Video: Prop 8, the musical
posted at 12:50 pm on December 3, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
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 ... 3 4 5 6 Next »
Then you better get with your liberal hero Obama then,because he has conversations with God.
Barack Obama: The 2004 “God Factor” Interview Transcript
30 APRIL 2008
Chicago-Sun Time religion columnist Cathleen Falsani (”God Girl”)
http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/2008/06/06/barack-obama-the-2004-god-factor-interview-transcript/
He also spent 20 years attending a church that holds genocide and racism as the foundation of their teachings:
Here is a quote from Cone, explaining black liberation theology (hat tip: Spengler, a pseudonymous columnist for the Asia Times):
I know, I know, it’s okay because he has a (D) beside his name.It’s Bush that is the crazy one.
But apparently talking to dead people is okay:
Obama apologizes to Nancy Reagan for seance remark
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081108/D94AI09O0.html
OOPS!!,my fault,she has a (D) beside her name also.
Nothing to see here.
Did you see that crazy Palin praying for the troops in that
video.What a Christian monster!!
Yes, liberal, look right on past the crazy a$$ racism and bigotry of your own party and condemn Bush for “hearing from God”
Baxter Greene on December 3, 2008 at 10:23 PM
You must a disciple of dedulas who has peddled this lie for all its worth.
Back in reality, this NYT myth has been exposed as fraudulence by Thomas Sowell..
aengus on December 3, 2008 at 10:27 PM
Handel on December 3, 2008 at 10:23 PM
No, the slippery slope really is a fallacy. Look it up.
RightOFLeft on December 3, 2008 at 10:32 PM
Speaking of ‘geh’…I read that Lindsy lohan was tired of being gay so she isnt anymore.
comment?
Me, I certainly hope shes gone back to being straight. It means somewhere some lucky bloke will have an opportunity to date and hopefully marry this fine confused young lady and hopefully have a happy life together….. with family.
All things that are like holy water to a democrat.
Handel on December 3, 2008 at 10:35 PM
hmm…come to think of it…THAT would make a good musical!!
:)
Handel on December 3, 2008 at 10:37 PM
Sample quote from the Thomas Sowell article:
Innumerable sources have quoted a statistic that half of all marriages end in divorce — another conclusion based on creative manipulation of words, rather than on hard facts.
The fact that there may be half as many divorces in a given year as there are marriages in that year does not mean that half of all marriages end in divorce.
It is completely misleading to compare all the divorces in one year — from marriages begun years and even decades earlier — with the number of marriages begun in that one year.
Why these desperate twistings of words and numbers by the left, in order to discredit marriage?
Partly it is because marriage is a fundamental component of a social order that the left opposes. Moreover, marriage is seen as one of the social restrictions on individual free choice.
aengus on December 3, 2008 at 10:38 PM
The fact is Gays have the same exact rights in CA as married couples. The fact is they want to co-opt the word “marriage” until it means nothing and/or anything. They aren’t happy with “civil unions” which give them the same exact rights as a marriage between a man and a woman, they are bound and determined to denigrate marriage as between anything they want it to be, man & man, woman & woman, dog & woman, beast & man, etc. It’s disgusting. We straights have bent over backward to give the gays all the rights that married couples have and they are still not happy until they have co-opted the word “marriage.” Pure and simple. My gay friends in Texas were hoping that Prop 8 would pass because only the radicals want to change what marriage is/was meant to be. I’m speaking from very close experience without giving up my privacy.
Neocon Peg on December 3, 2008 at 10:39 PM
Funny!
tlynch001 on December 3, 2008 at 10:40 PM
But.. but.. 50% of American married couples get divorced…? /dedulas /bullshit
aengus on December 3, 2008 at 10:41 PM
Well, I think that many people, fairly in my opinion, hold America to a higher standard than Muslim dictatorships. When they do evil things, well of course, they’re scum. But we are better than that. So they are outraged when America doesn’t meet our extremely high standards.
The quote your provided says that the “conversation” Obama has is one sided. Obama says he talks to God. Bush says God talks back. If Obama said the same, I’d think he’s a moron. But he hasn’t, so it isn’t really an issue.
I think it’s possible to be a member of a church and not subscribe to all of its beliefs or practices. Just like I think it’s possible to be a Catholic and think that covering up for proven pedophiles is wrong. I certainly don’t connect the practice of protecting child molestors with Catholic politicians. Until you can prove that Obama himself held these beliefs, its a moot point.
justfinethanks on December 3, 2008 at 10:42 PM
Hmm..interesting.
I think its a strange tactic that lefties use. Rather than argue the points made…they just toss any old thing out to divert away from the topic.
A little like…
me: “I’m against abortion, and heres why….”
Lefty: “POTATO SKINS!”
Theres terms for this yaknow?
1) No argument to make…
ORRRRR…
2) Brain Damage.
ORRRRR….
3)..both)
Handel on December 3, 2008 at 10:43 PM
I’m scratching “Kung Fu Panda” & “Nacho Libre” off of my to-get DVD list.
jgapinoy on December 3, 2008 at 10:47 PM
I like Sowell.
He communicate ideas with such ease. It almost pleasantly conversational, but it is powerfully concise.
His ability to explain things simply cloaks an extraordinary brilliance.
Saltysam on December 3, 2008 at 10:52 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 10:54 PM
In other words, the total opposite of Paul Krugman.
Handel on December 3, 2008 at 10:57 PM
Handel on December 3, 2008 at 10:57 PM
Now, that was funny!
Saltysam on December 3, 2008 at 11:02 PM
Although that argument is appealing on an empirical basis – it is not producing those results in statistically significant numbers in countries/states where homosexual & heterosexual marriage are allowed. This lack of significant rise in those who wish to marry takes into account the phenom of the laws recently changing, meaning you would expect that a large portion, or at least a statistically significant population, would marry just because they haven’t been able to do so until recently. As to the public health standpoint: While we have data that supports the contention that married heterosexuals live longer & typically healthier lives I can’t find any data on that in the homosexual population – perhaps there is a study about long term homosexual couples? Let’s say there are health benefits; Given the statistically insignificant participation is that a vaild reason? Further we all know marriage is no guarantee of fidelity, the laws to discourage adultery are long gone.
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
Is this not also accomplished now? Homosexuals can enter into binding contracts in a civil union and have a religious ceremony performed – therefore are “married” and can call themselves that if they wish.
batterup on December 3, 2008 at 11:07 PM
Apologies for the double post – quotes fixed now
Although that argument is appealing on an empirical basis – it is not producing those results in statistically significant numbers in countries/states where homosexual & heterosexual marriage are allowed. This lack of significant rise in those who wish to marry takes into account the phenom of the laws recently changing, meaning you would expect that a large portion, or at least a statistically significant population, would marry just because they haven’t been able to do so until recently. As to the public health standpoint: While we have data that supports the contention that married heterosexuals live longer & typically healthier lives I can’t find any data on that in the homosexual population – perhaps there is a study about long term homosexual couples? Let’s say there are health benefits; Given the statistically insignificant participation is that a vaild reason? Further we all know marriage is no guarantee of fidelity, the laws to discourage adultery are long gone.
Is this not also accomplished now? Homosexuals can enter into binding contracts in a civil union and have a religious ceremony performed – therefore are “married” and can call themselves that if they wish.
batterup on December 3, 2008 at 11:09 PM
But oohhhh soooo true !
One (Sowell) you want to shake hands with.
The other (Paul Krugman) you want to wash your hands afterwards, and pepper spray him immediately.
Handel on December 3, 2008 at 11:11 PM
Thanks for the Sowell link. So the “50% divorce rate” is a big, fat lie.
jgapinoy on December 3, 2008 at 11:12 PM
The cultural significance is the most important benefit, in fact: the ideal affirmation of romantic love in our society.
RightOFLeft on December 3, 2008 at 9:57 PM
The only cultural significance identified by this statement is the affirmation that society is infected with adolescent worship syndrome.
Saltysam on December 3, 2008 at 11:16 PM
You know…as far as the whole ‘geh’ female thing goes.
I gotta say, i think theres something kinda cute about that ‘ellen’ chicky.
Every time I’m watching ‘finding nemo’ (in which she does a voice for), I always think to myself…”I could change her! If I just had a crack at her!”
Then after awhile, I find myself sittin slumped in my couch drinking some wine with a bag of cheetos, while rubbing my belly murmering out loud “swim you little blue fish..dats right, you swim now….”
Geh ellen has totally ruined ‘finding nemo’ for me….
&%$#@!
Handel on December 3, 2008 at 11:22 PM
batterup on December 3, 2008 at 11:09 PM
Can you point me to the studies you’re referencing? I can only say it might take time to change the culture. Any results at this point are preliminary, even in the countries where gay marriage has been around the longest.
Heterosexual couples can do the same, but they don’t. There must be some benefit to having the government sanction marriages.
RightOFLeft on December 3, 2008 at 11:32 PM
I don’t understand what you mean. Can you elaborate?
RightOFLeft on December 3, 2008 at 11:35 PM
If you are going to spin,at least make sense.
The quote is right there and is does not say “He talks to God”.
It says” I think I have an ongoing conversation with God.”
There is no such thing as a “one sided”conversation.
A conversation is communication from one to the other.
My wife is Catholic and I attend church with her and my daughter.
At no time now or in her past has Pedophilia been taught,listed in Bulletins, or stated as the foundation of the teachings of the Catholic church.
Comparing a small percentage of priests that committed horrendous crimes out of the thousands of catholic priests to Obama attending a church that “teaches” from the pulpit black liberation theology,pushes insane conspiracy theories like the government created AIDS to inject into the black community,and screams “God Damn America” while Wright lives in a 1.6 million dollar home is ridiculous.
What the he!! does this have to do with the fact that the supposed outraged and oppressed gay community does not focus
it’s protest and outrage on the Muslim community,widely known to kill people for being homosexual and condemns it vigorously even in western culture.
The gay community:
gives Obama a pass
gives the black community a pass
gives the latino community a pass
gives the muslim community a pass
but has nothing but vicious hatred for Christians/Mormons
who oppose gay marriage,like Obama,Black,latino,and mulsim community.
why?
Because the above groups that liberals give a pass to, predominantly vote democrat,that’s why.
And they would also be met with extreme violence if they pulled the bigoted name calling and assaults that they do on Christians,young and old.
If it was about right and wrong,truth and justice.Liberals would be in their faces just like they are Christians.
It is typical liberal hypocrisy.
Your spin is only validating the pathetic extremes liberals will go to in justifying the inexcusable actions of the people that help them achieve political power.
Baxter Greene on December 3, 2008 at 11:37 PM
RightOFLeft on December 3, 2008 at 11:35 PM
…that the most important benefit of marriage is the ideal affirmation of romantic love.
This is, IMHO, a rather naive view of marriage, and may be the reason that a significant amount of people become disillusioned about their marriages years after the ceremony.
Saltysam on December 3, 2008 at 11:49 PM
I also just removed Kung Fu Panda and Nacho Libre from my Christmas shopping list. I didn’t buy Finding Nemo for the same reason. Sure, I’m bigotted and intolorant but I’m also keeping MY money instead of paying my hard earned cash just to be put down by someone that thinks they are so much smarter then me, simply because I have some actual morals.
Vntnrse on December 4, 2008 at 12:01 AM
A conversation can be one sided. It can also mean that I communicate with words and thoughts and He responds by giving me strength. That’s the kind of relationship most people have with God.
When Obama says “God told me to raise taxes on the rich.” I’ll be on your side.
Wait, so being “taught” evil things is somehow worse than the actual practice of it?
I don’t think that you think you approve of pedophelia just because high level members of your church actively worked to cover up for dozens of pedophiles. I think that you can be a member of a church while thinking some of the things that your church does or says is wrong. But that’s just me. Using your logic, every moral person should have walked away from Catholicism years ago, unless you think covering up for molestors isn’t as bad as saying “God Damn America.”
Probably because they are powerless and don’t have much sway in American politics. Christians, which represent eighty percent of the country, have a lot more power. The Muslim vote doesn’t really matter, and they aren’t financing any commercials, so they are ignored.
Cool your rhetoric. I think I’m being very respectful. I’m not offering spin. Just arguments. You’re free to refute them.
justfinethanks on December 4, 2008 at 12:07 AM
RightOFLeft on December 3, 2008 at 11:35 PM
Continued from 11:49 PM….
I guess I left that answer too short….sorry.
I should add:
The focus of advertising, movies, television, magazines, and most western media is a sort of perverted celebration of adolescence. We are not saturated by the media with a celebration of age and wisdom.
This lack of maturity, if you will, perpetuates myths like marriage is about romance. The mature concepts of marriage do not bode well with popular culture.
I’m reminded of a parable. An American man and a Japanese man were walking together in a park when a young lady and her aging grandmother walked by.
The American said to the Japanese man, “Wow, did you see that? She was beautiful!”
“Yes”, replied the Japanese man, “she was at least 80″.
Saltysam on December 4, 2008 at 12:14 AM
I don’t understand why people are trying to destroy the sanctity of marriages, like Britney Spears’ 9 hour quickie marriage.
lolwut on December 4, 2008 at 12:22 AM
Its the same mentality as parents that give their five year old candy if they’ll stop throwing a temper tantrum.
Saltysam on December 4, 2008 at 12:30 AM
This information can as a surprise to me – I fully expected, as I assume you did, the opposite; Once homosexuals were allowed to marry that they would be doing it in droves – or at least statically significantly. This source which has numerous cited references Here. Oddly, I thought it was written with a pro-homosexual marriage slant but after researching the author and the data I found that the author is against homosexual marriage, nonetheless the data is good. At it’s core it is a statistical analysis, and the sources seem to check out. Five years of data is adequate to draw some sort of conclusions as to the desirability just to marry, not necessarily stay married.
Do you propose changing the laws and seeing if the culture “catches up”, so to speak? That is asking for a change based on hope, not data.
There may be, or it may be that since heterosexual marriage licenses have been issued by the government for so long a time I cannot find a start date, that heterosexuals obtain marriage licenses out of tradition. What, if any, benefits have you found that are unattained by a civil union?
Why isn’t there a clear & concise enumeration as to the objectives, goals & benefits (with accompanying supporting data) to the individual & the society on any of the proponents sites? This is a change in law & practice – it should be treated as such. It’s a license.
batterup on December 4, 2008 at 12:37 AM
Lo and behold! A fart of lefties portraying guys in ~business~ ~suits~ as Christian bigots who see the light only when it is financially profitable to them! The “Prop 8 Musical” could only be a product of lefties bored insensible with their own rubbish. I mean, how dull minded does one have to be before this video can inspire one to say “Like, wow… religious bigots and Capitalism… Like, two sides of the same coin, man…”? Knuckleheads.
FierceGuppy on December 4, 2008 at 1:02 AM
I don’t care about you being on my side.The fact that your
“opnion” is that a conversation is one sided does not in any way make it so.
Websters:
con.ver.sa.tion- verbal exchange of ideas.The act,process,or instance of verbal exchange.
To be someone that apparently can’t read,you have no room to be calling Bush a moron.
This is like talking to a fifth grader.
Using your logic,I can attend a klan meeting,donate money to it,write books celebrating it’s leadership and direction
by providing me a “moral compass”.Then when asked about it later,I can just say,”oh,I don’t believe in that,this is just a distraction.”
The catholic church does not advocate or teach pedophilia.
It is not endorsed on there websites,there are no DVD’s of priests yelling and screaming it from the pulpit.
Catholics do not endorse pedophilia and when the priests were brought out,the overwhelming majority of leadership and parishioners condemned them.
This is just the opposite at Trinity.They defended these teachings and are still teaching this theology today.
If you don’t see the difference between the two you are hopeless.
Thanks for admitting that all this moral outrage is about
politics and not right and wrong.
So when the muslim vote matters,that is when you will call them out on their stances against the gay community.
How progressive!!!!
The Black vote and Latino vote sure as he!! matter but that doesn’t fit into this liberal drivel you are serving up here does it.
So now you are telling me how to think and write?
What part of this statement is offensive?:
I stand by this statement.There is nothing crude or personally over the line.If you want to see that,go to liberal sites like Kos or Huffington Post.
After 8 years of having liberals call conservatives war mongers,nazis,knuckle dragging bible thumping idiots,bigots,liars,crazy right wing christians..etc…etc..
etc…it is hilarious to see them demanding civility.
Baxter Greene on December 4, 2008 at 1:04 AM
I see the difference between actions and words.
Group one preaches murder, but doesn’t do it. Group two doesn’t preach murder, but does it.
Which is worse?
It’s about “politics” in the sense that they are trying to influence the most powerful institutions that they can in order to get what they see to be rights. They really don’t care if they win approval from Muslims, Morman, Blacks or Latinos. “Approval” is not the goal, they just want their rights. Amongst the demographics of Christians, Muslims, Latinos, and Blacks, christians present the largest obstacle towards gay marriage. So that is where they concentrate their energy. When Muslims or Blacks become a bigger obstacle, that’s where the energy will go.
I’ve never done that. And I’m not “them,” I’m me. I’m a father, a husband, a taxpayer, and I’m self employed. I have immense respect for the Christian faith. I myself spent many years of my childhood in Lutheran school. You know what they say about people who assume.
I just don’t think throwing out phrases and words like “pathetic” and “like talking to a fifth grader” add to the conversation.
justfinethanks on December 4, 2008 at 1:41 AM
Since you seem so obsessed with the evils of the catholic church and it’s sex crimes,then you would also hold that same indignation for the democratic party right?
UI professor accused of offering good grades for sexual favors
By Scott Dochterman
The Gazette
http://www.gazetteonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080810/NEWS/781920137/1001/NEWS
Former talk show host sentenced to more than seven years in prison
By Howard Mintz
Mercury News
Article Launched: 08/28/2008 11:52:46 AM PDT
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10326294?source=most_viewed
Aide to Boxer Fired After Being Charged in Child Pornography Sting
By Ben Pershing
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 14, 2008; A05
Prosecutor: Couple’s crimes related to cult
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3128703/
Posted: Today at 2:04 p.m.
Updated: 28 minutes ago
Durham, N.C. —
I am going to go out on a limb though and bet that it is okay with you to condemn the Catholic church for the crimes of a few but the crimes of a few democrats is in no way a reflection to the party and it’s people.
You can try an excuse the racist teachings of genocide and
black supremacy,Obama’s 20 year relationship,support,and spiritual guidance of it all you want.
Just don’t think that this support and inept rationalzation
gives you credibility to call out other people about their beliefs and associations.
You liberals have lowered the bar way to much with the support of Obama,his associations and his 180’s on so many issues.
Baxter Greene on December 4, 2008 at 1:53 AM
Or Mccain’s “mid-life upgrade,”… or Newt’s three marriages… or Giuliani’s three marriages (including a cousin)… or Rush Limbaugh (six marriages between him and his last wife)… ad nauseam
benny shakar on December 4, 2008 at 1:59 AM
Since my original point is that it is possible to be a member of a group and not believe in everything that group says or does, then yes, I believe that one can be a Democrat and have no connection to those crimes. Just like you can be Republican and think sending racy texts to underage boys is wrong. You can be Catholic and hate molestation. You can be Obama and not believe every word out of Wright’s mouth.
See? You weave a tangled web with the association game.
But let me go back to your original argument that supporting Obama despite his religiosity and his stance on gay marriage is hypocritical if you don’t like Bush’s positions even if they are the same. If you voted for McCain, but didn’t support Amnesty, are you automatically a hypocrite? Even if you have spoken out against Democrats who have supported amensty in the past?
justfinethanks on December 4, 2008 at 2:11 AM
I sure hope you apply this logic to my above post.
If you think that Wright,Farrakhan,Black Panther Party,
and other separatist don’t practice the racism they preach
you clearly need to research their writings,sermons,and business practices.
I believe your selective blindness parallels the selective
amnesia liberals have when it comes to the decade before Bush became President that democrats yelled and screamed about how dangerous Saddam was,his WMD’s,and links to al-qaeda and their eventual vote for the Iraq war.
Applying your logic,if some members of Obama’s church have criminal records,then they practice it,but don’t preach it.
Your defense of liberals going after Christians but giving
a pass to Obama,Blacks,Latinos,and muslims has hit a wall.
Saying it is okay for a group to advocate killing gays,teaching that it is an abomination, vile,and a curse on society because they are not the main voting block is an absolute cop out.
Blacks,Latios,and muslims together make up a major voting block,especially in California.That is why the democratic party has spent tens of millions of dollars working to register them,commercials on their radio stations and papers,and financing their constituents in political office elections.
The large majority of Blacks,Latinos,and muslims vote against gay marriage.Obama,Clinton,Biden and many other democrats are against it to.
When you hold them to the same standards as you do Christians you will have some credibility.
As it stands right now,it is just more selective outrage coming from typical hypocritical liberals that only respect the votes of the people when it fits their ideology.
Baxter Greene on December 4, 2008 at 2:25 AM
Again, gays don’t really care if you think that homosexuality is an abomination, vile, and a curse on society, as much as what rights they receive. In their mind, you are free to think what you want, as long as it doesn’t interfere with their rights.
When deciding who to protest, gays asked themselves “what group has the greatest deal of power of this election? Who has the greatest numbers and the most money?” The answer came up Christians. You just can’t prove that Muslims, Blacks, and Latinos had more power than Christians in getting Prop 8 passed. Plus you forget that there is a lot of overlap between blacks, latinos and Christians. These aren’t mutually exclusive categories. Black and Latino Christians are part of the protest.
justfinethanks on December 4, 2008 at 2:34 AM
This video made me laugh.
And then I cried.
I cried for a long time.
What a sad world we live in, when Christianity is evil, and everyone you meet is sympathetic toward Islam.
YoungAmerican on December 4, 2008 at 2:36 AM
There is no tangled web.I stated originally, and you have done nothing to refute it,that you can’t possibly have been
involved in a church that was so overtly bigoted and racist in it’s teachings and not know about it or support it in some way.
This in no way parallels the millions of Catholics that sat in church and had no idea what some priest was doing thousands of miles away.
Your comparison is ridiculous and the only person it could possibly convince is someone who will say and believe anything to defend their political ideology and who leads it.
The original point was that liberals are out in the streets
condemning Christians but not out in the streets condemning
democrats,Blacks,Latinos,and muslims who share the same views.
The post are consistent.
Liberals selective outrage shows them to be nothing more than political opportunist,not fighting for some moral justice.
If opposing gay marriage is wrong,then it is wrong for all who oppose it,yet liberals are only condemning Christians.
Your “blacks,latinos,and muslims votes don’t count” drivel is as ridiculous as your “conversation” means someone talking to themselves statement.
If this is all you have,you are wasting both of our time.
Baxter Greene on December 4, 2008 at 2:42 AM
For many, it was being done down the street. And bishops covered it up. Some bishops who are still working today, if you are comfortable with that.
You know what your church has done. Not in one isolated case but over and over and over again for decades.
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/
If you don’t think you are a bad person, and I certainly don’t, you can’t judge Obama.
It is wrong for all who oppose it, say its supporters, but only Christians have the power to stop it. Take away the Hispanic Vote, Prop 8 still passes.
http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/news/2008/11/7/prop_8_and_the_hispanic_vote.htm
Take away the black vote, Prop 8 still passes.
Take away the Muslim vote, Prop 8 still passes.
But if you were to theoretically take away the Christian vote, it doesn’t pass. Obviously, protesters are only going to use their energy on groups that have influence on Prop 8.
justfinethanks on December 4, 2008 at 2:54 AM
I would just like to say that that was a pretty gay video.
NotCoach on December 4, 2008 at 3:44 AM
I am going to introduce a law to ban shellfish. Enjoy your Long Johns Silvers while you can, heathens!
Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 5:57 AM
who said anything about Islam? were we watching the same video? and cut it out w/ the christian victimization card, you guys are the ones who voted for discrimination.
Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 5:59 AM
Godheavenforbid I make a valid comparison of the two. Christian victimization? Where have you been this election? I can’t recall how many times I heard everyone give Sarah Palin crap for being a Christian. You raise a good point – Are we watching the same video? Can you not see that they are demonizing Christians? We voted for discrimination? Vague, baseless, and dumb. This argument is over.YoungAmerican on December 4, 2008 at 6:10 AM
Sorry, I won’t watch anything with Jack Black in it.
Sloan Morganstern on December 4, 2008 at 6:37 AM
Get “married if you want” do whatever your little heart desires.
But you can’t have married spouse tax breaks, the right to adopt a child, or guaranteed access to your employers health plan for your gay spouse.
Dpet on December 4, 2008 at 6:43 AM
Maybe it’s all about right to reproduce. Marriage would give them better and more open reproduction capabilities by making a gay lifestyle acceptable, normal and quite possibly a desirable life choice. With gay marriage an acceptable and celebrated though marriage parents will no longer be allowed to protest any exposure of their children to the gay lifestyle. This will allow gays to start a massive effort to reproduce though indoctrination of children in schools and nobody could protest that it was wrong or unwelcome.
jmarcure on December 4, 2008 at 7:08 AM
Already being discussed. Y’know shellfish is high in cholesterol, right?
And stop with the gay vicitimization card, you guys are still allowed to marry and procreate with any member of the opposite sex like the rest of us.
Skywise on December 4, 2008 at 8:26 AM
Here’s something that I’ve wondered with the apparent 50% divorce rate. Do they considered people who get divorced multiple times? My mom’s been divorced twice, my father-in-law-has been divorced 3 times, my grandmother has been divorced twice. See what I’m saying?
Also, I bet that if you remove military and Hollywood from the equation, the divorce rate woud drop big time (before I get a “what’s with the military part” flack, I’m a vet myself and any vet knows the divorce rate in the military is extremely high as it’s hard to maintain a marraige when one is deployed).
DethMetalCookieMonst on December 4, 2008 at 8:26 AM
Why don’t they ever have Jesus quoting from the NT, it is always the OT?
I thought he lived, spoke, and taught during the NT…
right2bright on December 4, 2008 at 8:27 AM
Interesting point.
Jack Black’s Jewish… most of Hollywood is Jewish…
Maybe they’re projecting their religion onto Christianity?
Skywise on December 4, 2008 at 8:35 AM
Identity politics on steroids.
The inherent racism that exists in American leftist ideology always seems to get a pass.
Here , we see that Blacks and Hispanics are not connected to their spiritual beliefs. Besides, they don’t know any better (/sarc).
The groups that are attacked are white Christians. They, of course, have the media’s politically correct nod of approval. It fits the template fabricated in the minds of pop culture that Christianity is a white phenomenon.
Saltysam on December 4, 2008 at 9:08 AM
Well, words mean whatever gay people SAY they mean, right? /sarc
Baxter, you are the articulate embodiment of reasoned opposition to gay marriage, and I salute every golden word you wrote.
I would add a couple of thoughts, though. If Obama’s conversations are “one way”, with only Obama doing the talking, just how arrogant is that? After all, to have an audience with the almighty, and not let him get a word in edgewise — for Obama’s sake, I just hope justfinethanks is wrong.
And if jft doesn’t really believe God is there to listen, why doesn’t he think it is crazy to talk to him? Is it really any crazier to think – oh, let’s say the stapler on my desk is talking to me, than for me to talk to it? Sounds about equal to me. Unless I WANT the person doing one to be crazier than the person doing the other.
In any case, as my son would say, you “P*wnded” jft! Well done.
Actually, jft doesn’t really need to worry about Obama being one of those schizophrenic sky-god talkers. While none of us knows the heart of another, there’s pretty good evidence that Obama’s not a Christian, but rather a liar.
I had a pretty good idea that was true from recent comments Obama has made that there are ‘many ways to God’, and the fact that they went LESS often after having children**. It seemed pretty unlikely that church attendance is anything more than political pantomime. But based on another little gem I’ve found, if Obama believes in God at all his words would indicate that his god is… (wait for it)… himself. In an interview with Chicago Sun Times columnist Cathleen Falsani, the following exchanges took place (emphasis mine):
Find the god in those quotes, and tell me his initials aren’t BHO.
______________________________________
** He claimed it was too much trouble to get children to church. It’s not too much trouble to get them to dance classes, or piano lessons, or school — but church? Well, immortal souls aren’t really all that important compared to dancing lessons, right? They are if you believe in an immortal soul! Obama’s church attendance is just one more act fraudulent act of a prodigious con artist.
RegularJoe on December 4, 2008 at 9:08 AM
That doesn’t seem like a good deal for an unsuspecting straight spouse, who realizes after the marriage that they don’t have an intimate relationship with their husband/wife. Perhaps the straight spouse blames themselves for a period of time or perhaps they look outside of their marriage for a relationship that fullfills what they had sought on their wedding day.
That solution doesn’t improve the quality of marriages in aggregate.
dedalus on December 4, 2008 at 9:15 AM
All Americans already have a recognized fundamental right to reproduce. Gay marriage wouldn’t change that.
Indoctrination would work to the extent that some straight people weren’t sure about their hetero feelings. Is being gay a temptation for most straight people? I haven’t seen it. At least not anymore than I’ve seen straight guys want to watch Bravo when there is a football game on.
dedalus on December 4, 2008 at 9:27 AM
You will never let up, will you. This obsession with me is not healthy in the slightest.
What happened between me and my old roommate (or rather what never happened) has nothing to do with me being married now and was never anything my husband would have a problem with, as he was there when those innuendos and teasing occurred in the first place.
Feel free to stop calling me a whore. It really does nothing for your reputation as a supposed Christian.
People are intentionally confused on the subject. It’ll never happen. Even though the Republicans and Democrats have exactly the same stance on the issue, only Republicans will ever be called out on the subject as McCain was on Ellen’s show even though she never once asked Obama about the subject.
And you’re the one participating in discrimination, so you must be cool with it.
Esthier on December 4, 2008 at 9:31 AM
Personally, I don’t care if gays want to live together in a civil union. What consenting adults do behind closed doors is their own business. I’m fine with a civil union if it’s needed for legal matters.
BUT, I don’t want it confused with marriage. AND, I don’t want homosexuality sanctified, validated and taught in schools…particularly in elementary schools. It’s tough enough trying to raise a child with moral values these days. They don’t need to be instructed in “alternative lifestyles” at a tender age. Kids are curious creatures, they like to imitate grown-ups. Do we really need to catch seven year old Jimmy and Johnny experimenting with anal sex?
Barb Dwyer on December 4, 2008 at 9:33 AM
Maybe not for guys, but it does seem to be a temptation for some girls to “experiment”. And that actually has increased as homosexuality has become less of a taboo.
Esthier on December 4, 2008 at 9:35 AM
That’s highly unlikely. Do you routinely catch Jimmy and Jane experimenting with vaginal sex?
These are two different discussions. Just because gays get marriages, it won’t mean we have to teach anal sex to 7-year-olds. Sex education needs to be age specific.
Esthier on December 4, 2008 at 9:38 AM
I can’t speak for the Jack Black video (I’m not wasting my time watching it)…
…but Jesus preached and taught from the Old Testament.
Now, it would make perfect sense to have a ‘movie-Jesus’ quoting the words of Christ from the Gospels…
…but it certainly wouldn’t make sense to have a ‘movie-Jesus’ quoting from Paul’s epistles (since Paul wrote them after Christ’s death and resurrection.
That all said – one makes a movie like this (the Jack Black thing) to make a particular point. Thus, one writes dialog that helps support their point.
Religious_Zealot on December 4, 2008 at 9:41 AM
OK. I erred in thinking about it from the male point of view. The conversation on gay marriage lumps men and lesbians together, but they are very different and society’s attitudes toward them is very different as well.
Similar to your experiences I recall in college some girls were LUGs (lesbians Until Graduation). The idea being that they could ignore guys, not worry about pregnancy, focus on their studies and leave the drama of consequential relationships until later. Guys of course had no problem with the girl of their interest being “bi”. In fact if he thought her friend was hot then it was a big bonus (at least in the realm of college guy fantasy).
If there was no male homosexuality, but only lesbians who wanted to have children and live together probably the topic of gay marriage would be less of an issue.
dedalus on December 4, 2008 at 9:48 AM
Your justification of hypocrisy is pathetic.
If liberals don’t think the Black,latino,and muslim vote are important,than why are they spending hundreds of millions of dollars on it.
You can’t have it both ways just to suit your hypocrisy.
Obama is going to be the leader of this nation,Biden second
in command,and Hillary the face of America across seas,and
your defense of giving them a pass is “well,they are not that important,it’s the Christians we want.”
Well according to Obama,Biden,and Hillary,they are Christians,
Why aren’t you and the other liberals in their face,at their homes,out in the streets condemning them.
Your spin is getting worse.
When you renounce the democratic party for all their child molestation(examples listed earlier),running prostitution from their homes(Barney),actually having sex with pages,then giving him a standing ovation in the senate(Nunn),Klansman
holding senate seats(Byrd),leaving woman to drown while they sleep off a drunk to call their lawyers,running prostitution and money laundering while they put people in jail for the same thing(spitzer),having affairs and turning one of them out for prostitution(you know,Mr.family values that replaced
the Republican that sent pages you were breathing so heavy about)on…and…on…and…on,then you have some credibility to tell Catholics where they can worship.
Until then trying to excuse Obama’s idiotic judgment ,support,and active participation for 20 years in theology and rhetoric that was there for “ALL”to see and is still going on by invoking molestation by priest that was unknown to 99% of leadership and the congregation is desperate and silly.
You want to defend the support of bigotry and racism
Go ahead.
You want to defend the total hypocrisy condemning one group
for actions the leaders of your party supports itself,
Go ahead.
You want to spin and twist yourself into a pretzel by
stating that the black,latino,and muslim,vote “are not
important”When your party spends hundreds of millions of
dollars on it,
Go ahead.
You want to excuse Obama,Hillary,Biden and other democrats
for having the same stance as the Christians you yell and
scream bigotry too,yet these democratic leaders are
Christians also(which is the voting block your okay with
holding to moral standards while you give others a pass)
Go ahead.
You have every right to make a da#n fool out of yourself,and you have done a very good job.
Baxter Greene on December 4, 2008 at 10:15 AM
Except that this particular “movie-Jesus” is alive in the present, speaking to people in the present, long after Paul died.
So very true. Even many deeply religious people would probably drop the issue. I think maybe it’s because men’s roles have historically been very static, often the strong and silent type. Gay men completely defy that, whereas women’s roles have been far more dynamic, making aggressive women far more common than girlie men.
I’m sure this was their purpose, but as a woman I find it to be hilarious, as my most drama-filled relationships have always been with women, and despite what apacalyps thinks, I’ve never been in a sexual relationship with one.
Though I sometimes envy men, I feel sorry for them when it comes to dealing with women. We can be completely crazy.
Esthier on December 4, 2008 at 10:20 AM
I’m going to have this comment bronzed, then build a shrine around it, then I’m going to hide it because I’d like to get laid again someday.
TheUnrepentantGeek on December 4, 2008 at 10:25 AM
Sure, because our country is something like 85% Christian. If Christians voted in a single block (which we don’t), we could pass anything we wanted to pass.
Your statement is like saying, “if you were to theoretically take away the over 18 vote, it doesn’t pass.”
Esthier on December 4, 2008 at 10:26 AM
Yeah, like I said, we can be crazy, but it’s completely insane to tells us that.
Esthier on December 4, 2008 at 10:28 AM
For all of the tolerant left, they sure show alot of HATE.. And, I’m not talking about this little video.
reshas1 on December 4, 2008 at 10:37 AM
Well, let’s just say that Hollywood probably has little to no idea what words Jesus would say (since they have no clue about Christianity).
More than likely, they would have him quote from that newfangled ‘gay’ Bible.
Religious_Zealot on December 4, 2008 at 10:51 AM
You are expecting this liberal to use logic and hold himself to the same standards they expect of others.
Read his posts,you are not going to get either of these.
It’s all hypocrisy and double standards justified by liberal drivel that wouldn’t stand up in a high school debate.
No condemnation of Blacks,Latinos,and
muslims because their votes are not important all of a sudden.
Christians are the real enemies because they are a larger voting block,but not democratic Christians like Obama,Hillary,and Biden.
Quite a circle jerk justfinethanks has going.
Baxter Greene on December 4, 2008 at 10:54 AM
how so? it’s the religious bigots who voted to strip gays of the right to marry. we could marry before Prop. 8 passed.
Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 11:54 AM
oh whhhaa someone said something bad about sarah quaylin’s witch doctor boo hoo. when your marriage is dissolved because voters stripped you of that right you let me know, then we can talk.
Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 11:57 AM
Well, because they can’t get elected without the Black and Latino vote. If you remove them as a voting factor, they don’t get elected. But if you remove them as a voting factor on prop 8, it still passes. It’s not that complicated.
I want to make clear that I’m not protesting, and I don’t even think the protests are productive. But obviously if you are going to protest, you are going to protest the people who financed and voted in the largest numbers. That’s not “hypocrisy.” It’s allocation of resources towards the groups that they think will be the most useful. No one is saying that it is more right or wrong for one group over another to support or not support a belief. But why spend all of your time and money on the groups with the least power in this instance.
And again, since most Latinos and Blacks and Christian, they actually are being protested, so you your point is basically moot.
If every single Catholic doesn’t know by know that there has been extremely widespread and systematic abuse and coverups, they are being willfully ignorant.
But my point has been consistent. You can know what has gone on in the Catholic church, and still go to church, and still think molestation is wrong. If you agree with that sentiment, we are on the same page.
I know Catholics. I go to church with them sometimes. They are good people. I don’t play the guilt by association game. They are horrified by the abuse and I take them at their word.
I’ve never really been a “troll,” i.e. someone who purposefully says inflamatory things in order to get a response. But watching you get worked up, I kind of understand the appeal.
justfinethanks on December 4, 2008 at 11:59 AM
That would be great EXCEPT WE LOVE MEMBERS OF THE SAME SEX! i’m sorry to yell but I don’t think you understand this whole “being gay” thing. take the fairy tale bible out of the equation and there is nothing else keeping us from the right to marry. the separation of church and state enables us that right.
Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 12:03 PM
and while we are on the subject, can anyone answer the question the video brings up: how do you justify cherry-picking which “rules” to follow from the bible and which not to?
Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 12:20 PM
All those who shower,
In San…Fran…Cisco!
Just don’t bend over,
To pick up that dropped bar of soap!
pilamaye on December 4, 2008 at 12:59 PM
and while we are on the subject, can anyone answer the question the video brings up: how do you justify cherry-picking which “rules” to follow from the bible and which not to?
Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 12:20 PM
a good place to start would be Old and New testaments…
the New abrogates much of the Old, and that’s kind of what JC was all about..
JC even personally addressed many of the OT laws , e.g. “It’s more important what comes out of your mouth thatn what goes into it,” in anwswer to a question about wheter or not his followers should follow OT dietary laws…
this is really really basisc Christian theology….
and if Jack Black doesn’t know it he shouldn’;t be spouting, if he does then he’s being dishonest…
and by the way JC himself condemned homosexuality…
.
max1 on December 4, 2008 at 1:00 PM
Is there a gospel verse you can refer to where Jesus directly condemns homosexuality? I’m aware of some verses where it can be inferred but not one where Jesus chose to have his words recorded on the subject, in the same way he chose to speak directly about divorce, greed, forgiveness, eternal life or other topics.
dedalus on December 4, 2008 at 1:13 PM
Certainly.
No. It is discussed in the New Testament, but not specifically by Jesus.
If you cannot see how your words posted here amount to bigotry against Christians, then it’s impossible for me to explain that to you, but I imagine you wouldn’t enjoy being told that your life is based on the fairy tale idea that you’re gay, even though that’s exactly what you’re saying to Christians.
Esthier on December 4, 2008 at 1:35 PM
It’s really very simple. The New Testament is a new testament. It isn’t the exact same as the Old Testament. If it were, it would be the old testament.
Christian theology teaches that Christ came down to Earth and made a new covenant with mankind, which can be found in the New Testament. The New Testament reaffirms many things in the Old Testament, but it also does away with laws there. Christians, in general, abide by everything in the New Testament; some only abide by what Jesus said.
But those are the standards. Now go ahead and flame away with some new insult to the faith that I and millions of other people share while you cry for tolerance for your beliefs.
Esthier on December 4, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Jack Black is washed up. His obfuscatiing the application of the moral law given by God and comparing its seriousness to completely symbolic laws such as abstaining from seafood will not impress enough fags in Hollywood to help resurrect his acting career.
TheMightyQuinn on December 4, 2008 at 1:48 PM
Completely unnecessary and completely contrary to the moral law given by God.
Esthier on December 4, 2008 at 2:02 PM
You really want to play the “argue that your opponent is arguing from bad faith right from the get go” game?
Fine.
You don’t care about marriage. You care about controlling how you’re perceived. You care about MAKING people not just tolerate your lifestyle, but put on a big old smile and say it’s just great! And anything else is a hate crime and should be punished. You’d just love a Canadian scenario where ministers thinking and preaching the wrong thoughts are bankrupted with fines or imprisoned. Because that’s what bigots deserve after all, don’t they?
Zealot gay activists don’t give a fig about marriage or they’d take a reasonable compromise and argue reasonably rather than beating up old women and vandalizing churches. THIS. IS ABOUT. CONTROL. You want control over people’s minds and their moral judgments, because you just can’t BEAR the thought of someone, somewhere disapproving of the sexuality you wear like some sort of medal.
Now. Isn’t that a fun and productive way to proceed? Shall we keep it up, Mr. Christophobe?
TheUnrepentantGeek on December 4, 2008 at 2:10 PM
You mean that guy that was in two of the highest grossing movies of ‘08?
Yep, totally washed up.
But I did find the video to be terribly unfunny and unfair.
SouthernDem on December 4, 2008 at 2:29 PM
Seriously? Which two?
Esthier on December 4, 2008 at 2:58 PM
Kung Fu Panda (#8 so far) and Tropic Thunder (#17).
SouthernDem on December 4, 2008 at 3:08 PM
Oh, and they’re both frickin hilarious.
SouthernDem on December 4, 2008 at 3:10 PM
Oh, yeah. I forgot about Tropic Thunder. In some ways, it was worse than I expected, but in most ways it was much better. Robert Downy Jr. and Tom Cruise were my favorites.
Esthier on December 4, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Yeah, that movie really showed that sometimes being out your mind can sometimes be a real benefit if you are an actor.
justfinethanks on December 4, 2008 at 3:14 PM
When Stiller began joking around with the director’s decapitated head, I was in love.
SouthernDem on December 4, 2008 at 3:20 PM
I’ve always thought Jack Black was funny. He just wasn’t here. He was mostly just insulting here.
Esthier on December 4, 2008 at 3:23 PM
No joke.
When they started to eat it was when it really got to me.
Esthier on December 4, 2008 at 3:26 PM
I think these guys say it best:
Noneya on December 4, 2008 at 3:34 PM
So then you already know the answer and were just asking for the sake of…
Esthier on December 4, 2008 at 3:36 PM
So what you’re saying is the gay community doesn’t want to have actual, functional marriages… they just want to be able to have failed marriages?
You’ve convinced me… No to gay marriage!
malclave on December 4, 2008 at 3:46 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 3 4 5 6 Next »