls for Obama to step down or be arrested for signing the wiretapping bill that actually grants more power than there was before?
Because their are hundreds of articles,news programs,and entertainment shows that stated Bush should be impeached,arrested,and put in jail over it.
After Obama voted for it the issue went away and these same people that pushed these articles probably voted for him.
Bush does it/jail time…..Obama does it/he gets my vote.
Typical liberal bullsh!t hypocrisy.
There will be no nightly calls for Obama’s impeachment from the press and entertainment industry.
There will be no front page stories day after day accusing Obama of crimes against the constitution.
There will be no propaganda movies from Micheal Moore,Oliver Stone,and other enlightened liberals portraying
Obama’s administration as war mongering imperialistic machine stomping on everyone’s rights in their conquest for
riches and power.
Because when you have a (D) beside your name,you can attack
countries that haven’t attacked you,don’t pose a threat,without UN approval while quoting bad intelligence
(Bosnia) and you are called a liberator.
Your few articles don’t nullify in any way the total double
standard and selective outrage from liberals when it comes to what they are willing to do and allow in their quest for
political power.
Obama will be the leader of this nation,it’s face to the rest of the world.
If you want to use Mormon money as a reason to vilify them,then how can you give a pass to the leader of one of the most powerful nations on earth.
Because he has a (D) beside his name and liberals are blind
to their own hypocrisy.
Baxter Greene on December 3, 2008 at 9:37 PM
Also, it would have been nice if the video had taken even a little poke at Obama for his bigoted stance on gay marriage. Here’s something we can agree on: Democrats are spineless, unprincipled, frauds, just like their most recent president-elect.
RightOFLeft on December 3, 2008 at 9:41 PM
what’s that video -Jack 3:16?
Anyway, would it be possible for someone to explain why changing the traditional definition of marriage to be either same sex or opposite sex would benefit the individual and the society? Since what is being proposed is a change there should be clear objectives, goals and expected outcomes for the individual and the society. What is the positive change? Additionally, how are these positives superior to civil union?
The discourse is consistently on negative terms, meaning – “you tell me why I can’t”, or put into the context of “you get to do what you want, so should I”, “it’s not hurting any heterosexuals if homosexuals can marry each other”, or a racial version of Goodwin’s law is invoked. None of these positions illustrate why to make a societal change.
At this point, given the follow-up to the vote, like this video, the hostile protests, religious mockery, and the thinly veiled call to violence by the excessive personal information in the blacklistings, could someone please restate the objectives, goals & expected outcomes on changing the definition of marriage to be either same or opposite sex.
batterup on December 3, 2008 at 9:42 PM
+7%
Seven Percent Solution on December 3, 2008 at 9:51 PM
Is that AP on the screen Pick?? :0
abobo on December 3, 2008 at 9:52 PM
i’m with doogie hauser on this one.
eh on December 3, 2008 at 9:55 PM
You know….the press take on this is that its a “blockbuster cast” involved.
But honestly…Neil Patrick Harris? Margaret Cho? Jack Black?
I mean it sounds like the b-list to me. And thats being generous.
I like Jack Black..but really, what was the last thing he did that was even remotely funny?
To me it sounds like this “blockbuster cast” is pretty much has beens and never was’s.
Handel on December 3, 2008 at 9:56 PM
Long story short, it would result in healthier sexual behavior and emotional attachments in the gay community. Probably gays don’t want to look at it that way, but there it is. It has the potential to do a lot of good for gays, without doing any harm to… anybody, really. Just from a public health standpoint, it’s kind of stupid to oppose gay marriage.
A separate institution, like civil marriages, might actually be better suited to the unique problems of homosexual relationships. Marriage has a cultural significance, too, however, that civil unions can’t provide. The cultural significance is the most important benefit, in fact: the ideal affirmation of romantic love in our society. So keep civil unions, change the name to “marriages,” problem solved.
RightOFLeft on December 3, 2008 at 9:57 PM
6 hours since the posting, Christians have not rioted or demonstrated
Greenhelmet on December 3, 2008 at 9:58 PM
Cute!
But mostly because I love Neil Patrick Harris. He’s one of the few actors working right now who consistently makes me laugh. (HIMYM is awesome, but Dr Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog is simply brilliant.)
Tanya on December 3, 2008 at 10:02 PM
Man I wish angry mobs of F@gs and Le%%ies would attack me! I would banish them all with thy comfort of thy rod and thy staff. Notice how they only pick on weaklings? Gutless freaks of nature they are indeed.
GlocknRoll on December 3, 2008 at 10:02 PM
nonsense. One doesnt have to take a stand against Gay Marriage on just a religious standpoint. Lets look at it from a more secular standpoint. It is a matter of STANDARDS.
If your STANDARD is simply ‘love’., Then what do you do if someone wants to marry their sister out of ‘love’. Or marry Three women? Or marry an animal? Yes..its been done.
All out of ‘love’.
And really then…ones words get thrown right in their face.
Those words?
“who are YOU to say no if consenting adults ‘LOOOOOOVE’ eachother.
Slippery slope. Pandora’s box.
Every thing about the ‘left’ and the ‘right’ boils down to standards.
One side believes in them, the other side are called democrats.
Handel on December 3, 2008 at 10:08 PM
Handel on December 3, 2008 at 10:08 PM
Slippery slope is a fallacy, not an argument.
You want to comfort angry mobs of gays with your rod?
RightOFLeft on December 3, 2008 at 10:12 PM
Bi the way…(ahem)…
Lets be honest about this. I don’t think alot of gays care about “geh marriage”. I think most reasonable geh’s might take the elton john outlook on it.
I think the far lefty geh’s, which are a small minority, are the ones making troubles.
And I really don’t think that they care all that much about the ‘marriage’ thing anyway. I think that they DO care about taking stabs at traditional institutes and trying to FORCE others to take them seriously, and legitimize them.
Wont happen. In fact they further harm their cause.
Handel on December 3, 2008 at 10:16 PM
Marriage is what it is, and what it always has been. Any “changes” to the definition is an abuse of power by the government.
The people mobilized and limited the power of government from interfering with marriage.
The homosexual lobby is hell bent on changing the definition of marriage by using the brute force of government to impose their will upon the people.
The current lexicon that government is restricting gay people from “marrying” is a deliberate obfuscation of the situation, and an arrogant misuse of the language.
Yet, why won’t the homosexual lobby answer these straight-forward, fair questions:
1. What should be the new definition of marriage?
2. Why?
3. What authority is legitimate to change the definition?
Saltysam on December 3, 2008 at 10:22 PM
Nice slogan. I bet that goes right beside one’s “save the trees, kill the babies” bumpersticker.
Slipper slope is a reality.
One never thought that by allowing abortions that someday leftist would be for leaving babies that survived an abortion in a closet to die.
No..that notion would have been called demagogic. Silly!
Now we have that…AND we have a senator that fought for it.
Slippery Slope is a reality.
Handel on December 3, 2008 at 10:23 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »