Who will make the other Prop. 8 musical?
A bunch of Hollywood libs produced “Prop. 8: The Musical,” with the obligatory ridicule of people of faith and Jack Black-as-Jesus. If the opponents of Prop. 8 stuck to cheesy dinner theater protests like this, I’d have no problem. It’s the insane mob attacks, sweeping blacklists, and church vandalism that give them a bad name.
There’s gotta be someone out there up for making the other Prop. 8 musical — the one with angry activists storming restaurants and Mormon temples, hectoring elderly people over their signs, and hounding donors large and small until they pay off their tormentors in the name of tolerance. Anyone?
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- The Gospel According to Jack Black: An Anti-Prop 8 Fiasco
- Everything but the kitchen sink : Pursuing Holiness
- Prop 8 The Musical « Jane Q. Republican
- Propostion 8 the Musical : Stop The ACLU
- Liberal Elites to Christians: “Please ignore your religion.” | Without Objection
- Who will make the other Prop. 8 musical? « Top Daily Digest Reading
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Proposition 8
Pundit & Pundette
» States in dire straits
Riehl World View
» Pali-mania Strikes The Right Blogosphere!Confederate Yankee
» "The Obama Administration is the Most Fiscally Irresponsible in the History of the U.S."Weekly Standard
» Heavy MedalWeekly Standard
» Poll: Americans Becoming More Conservative by 2-to-1 MarginPundit & Pundette
» No nukes for Obama, then and now
I am a long time lurker first time commenter and I am angry about this because of the double standard being applied here. Michelle rightly took the MSN to task for reporting on the insane rage of the right when the reality was it was a few isolated incidences that got all the airplay (and some of those weren’t even accurate). The problem is that she herself is doing the exact same thing here. Yes, I acknowledge there has been inappropriate behavior by some of the gays, but in no way that that constitute an insane rage. Isn’t a boycott of companies that supported Prop 8 a peaceful, sensible approach to take? I don’t see why she has to harp on this everyday pointing out every single little incident that (admittedly) draws a negative light to it.
I am pretty sure one of the top 2 commandments is to love your neighbor.
One would argue that it is an act of love to turn one’s neighbor away from unhealthy or destructive behavior. But my primary objection is the use of this trite phrase as a battering ram. It’s essentially saying to Christians, “You have to sit back and take it while we heap abuse on you. But we are under no such obligation to restrain our behavior, nor to tolerate your dissent.”
I would have to read the passage. All sins are considered abominations so you are in good company since as I understand it, we all all sinners in christanity. In essence, we are all abominations.
If thats what they were actualy doing, yes. They are attacking the business for the personal views of the people who work there. Its also meaningless since 99% of the population ignore the boycott.
DCDan, your Bible knowledge is more than a little rusty.
The first 4 commandments (in my KJV Bible) tell us about our relationship with God. The next 6 are for relations with our fellow humans.
As Christians we are to love our neighbors, and we (myself included) do love all sinners (we all are, after all, sinners ourselves) no matter how unlovely they may be. However, we hate the sin and wish for the sinner to “Go and sin no more.” And that includes ourselves.
As far as declaring something an abomination (or a sin), that was done by God and we are to follow His word, not contradict it.
So, when God says something is a sin and we are to be Christlike (which is to attempt to emulate God’s character) we can love the sinner and still hate the sin.
the people at exodus ministries would disagree with you…
Do you wonder why pedophiles also don’t “think that way”, Dan? i.e they “have no choice”.
But to be fair, people who are psychologically damaged very often do not realize they have a problem until others point it out. It’s neither helpful nor realistic to tell the person they can do nothing to help their condition or to expect everyone else to accommodate the person’s condition.
Those who get involved in homosexuality may want to avoid taking responsibility for their bad choice. Most folks don’t like to fess up to their personal failures - it’s not a fun thing to do. But personal responsibility just cannot be dodged forever.
My thought is that gay people both choose and are born that way. There is some genetic basis to this. But also some hedonistic type people just crave the different experiences and tend to be bisexual. Either way, its thier choice not mine. None of my business unless they start making a huge deal out of it. Which they have.
Although I am anti-gay mariage, I found the video very entertaining, well done and showing some good humor on both sides of the issue.
right4life - I disagree. The people there believe that one can be changed, but I don’t think they would say that homosexuals are chosing to live the way that they do. In fact, if it was a choice then the ministry wouldn’t need to exist at all; a person could just chose a heterosexual lifestyle and that would be the end of it.
I disagree with their methods but I do give them some credit. They believe they are doing what is best for the individual and reaching out to them, and I can appreciate the sentiment behind it.
purplepeep - the pedophile comparison is baseless. Two consenting adults vs an adult and child who can’t make decisions for himself. Apples and oranges.
So you think I am pyscologically damaged. How easy for you to sit there and comment on something you know nothing about and have never experienced (as far as I know). Just because you don’t understand people’s actions doesn’t mean that those actions are the result of a psycosis. I am reminded of Galileo and other astronomers who the church said similar things about hundreds of years ago. They didn’t understand them and for some reason felt threatened by them, so they go on the attack.
Let’s look again at the question that both you and I posed, Dan:
I asked:
“Do you wonder why pedophiles also don’t “think that way”, Dan?”
So the question is about why people don’t want to question the things in which they become involved. What do you think is the answer to that, Dan?
I love how the proponents always say, “This is not a comparison and that is not a comparison” in a way to eliminate any and all discussion of this issue.
The simple fact is, that ALL the other people mentioned are indeed able to be used, by the simple fact that the argument used by the proponents for Gay Marriage is that you cannot infringe on the alleged “Rights” of a minority.
If you allow Gay marriage, then you must, indeed, allow Pedophiles to marry their prey. See, you guys think in terms of they only like 5 and 6 year olds. What about the 13-17 year olds they like to prey on? Arguably, at that age, since they can decide where and when to hold a job, (amongst other things) then it can be said that they do indeed know what they are doing by dating and carrying on with these scumbags.
Or what about Zoophiles? Can they not marry their sheep and othe barnyard animals? Since you cannot say that said animals are against such things…even inI believe Oregon where sex with animals is permitted as long as it causes no harm to the animal, should these party people not be allowed to wed and have a life full of happiness with their chosen playmates?
Do you think that the Pedophiles and Zoophiles WANT to be that way? Do you think that they have made a conscious choice to be outcasts in society?
What about brothers and sisters and cousins? Sure, you want to argue the other two on the merits always used, but how can you keep siblings from being in love with each other and keep them from spending their lives together in said “Wedded Bliss”
See, you proponents are nothing more than hypocrites. One abnormal act is OK, but the rest are bad. Why? Because they do not affect you.
How can a person who marries a sheep affect your life? Can you tell me that? How will that affect your marriage? What about the 40 year old woman who marries and has a family with a 16 year old boy? Why is that wrong and how does it affect you life?
Or the brother and sister, both of legal age who find it in their hearts to take familial love to the extreme and stay together forever as man and wife? How is that to affect you?
And who the hell are you to judge them? Who the hell are you to say that they cannot be married? Who the hell are you to deny them their rights as human beings to be married?
See…any answer you give shows you to be the hypocrites that your entire argument makes you out to be.
Either you make this betwen a man and a woman who are not of the same family and are both of the same species as it has been since the dawn of time, or you MUST, based on your own arguments, allow ANY AND ALL people to wed whoever they want where ever and when ever they want.
Yeah, Fireman, such questions are intended as a smokescreen to cloud up clear thinking.
That’s setting aside the fact they are also totally meaningless: i.e., “The Manson Family murder sprees did’t affect your life” is a correct observation but it’s not one on which I would base a position, much less cite it to excuse or justify Charles and Co. actions.
Now that marrage is between a man and a woman we can get rid of divorce now too, right? Since its so important that marrage is between Only a man and a woman, we should make it so.. you know its super specail! No divorce! I Mean, it’s death till you part, right? Right?
Well put it on next years ballot.
The above comment, since my cut and paste is not working is what my gay friend emailed to me a couple days ago.
your gay ‘friend’ is obviously an idiot.