FreeThought Fort Wayne

        Be Reasonable

Prop 8: The Musical

Posted by neuralgourmet on December 3, 2008

Star studded musical to draw attention to opposition to California’s Proposition 8 banning gay marriage. Cast includes Jack Black as Jesus (and yes! our nation was founded on the separation of church and state!), Andy Richter and Doogie Howser (I’m pretty sure Neil Patrick Harris just gave up and legally changed his name a few years back).

Just linking to the video because WordPress won’t let me embed the video.

Advertisements

6 Responses to “Prop 8: The Musical”

  1. rubyeliot said

    it’s really actually embarrassing i think. it’s overflowing with straight up fallacies….kind of obvious shairman wrote it in one day

    ex: we should vote for gay marriage because it will bring lots of money into CA?

    this isn’t even true. not in the long run. at least that’s what the CA voter guide said during the election.

    http://pearl-diving.blogspot.com/2008/12/prop-8-musical-starring-jack-black.html

  2. i think the “gay marriage will brings lots of money” thing was a tongue-in-cheek jab at the conversative/stephen-colbert-if-it-makes-money-its-right kind of thinking, not a serious pro-gay marriage argument.

  3. Joel said

    Rubyeliot, I love the confirmation bias of the blog you link to, it’s easy to find both ‘peaceful’ and ‘angry’ pictures of both sides of the protests and focusing on one set for the side you agree with and the other for the opposition shows nothing beyond the bias of the author. I myself was out in Indy on the 15th of November joining the GLBT community as one of the many straight friends at that rally, it was peaceful, constructive and pleasant and I met a lot of truly fantastic people. Anyway, can you honestly tell me that you wouldn’t be angry if someone took one of your rights away?

    California had already legally approved of marriage equality and religious groups (the Mormon propaganda machine chief among them) sought to have that equality taken away through a referendum, the process as a whole was unconstitutional and stands in abject contradiction of the principles on which this nation was founded. Even the founding fathers stated that we should be wary of the tyranny of the many which a pure democracy leads to and set this government up as a representative republic so that the government could protect the rights of the minority from the bigotry of the majority. You’d do well to remember that had it been left to popular vote then the south would still have slavery, Jim Crow laws would still be in effect, whites and blacks wouldn’t be allowed to marry in most states, Women wouldn’t have the right to vote, and we never would have come to the point where both a black man and a woman were viable candidates for the Presidency of this great nation! All of these things required action by the government to secure the rights of the few from the tyranny of the many.

    I personally like one view that I heard… The government shouldn’t do marriage at all, the state should only provide for civil unions as far as anything legal is concerned as marriage has often been argued as a religious institution. If you want the legal benefits, go to the courthouse and get a civil union which will secure your status in the eyes of the government, if you want to call it a marriage as well then also go to your church and have your pastor/priest/rabbi/whatever your guy is called, and have a marriage ceremony. However the marriage ceremony would confer no legal benefits and civil unions would be open to any two consenting adults regardless of race, gender, religion, etc. That’s my proposal, leave marriage to the church, the state should ONLY be performing civil unions.

    On the topic though, i don’t know how many of you pay attention to Join the Impact, the site that sponsored that video, but there’s another event coming up on the 20th of December, essentially a candlelight vigil. Even if you don’t have any close friends or family who are gay (I don’t either tbh) I suggest showing up and supporting the cause, there’s nothing quite like the feeling of defending another persons right to equality under the law. On top of that those of us in the Freethought community should be able to acknowledge that the only arguments against it are based in purely religious morality which truly has no place in the legal system, and the groups that the GLBT community is fighting against are the same ones who would seek to deny us our rights as well. I don’t know if Fort Wayne will have a gathering on the 20th or not but if not I fully intend to make the trip to Indy and show my support wearing a “Friend of a Second Class Citizen” shirt (http://242575.spreadshirt.com/us/US/Shop/Article/Index/article/Friend-of-a-2nd-Class-Citizen-Uni-3781612) FYI I’m using this site (http://www.spreadshirt.com) to put that design on a sweatshirt since it’s probably gonna be cold ;). If anyone else is interested I think it’d be a great idea to get a group together and show our support as a group to the GLBT community in Indiana, that and if we have to go to Indy to do it we can carpool and save on gas 😉

    Anyone who’s interested in joining me, my email is cartesianlogic@gmail.com and the shirts are optional, just being there sends the right message 😉

  4. Neil said

    The “rights” talk is so overblown. They still have the right to get married. Many apostate churches will perform the ceremony. They just don’t have government recognition of that “right,” because governments have no reason to monitor or encourage these relationships because they can never provide a mother and a father to a child. The gay lobby wants it both ways: Sexual preference is supposedly immutable with respect to partners but irrelevant for a child’s parents.

    Skin color is morally neutral, sexual behavior is not.

    The shrimp / shellfish argument used in the video is full of holes but is appealing to many because so few bother to study the passages. I address five serious problems with it in flaws of the shellfish argument.

    Did you notice how the sodomy depiction in the video involved a woman in back? It was as if they thought using a guy would be too gross. Seems kinda homophobic of them.

  5. Joel said

    Stoning, genocide, and child sacrifice aren’t exactly morally neutral either, but I guess anything’s fine if god commands it… And since marriage is recognized by the government with legal benefits, to deny a group of citizens the opportunity of those benefits for not being attracted to the opposite sex is discrimination and your religious view of morality has absolutely no place in a secular government (which ours was designed to be).

    I’m not sure of what specifically you’re getting at by saying ‘sexual preference is supposedly immutable with respect to partners but irrelevant for a child’s parent.’ Please clarify the argument so we know what you’re actually trying to say if you’re going to post here.

    FYI, of course some of them want it both ways… what do you think the B stands for in LGBT?? :p

    With regards to the women being behind their partners in the film… Haven’t you ever heard of a strap-on??

  6. dystressed said

    The musical has apparently hit a huge nerve.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: