"Prop 8 - The Musical" - Starring Jack Black, Margaret Cho, & John C. Reilly

*BEWARE - OFFENSIVE CONTENT*

Subliminal messages:

Gay marriage is trendy, youthful, and light; traditional Marriage is prudish, outdated, and black.

Love is all you need; the Bible is hocus pocus.

Gay marriage is right and good because all the money spent on weddings will save our economy. 

*Oh brother*

My take:

If this is what passes for comedy now days, I'll have no part of it.  It didn't make me laugh; it made me roll my eyes and throw my hands up in exasperation and disbelief.  I find it telling that the director went straight for mocking religious beliefs, completely ignoring the fact that there are stacks and stacks of secular research studies which prove that the gay lifestyle is violent, destructive, diseased, and unwholesome (check out the resources section here).  In truth, the reality of the gay lifestyle is a far cry from the bouncing, singing, "gaiety" depicted on the "beach" in this insipid musical.  The reality that is so conspicuously absent from this supposed "humor" is that of AIDS, violence and domestic abuse, broken homes, confused children, and a genderless, dead-end society, left stripped and scorned in the frigid cold, hugging its identity-complexed, family-murdered, dysfunctional self.

Reality Check:

Supporters of traditional marriage

(not anti-gay people, just anti-gay marriage)

Supporters of gay marriage 

(mockers and haters of all things religious)

Stark contrast, eh?  Let's be honest here, do these pictures inspire confidence in the gay community's touted love theme?  Does this look like a poor, victimized, minority that needs constitutional protection? Are these the same frolicking, gay beach-goers so "gaily" depicted in Prop 8 - The Musical?  The answer is a resounding "NO." Kinda like the one gays already got when 52% of Californians said that gay marriage was not acceptable to them.  Seems like we've got ourselves some kids who need a lesson on poor sportsmanship.  Gays need a modern-day Martin Luther who can teach them to be respectful and peaceful as they promote their so-called "rights."

And last....

Jack Black as Jesus?  Give me a break.  Check out this Jack Black Biography excerpt:

"This being the Seventies in Los Angeles, the parents believed that one should not say No to one's children, making life ever more volatile. Beyond this, there was what Black later described as weird family stuff, not wife-swapping exactly, but swinging. 'It was funny', he said 'and not funny ha-ha'."

Couldn't say "no" in the Seventies.  Gee, imagine that.  Perhaps, and this is just a theory, but perhaps the lack of parental discipline then is what feeds this sense of entitlement so prevalent among youth today.  Eh?  Can I get a "holla?!"  Just a thought.  So, anyway, back to Black.  He says he grew up with an awareness of the "weird" sexual practices of his parents, claiming it wasn't exactly ideal, but in a twisted turn-about he now supports the unconventional. (???)  Hm.  And then there's this....

"Black met cellist Tanya Haden, one of jazz great Charlie Haden's triplet daughters. In fact, he'd first met Haden back at his specialist high school, but the pair had never dated. Now, after just months together, they'd elope, getting married in March, 2006, with Haden bearing him his first child, son Samuel, that June."

Black doesn't exactly have the greatest track record to be able to establish what is good and right and to represent the Savior of the world.  When did sacred things become so openly and brazenly subjected to mockery without so much as a "by your leave?"  When were we taught to laugh at blasphemy and promote immorality?  When did Jack Black, Margaret Cho, and John C. Reilly become authorities on the Bible? And when did their opinion take precedence over thousands of years worth of Biblical teachings from the Savior Himself and His prophets?

Oh I could go on and on, but I'll save it for another post.  Coming up...discussion on how the media has spearheaded the moral neutering of society.

Sacramento Protest, Cho Blasphemy

Sacramento, CA -- On Saturday, Nov. 22, California's state capitol was the gathering place of a large crowd of disgruntled gay rights activists protesting Proposition 8. Featured headliners wooing the crowd were Gloria Allred, Hollywood attorney, and Margaret Cho, comedian. Below is a clip of the song Cho sang for the minority mass.

When Cho sings that "Jesus was probably gay," it reminds me of when The Beatles once claimed that they were "more popular than Jesus." To hope that she'll get the same kind of backlash is futile since media bias won't condemn the comedian and the public will probably wave a disgusted hand at her and move on. Argh. And, of course, the whole song is aimed entirely at the Mormons, preferred Proposition 8 scapegoat, spitefully mocking sacred beliefs and practices. It's disgusting that people were laughing and clapping at this stuff.

It's also getting old that the gay community is whining about needing minority protection from the government when it's obvious that it's not equality they want, but complete acceptance - a societal embrace of their lifestyle. This practice of foot-stomping demand is now resulting in overindulgence and unwarranted concessions. Take eHarmony, for example; they are an Internet dating group that was created for the purpose of matching Christian singles and creating long-lasting marriages. This business is designed around a compatibility model that does not service homosexuality. Just days ago, however, eHarmony settled a ludicrous lawsuit with a homosexual man, essentially agreeing to change their business model to include him and others who subscribe to his lifestyle. eHarmony will now offer a website called "Compatible Partners," and adjust their match finding technology to service men seeking men and women seeking women. So the next time you're eating at a vegetarian restaurant, just threaten to sue if they won't serve you meat, because now the precedent has been set. Or, if you want a hair salon to wash your car, or a hospital to make you sick, or a podiatrist to deliver your baby, or a food manufacturer to build you a car, and the list could go on and on. THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY DO! So, why are they being forced to include homosexuality? Because after years of lawsuits, the kind, little old man who created eHarmony has been beaten down, heckled and prodded into catering to a group of people his business model was not created for. That, my friends, is ridiculous - shouldn't ever have happened. There is a gay agenda. There is, and it goes something like this: "Accept me, embrace me, cater to me, or else...."

["The greatest single victory of the gay movement over the past decade has been to shift the debate from behavior to identity, thus forcing opponents into a position where they can be seen as attacking the civil rights of homosexual citizens."
From The Homosexualization of America, by homosexual activist Dennis Altman.]

To see a comprehensive list of "or else's" that have already occurred, click here.

And while I'm busy airing out my concerns about the existence of a gay agenda, let's add 'secular coup' to the list. Check out this comment on another marriage blogger's latest post about raising our voices and standing up for marriage, and the fantastic response by another defender:

C Smith said,

Where does it say that marriage is between one man and one woman?

Don’t go down the Bible path - its a slippery slope.

Lil' Beebop said,

“Don’t go down the Bible path - its a slippery slope.”

Wow. Wow. Hang on a sec, I’m still reeling from this. Millions upon millions of people around the world believe the Bible to be the word of God and you just completely disregard their opinion/belief because, as you claim, it is a “logical fallacy?” Like I said, wow.

You just brilliantly proved what MJ Sobran once said two decades ago, “Far from equalizing unbelief, secularism has succeeded in virtually establishing it….What the secularists are increasingly demanding, in their disingenuous way, is that religious people, when they act politically, act only on secularist grounds….A religious conviction is now a second-class conviction, expected to step deferentially to the back of the secular bus, and not to get uppity about it.”

Wow.