“Prop 8: The Musical” on the Great White Way
by Larry O'ConnorVariety is reporting that as part of a fundraiser for multiple same-sex marriage organizations, “Hairspray” composer Marc Shaiman’s satirical “Prop 8: The Musical” will be staged live. The event called “Defying Inequality” will be performed on a dark night on the set of “Wicked” at the Gershwin. The star-studded Internet video was released in response to the Scott Eckern episode in which Marc Shaiman was a central figure.
I’m sorry, but this is just bad writing. I think I’ve been pretty fair on these pages about giving liberal writers their due when they are talented and create great work. I’m glad Mr. Shaiman had years and years of royalties from the Broadway run of “Hairspray” (not to mention the modestly successful movie version) because I really think he’s jumping the old hammerhead with this thing. At this point, Mr. Shaiman seems to be wrapping himself in a rainbow flag and beating the Prop 8 drum like Pete Best on a bad night at the Cavern Club.
Since it’s a dark night, the audience at the Gershwin will be made up mostly of members of the industry (who know how many will be compelled), so they’ll scream with delight, but honestly, it’s a bad sketch that is full of lies… please, someone find me the verse in the bible that calls a homosexual an abomination. It doesn’t exist. The act is described that way, but not the person, a very important distinction. Not to mention, the idea that nefarious religious figures snuck Prop 8 onto the ballot when people weren’t looking? Does anyone really believe that? Even all the tattoos on Margaret Cho can’t cover up the fact that these guys are grasping at straws and resorting to lies and distortions.
Broadway will embrace this mess because they’ve never met a gay cause they didn’t embrace. But they better hope that Bob and Sue from Minneapolis don’t wander into the Gershwin thinking they got tickets to that “Wizard of Oz” show because what happens up on that stage will not be the best advertisement for the finest that Broadway has to offer.
Stage Right is on Facebook.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
108 Comments
Oh, I guess if Prop 8 didn’t pass, we would start teaching gay marriage in schools? That’s what all the commercials were saying. Were they not lies?
[...] supposes the “industry” will turn out or be compelled to turn out and they will raise some money for the Prop. 8 redux. But, the skit falls flat and is full of [...]
I just watched the YouTube video, and it plain sucked. It makes my mock Broadway “trailer” for “Work, the Musical: the musical” seem like Andrew Lloyd Weber, and I spent a grand total of three hours on it. (You can hear it at http://www.intellectualist.net/music/work.mp3 if you want, but beware as this cut has my vocals which are t3h sux0rz).
Romans 1: 26-27
Well, this is so typical of “movie stars” isn’t it? Do they represent the whole nation? I don’t think so. They obviously don’t know the Bible, and love to take things out of context. The things they were saying about the laws in the Bible (shell fish being a no, no, etc.), were written in different levels for the High Priests, and such! Not all of those things were for “regular” people! So, yes, out of context, indeed.
Don’t write either angry or drunk without being able to calm down/sober up in order to review what you’ve written before you show it to anyone else, let alone present it for public performance. You may write/compose a unparalleled work of passion or incitefulness while you’re in that altered state, but the odds are just as strong that you’ve written a piece of obsessive tripe, which is why you need to look at it once your either calm or can see straight.
Unfortunately, since Shaiman is presenting this to people just as angry as he is, the quality of the writing is immaterial as long as the hate is there. He might as well just write a vignette for Red Sox fans attacking the Yankees and present it before 35,000 fans in Fenway Park. It will hit it’s target audience no matter how good or bad it is, but no one else will care.
Your Bible verse sir. Low and behold… It DOES exist!
If the gays want to pillory anyone, it should be the homosexual activists. They wanted a Star Chamber to over ride the vote so they could sock it to the churches, boy scouts,schools whoever would dare voice another opinion. (What is it with activists wanting to “teach” children??)They were found out, and prop. 8 passed . Their response? Blacklists and sockin’ it to anyone who dared voice another opinion.
It seems to be, in this democracy, issues find “their own level”. A compromise is reached. Marriage remains between a man and a woman, and gays have all the legal rights they want. End of story, but not for the fanatics on either side.
“Does anyone really believe that?” Yes, yes they do.
And if Bob and Sue are from Minneapolis, there’s a good chance they’re upper-middle-class white kneejerk liberals (you know, the people who elected Keith Ellison and Al Franken), so they’d probably enjoy Prop 8: The Musical. Or they’d sit through it, pretending to enjoy it because that’s what they’re supposed to do.
Dawn ~
hmmn, “gay lifestyle,” that’s bit ambiguous for me. That’s a term with so many differing possibilities, that it renders itself irrelevant.
Two consenting adults who choose to love each other, spend the rest of their lives together and/or raise a family choose a “family lifestyle.” Just as someone who chooses to have multiple sex partners and never settle down chooses a more “carefree lifestyle.” Someone who moves to an isolated island chooses a “hermit lifestyle.” Someone who does drugs all the time also lives a certain kind of lifestyle. Gay lifestyle implies choice. I haven’t met a gay yet you chooses to be gay.
TRUTH
Romans 1:26-27 (King James Version)
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in
ie you wrong, try again?
@Truth:
Note what Stage Right wrote: “please, someone find me the verse in the bible that calls a homosexual an abomination. It doesn’t exist. The act is described that way, but not the person, a very important distinction.”
Deathstar has quoted the verse, indeed it says the act is the abomination, the people are simply sinning. It’s still wrong, Biblically, but it’s not calling the people abominations, just the action.
Deathstar
Please explain to me how this is not a condemnation of homosexual behavior.
OK, so according the passage and the distinction that is basically separating a VERB from a NOUN, if a man is built to be with another man and not a woman that man should never have sex his whole life?
Yeah. Sign. Me. Up.
Of course the people involved here are not “abominations.” We all deserve the same measure of love and respect. However, as you stated, the act is sinful according to the Bible. Therefore, according to the bible, people who engage in homosexual behavior are living in direct violation of the commandments of God. Period. Now it’s up to you if you choose to believe this or not. But the language plain, and the fact that the Bible does in fact condemn this behavior is clear. People have the freedom to life whatever lifestyle they choose. People also have the choice as Americans to stand for something, to vote their conscience when the opportunity arrives. Please do not twist truth to justify your choices.
Truth ~
The fact that you and others believe words from a religious book does not mean it should dictate what the laws are. As far as the laws were concerned, “gay marriage” was LEGAL (albeit not practiced) for the greater portion of U.S. history until people started realizing the gender neutral nature of the language.
Do we really need to go into the conversation (again) about everything else the Bible considers to be an abomination? And how singling out homosexual “acts” is just an example of biblical cherry-picking?
“People also have the choice as American to stand for something”
There are so many more things as Americans we can stand up for to build a stronger country than standing against the gays.
As a child, I had my opinions about the gays, which were uninformed and immature, due mostly to ignorance. Realizing I was gay, I had to confront my assumptions and deal with them. Not being gay, I can see how someone who hasn’t had to go through that may be left with the same assumptions I had. Being gay and not dealing with it, I can also see someone in the same predictament.
Of course, everyone is entitled to their beliefs . . . .
“united we stand, divided we fall” comes to mind
Dawn ~
We didn’t hear as much about the other props, because enough Californians assumed it wouldn’t pass, because California tends to be more progressive in its thinking and where California goes, usually does the rest of the country. The general assumption was that all the other props at the time were going to pass, because we have a long way to go towards realizing as a majority that, yes, two hard-working American adults who want to spend the rest of their life together and possibly raise children shouldn’t be viewed at through the eyes of the law any differently than two people of opposing genders.
Until PUBLIC schools start teaching that it’s okay to murder, do drugs, molest children and/or be lazy, I’m really not going to bat an eye. We just have slightly different opinions between right and wrong, I guess. It’s too bad.
Dawn ~
We didn’t hear as much about the other props, because enough Californians assumed it wouldn’t pass, because California tends to be more progressive in its thinking and where California goes, usually does the rest of the country. The general assumption was that all the other props at the time were going to pass, because we have a long way to go towards realizing as a majority that, yes, two hard-working American adults who want to spend the rest of their life together and possibly raise children shouldn’t be viewed at through the eyes of the law any differently than two people of opposing genders.
Until PUBLIC schools start teaching that it’s okay to murder, do drugs, molest children and/or be lazy, I’m really not going to bat an eye. We just have slightly different opinions between right and wrong, I guess.
“Until PUBLIC schools start teaching that it’s okay to murder, do drugs, molest children and/or be lazy, I’m really not going to bat an eye. We just have slightly different opinions between right and wrong, I guess.”
Please explain. What on earth on you talking about? That I shouldn’t be upset if the public schools start teaching something to my 5 year old that I don’t agree with? That I shouldn’t have the right to opt them out just because it’s not teaching murder or drugs? I really don’t understand your statement.
Dawn, If it’s so important to you, enroll them in private school. One of the things you think is wrong, I don’t. You don’t think it’s wrong based on years of conditioning with a archaic book at the core of your conditioning. I hope you believe in every other detail in The Book.
Oh, and if your beliefs are the way to go, I’m sure your 5-year old will figure out for themselves what is right and wrong, provided you teach them to think independantly.
I’m trying to find the reasoned nuanced position in the Prop 8 Musical…reaching, finding, searching, hand-wringing, searching, meandering, ho-humming…where is it…where is it…ohhh enlightenment please shine on me…please…….NOPE, Guess Prop 8 the musical REALLY IS
1. A group of people that show absolute disrespect for the institution of marriage with their shoot first and ask questions later position on the several thousand year old civilization building block
2. A group that shows a stunning display of religious ignorance and intolerance
3. A group that has yet to understand that there is such a thing as sexual ethics and morals and that people have a right to a freedom of conscious and also that EVERY citizen of the U.S has a right to a voice in the public square and a vote.
You didn’t answer my question. Please explain your statement. Maybe you’re saying that private schools teach murder, drugs, and child molestation? And then you suggest I enroll my children in one? I’m still confused by your statement.
As far as an archaic book, I happen to believe it’s incredibly relevant to my life, and my children’s lives. If you read it through, and understand why there is an OLD Testament and then a NEW Testament, then you would come to appreciate the teachings in it more. I haven’t been conditioned, myself. My parents taught me to think independently, and I tried to live without Biblical principles in my life. Guess what? I found a happier life living by the Bible, than I ever did without it.
Of course you don’t think homosexuality is wrong. But think about it. Why would nature (I’m assuming you’re a humanist/atheist/agnostic, so I won’t even go into God) create within herself total extinction? If homosexuality is supposed to be so normal, why would it not be able to procreate itself? Thousands and thousands of years of heterosexual reproduction in all animals, before the ability to artificially inseminate, or one generation of homosexual reproduction. There’s no comparison. That alone tells me it’s wrong and unnatural.
Let me explain . . . . I think we can all agree that murder, child molestation are wrong, drugs, laziness are BAD IDEAS/CHOICES (I’m just throwing out some random things that I think we can agree on). As far as I know, there is no where, where this is being taught. Until I hear of such things being taught, I’m not too worried about public schools, though they leave much to be desired as it is.
As far as procreation goes … geez. If I end up being a parent, I only pray that I get a healthy child. I don’t care if my husband’s sister offers to carry my sperm or we adopt. Who cares where the child comes from? I don’t need to pass down my seed. I only want to pass down the knowledge I’ve acquired from this life. Gays only make up a small portion of the population, how are we contributing to the extinction of humanity, when there are plenty of willing heterosexuals to keep the human race going?
And, anyway, there are plenty of heterosexual couples who don’t procreate and adopt children instead. That doesn’t make their relationship wrong and unnatural.
Companionship between two consenting adults is not wrong and/or unnatural. That’s love. And love makes a family. And if you don’t see that, I’m sorry. And if the laws end up bending in that direction, I’m sorry. I’m glad you find the Bible relevant in your life. But, YOUR salvation has no place in OUR laws.
Dawn ~ If you care so much about “homosexuality being taught in schools” or whatever that means, then home-school them or enroll them in private education. That’s what I mean. They’re public school. That means they’re for EVERYONE.
Dawn ~ What specifically are the schools teaching your child about homosexuality, anwyway? Please educate me, because I don’t have children and I have been out of school for a while.
Becoming a parent is a choice. As a parent, you have the right and responsibility to monitor and control your children’s tv and internet activity. As a parent, you choose how they will be educating them, whether you choose the government to it or a private institutions. You have choices! Isn’t that what this country is about? FREEDOM of CHOICE? Most of the material on television is crap anyway, regardless of whether it features sexual minorities or not.
Vince:
You said, “As far as the laws were concerned, “gay marriage” was LEGAL (albeit not practiced) for the greater portion of U.S. history until people started realizing the gender neutral nature of the language.”
Does the gender neutral nature of the language not speak towards a tradition of marriage being between one man and one woman?
What opponents of traditional marriage want is to effect a major social change. The least they could do is offer reasoned debate, rather than ad hominems. Prop 8 passed by the slimmest of margins, but your ideological brothers and sisters seem intent on widening that gap.
Ronnie ~ I agree with you. Marriage is a tradition–albeit a religious one that has legal implications. I believe in either “marriage equality” or “domestic partnership for everyone” and leaving “traditional marriage” for the churches. How it’s going to happen, I have no idea. I think it should, though. I think there are plenty other things we should be protective of than traditional marriage. I think there are many more things that threaten the strength, health and fabric of our society than letting the gays marry.
P.S. I would like to continue this conversation, but I have to leave it for a few hours and will hopefully be able to check back into later today.
Let me jump in here….
Di Butler: No, the sketch you see on YouTube will be performed live as part of a one-night only fundraiser event along with other performances.
Vince: While I appreciate your passion for your position, my quarrel is in the way Shaiman and others depict the sides in this debate. I think it is hurting their cause. It’s like the Mexican migrant workers marching in LA waiving Mexican flags. They are passionate, they are sincere, they might even be on the right side of the issue. But their methods hurt their cause more than any proponent of closed borders might have. I’m sorry you don’t see the distinction in the bible verse between an act being an abomination and a person being an abomination, but to most religious people it is an enormous difference and to see religious people depicted in the way they are depicted in this video, and saying the things written for them does not open minds and does not win over converts to your side.
And, ultimately, I think it also harms the reputation of the Broadway product. Now is not the time for the Broadway Industry to continue to alienate what little audience is left.
==Truth – January 27th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Romans 1: 26-27==
Which reiterates Leviticus 18:22, 20:13.
==What specifically are the schools teaching your child about homosexuality, anwyway?==
That it is acceptable, for one thing, which it is not, to God, and, therfore, to those who are born again.
==Realizing I was gay…==
Translation: “Having chosen to go homosexual…”
==The fact that you and others believe words from a religious book does not mean it should dictate what the laws are.==
When we vote, we may bring to the polling place any information we deem necessary to make the decision.
== As far as the laws were concerned, “gay marriage” was LEGAL (albeit not practiced) for the greater portion of U.S. history until people started realizing the gender neutral nature of the language. ==
What you call “gay marriage” is legl now: A man who claims to be homosexual may marry a woman who claims to be homosexual for any reason they can dream up.
Do we really need to go into the conversation (again) about everything else the Bible considers to be an abomination? And how singling out homosexual “acts” is just an example of biblical cherry-picking?
==Two consenting adults who choose to love each other, spend the rest of their lives together and/or raise a family choose a “family lifestyle.”==
They can do this now.
== Just as someone who chooses to have multiple sex partners and never settle down chooses a more “carefree lifestyle.” Someone who moves to an isolated island chooses a “hermit lifestyle.” Someone who does drugs all the time also lives a certain kind of lifestyle.==
Those who engage in “sex” with animals choose a bestiality lifestyle. Criminals engage in criminal behavior, having chosen to go criminal, and, yet, they don’t claim that God made them so.
== Gay lifestyle implies choice.==
Yes,the choice of the homosexual, alternative-lifestyle orientation option.
== I haven’t met a gay yet you chooses to be gay.==
Yes, you have cuz all have chosen to go homosexual. Then they choose every day. They just won’t admit it; there’s an agenda to propagate, after all.
You said: “please, someone find me the verse in the bible that calls a homosexual an abomination.”
So here you go:
“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.”
(Leviticus 18:22)
Don’t believe me? Here are various English-language Bible versions of the same verse: http://bible.cc/leviticus/18-22.htm
Now enough with the hate. You won’t read this though. God damn dissent and research!
–Never underestimate the brain’s ability to rationalize its own conclusions.–
==@Truth:
Note what Stage Right wrote: “please, someone find me the verse in the bible that calls a homosexual an abomination. It doesn’t exist. The act is described that way, but not the person, a very important distinction.”
Deathstar has quoted the verse, indeed it says the act is the abomination, the people are simply sinning. It’s still wrong, Biblically, but it’s not calling the people abominations, just the action.==
Where does God say, in His Word, that the conduct will go to Hell but not the person?
“Oh, and if your beliefs are the way to go, I’m sure your 5-year old will figure out for themselves what is right and wrong, provided you teach them to think independantly.”
Funny how when it’s some religious or conservative person’s child being exposed to secular or liberal teachings it’s always “They’ll figure it out for themselves unless YOU made them a Robot”, but when it’s an atheist’s child hearing a religious sermon or some liberal’s kid being exposed to conservative teaching it switches a complete 180 to “Keep your beliefs to yourself, don’t offend me and infect my kids with them!!”
Quite a double-take there…
Why dont they do something daring, such as create a play about the life of Giacomo Matteotti, who was born in Fratta Polesine, Veneto. It is a true story with an historical reason as to why you’ve been able to live free in America since 1924, the year of Matteotti’s murder.
“Where does God say, in His Word, that the conduct will go to Hell but not the person?”
Whoa, hey, slow down. I’m 100% with you on this.
Vince:
I agree in principle. I voted for Prop 8 for two reasons:
1. to rebuke what I view to be a growing judicial oligarchy, and
2. because I believed equal protection was already afforded under Domestic Partnership legislation. In other words, it seemed an argument of semantics, rather than civil rights.
I know now that I was wrong on point two. What I would like to know is why it took a couple of minutes on Wikipedia after election day to find this out. The “No on 8″ folks for the most part seem to have arrived a day late and a dollar short. Where was all this interest in gay marriage in the weeks and months before the vote?
And now, rather than deign to discuss the issue, they’d rather call me and 7 million other Californians “homophobes.” They’d rather make a display of themselves in public, and cast aspersions on the religious convictions of people of good conscience, than simply and eloquently make their argument. At this point, you can guess how I will vote the next time this issue comes up. If the “No on Prop 8″ community wants my vote, they’re going to have to earn it. “Prop 8: The Musical” and efforts such as the Anti-Gay Blacklist ain’t gonna do it.
==Religion is a choice.==
God gives us the choice whether to reject Him and His Son.
However, Christianity isn’t “religion,” like Islam.
== Homosexuality isn’t.==
Yes, it is, the choise of the homosexual, alternative-lifestyle orientation option.
== End of story.==
NOW end of story.
==Gay marriage is socially conservative.==
Men who claim to be homosexual may marry women who claim to be homosexual RIGHT NOW.
== The state should be encouraging gays to form monogamous relationships and allow them, if they are qualified, to raise children.==
No, it shouldn’t.
== It’s far better than the alternative: saying that they have no avenue to pursue commitment to one’s partner and should only attempt to find love in an underworld of loveless, anonymous, dangerous sex and furtive attempts at emotional connection.==
That would be their choice, too.
== Domestic partnership for heterosexuals would weaken marriage and make it easier for hetero couples to reap the benefits of marriage without the responsibilities.==
Rationalizations.
==Marriage was already redefined when polygamy was outlawed and bans against interracial marriage were lifted.==
The issue of interracial marriage is not the same thing since the interracial couple are still a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife. In the so-called “same-sex ‘marriage,’” who is the husband and who is the wife?
== And saying that “gay men are free to marry any woman they want” as proof that they are not discriminated against is an evil lie.==
No, it isn’t.
== Such a marriage would be a sham.==
And, yet, it’s true that even those who choose the homosexual, alternative-lifestyle orientation option may marry today.
== But they should not be encouraged in any way.==
Value judgment. Who are YOU to decide?
Grue in the Attic – January 27th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
“Where does God say, in His Word, that the conduct will go to Hell but not the person?”
Whoa, hey, slow down. I’m 100% with you on this.
——————————————–
I understand, and I’m sorry I left you with the wrong impression.
My comment was directed at those who feel that they can do iniquity cuz, as they say, God doesn’t punish the sinner, rather the sin. I want them to explain how God sends the condict to Hell, but not the person doing the conduct.
I’m glad you’re on board.
That’s easy. Anyone who commits sodomy goes straight to Hell. Unless it was prison or Vegas. God’s not unreasonable.
WHO HERE WOULD AGREE THAT WE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PASS A LAW THAT REQUIRES THAT EVERY FAMILY WILL TITHE 1/3 of THEIR WEEKLY INCOME TO THE CHURCH.
Hmmm how here agrees that under the Constitution the citizens of a state should be allowed to pass a law requires you to compulsorily give to a Church. Would that be in keeping with our Constitutional?
NO, well its in the Bible? The Bible says its a sin not to. Its immoral not to. Its what the Bible defines as the proper course.
So why on earth should it be okay for a mob (read:democratic majority) to pass a law that limits the freedom of anybody else?
As a Christian Goldwater Republican you Evangelical wackos make me sick. You have destroyed conservatism with your stupid culture war. Legislating morals was never the goal of the founding fathers and it is not in our founding document or the Declaration of Independence. Is God found there yes, is legislating morals no.
What about the verse “Judge not, lest ye be judged”
This debate is stupid and Prop 8 or any other law that legislates morals, but does not serve the sole purpose of protecting you God given rights amounts to nothing more than legal plunder and an abuse of the Rule of Law by a mob.
Ronnie,
I agree that we facing an impending danger of a judicial oligarchy, but would you find it a fair argument that we face a more imminent danger of having our Republic lost forever to a democracy?
Video’s gone so cant comment on that, but this idea that gays are deviates etc based on a book that also claims the world was made in six days is absurd and should not be taken seriously by any rational intelligent human being. Choice or nature is also irrelevant as even if they chose to be gay what does that have to do with being able to marry? Let gays get married- why should straight people be the only ones to suffer?
Wait why did my other comment get moderated out?
“Wait why did my other comment get moderated out?”
No dude, they just take a while to show up, had to wait ten mins for my prev comment to show up.
Lawdawg -
I like my federal government a republic, but I’m not as worried about direct democracy on a smaller scale. (The entire state of California is not all that smaller a scale, I know.)
The libertarian in me says that the danger of losing the republic for the sake of democracy is nothing compared to the danger of a handful of judges legislating from the bench. Sort of a “rule in hell than serve in heaven” equation for me.
Still, I’d say it’s a fair argument. One that I’d happily argue!
I’m not convinced that Prop 8 passed on the strength of a couple of verses in Romans and a couple of verses in Leviticus. Prop 4 (abortion notification for minors) failed to pass by the same margin that Prop 8 passed. I just don’t think this was a religious issue for most people.
Unfortunately for opponents of traditional marriage, they’ve made it impossible to gauge the motives of people who voted for Prop 8. Who in their right mind would admit to voting for it to someone carrying a clipboard and asking survey questions outside the local Trader Joe’s? “Yes, I voted for Prop 8. My car is over there if you’d like to key it.”
But hey, keep harping on the Christians. It’s quite revelatory.
If it completely tanks financially, that’s OK. The Dems can just give it bailout money because it’s such an important artistic endeavor. Thank goodness the government is in the business of keeping art alive for the masses (you know, the hicks who just don’t understand good art when they see it). {rolleyes}
==What about the verse “Judge not, lest ye be judged”==
Only ONE verse??? How ’bout the following 4 verses? Or does Jesus stop at verse 1? How about Romans 2:1, 3?
The fact is that, where Jesus says, “Judge not…” He is talking to the unrighteous who have judge by their own standard, rather than the Standard of God.
Later, He tells the Righteous in Christ that they must make “Rightous judgment” — that is, according to the Word of God, THE Standard of measure.
Romans 2:1, 3 say that the unrighteous cannot judge cuz the unrighteous inevitably do what they judge others for.
==why on earth should it be okay for a mob (read:democratic majority) to pass a law that limits the freedom of anybody else==
Nobody limits the freedom of those who say they are homosexual from marrying:
A man who claims to be homosexual may marry a woman who claims she is homosexual. Heterosexuality is not a requirement for marriage.
Robin Hun ~
1984 – Reagan wins second term by a landslide carrying all but one state and D.C. … tell me exactly HOW MANY people from the LEFT were complaining then? Tell me about the lying, accusing, intimidation, bullying. The people voted. They knew what they were voting for. They voted their will. That is what they wanted. And it was good enough.
My only question at this point is: Do we want to move the conservative movement forward, or do we want more Ted Haggards and Larry Craigs?
Stage Right ~ Thanks for the response. When I figure out how to gradually convert people who “love the sinner, hate the sin” to the right side without offending them, I will let you know, so we can all move on and get down to more pressing matters.
You said: “please, someone find me the verse in the bible that calls a homosexual an abomination.”
So here you go:
“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.”
(Leviticus 18:22)
Hm…”It” describes the act, not a person. I don’t think you proved your case.
==“A man who claims to be homosexual may marry a woman who claims she is homosexual. Heterosexuality is not a requirement for marriage.”
You are a barbarian, Mr. Incredulous.==
Romans 8:1 [KJV]
== You think that because sham marriages are legal that gays are not discriminated against?==
Everybody is treated alike. Nobody forces you to marry. You choose not to marry as everybody else does cuz, well, you chose not to marry. Everybody got THAT choice, too.
== This was the same logic used to keep interracial marriage illegal.==
Except that interracial marriages still involve a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife. That’s not the case with so-called “same-sex ‘marriage.’”
However, if a man who claims to be homosexual, for instance, marries a woman who also claims to be homosexual, that is still a man, as husband, and a woma, as his wife. Heterosexuality is not a requirement for marriage.
==The Christian taliban has cost the GOP votes and inadvertently helped put the demon Obama in the White House.==
In the same way, the secular taliban helped the People of the State of California pass Proposition 8.
One “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.”
(Leviticus 18:22)
Hm…”It” describes the act, not a person. I don’t think you proved your case.==
Show us where, in the Word of God, God says he will send the conduct to Hell and not the person.
==It [the Word of God] does not say that those who are simply born homosexual are automatically condemned by nature, nor does it say that those who commit homosexual acts are somehow beyond redemption. Homosexual acts can be forgiven like any other sin. But they’re still sinful.==
However, there is no fo’giveness without repentance. There is no accepted repentance without a change of want-to’s, then a change of behavior. When one loves God, through Christ, one wants not to do that which displeases God.
==someone find me the verse in the bible that calls a homosexual an abomination. It doesn’t exist. ==
Irrelevant. God is no respecter of persons.
==“A man who claims to be homosexual may marry a woman who claims she is homosexual. Heterosexuality is not a requirement for marriage.”
You are a barbarian, Mr. Incredulous. ==
So, it’s barbaric to think — to KNOW — that a man who claim to be homosexual may marry a woman who claims she is homosexual, huh. And it is also barbaric, in YOUR view, to KNOW that heterosexuality is not a requirement for marriage. Is THAT it?
==You think that because sham marriages are legal that gays are not discriminated against?==
How does the law that defines “marriage” as the union of a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife, discriminate against those who claim to be homosexual? After all, no one who claims to be homosexual is neither a man, nor a woman. The law covers all men and women, and those who claim to be homosexual are either men, or women. Heterosexuality is not a requirement for marriage.
==You think that because sham marriages are legal that gays are not discriminated against?==
Those who claim to be homosexual are either men, or women.
The law defines “marriage” as the union of a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife. The man may be heterosexual, or claim to be homosexual. The woman may be heterosexual, or claim to be homosexual. The law doesn’t require that the individuals be heterosexual.
So, then, where is the discrimination in the law that covers ALL men and women, regardless whether they are heterosexual, or claim to be homosexual?
Nothing is stopping a homosexual man from marrying a heterosexual woman.
Nothing is stopping a homosexual man from marrying a homosexual woman.
Nothing is stopping a heterosexual man from marrying a heterosexual woman.
Nothing is stopping a heterosexual man from marrying a homosexual woman.
Nothing is stopping a homosexual woman from marrying a heterosexual man.
Nothing is stopping a homosexual woman from marrying a homosexual man.
Nothing is stopping a heterosexual woman from marrying a heterosexual man.
Nothing is stopping a heterosexual woman from marrying a homosexual man.
In other words, nothing stops any man from marrying a woman, and nothing stops any woman from marrying any man. All men have the same Rights, and all women have the same Rights.
This is equal protection.
hmmmn . . . I just have to comment on the complete inaneness . . . my apologies . . .
. . . anyone who continually posts over fifty times that gay marriage is legal and alive and well, for “a homosexual man can marry a homosexual woman” . . . well, hmmmn . . . he or she must speak from experience . . .
…==anyone who continually posts over fifty times that gay marriage is legal and alive and well, for “a homosexual man can marry a homosexual woman” . . . well, hmmmn . . . he or she must speak from experience . . .==
Why would anyone speak against homosexuality and be homosexual???? That would be a house divided.
==. . . anyone who continually posts over fifty times …==
Posting is invited, and I post in answer to others’ posts. THAT’s the way it’s supposed to work here, no? Or, maybe, you’re very worried that what I post is effective and that you have no substance to counter it.
Wow, nothing like a Prop 8 post to bring out some passion. Listen, my role here is to post on political and cultural issues and trends in the theatre industry from a conservative perspective. Not to debate religion or genetic/social influences on sexual identity. I made one bible reference here only to point out the misrepresentations made in the Marc Shaiman video.
In the video a religious figure says: “Jesus, the bible says these people are an abomination.”. This is demonstrably wrong. The bible refers to the act as an abomination. I understand that a retort from one side of this argument that I’ve seen about 10 times here is: “Show us where, in the Word of God, God says he will send the conduct to Hell and not the person.” This is a non-sequitor. I did not claim that people who perform the act are free of sin and I made no claim about their post-mortal destination. What I said was, the Bible does not call them an abomination.
The other response to that from the other side has been been along the lines of: “When I figure out how to gradually convert people who “love the sinner, hate the sin” to the right side without offending them, I will let you know…” I understand that when coming from a non-religious point of view, the triteness of “love the sinner, hate the sin” can be somewhat infuriating and insulting… but I don’t suggest that this point about calling the act an abomination versus calling a person an abomination is meant to relieve that feeling. My ONLY point is that it is a lie, it is wrong to put those words into the mouth of a “religious” character in this video, and it completely undermines the argument to paint your opponent in such a way.
This post is not about whether homosexuals are sinners, because technically, you can be a homosexual without ever performing an act, right? Otherwise, a virgin can’t be considered gay until they actually do something about their urges? That is illogical, wouldn’t you agree? Aren’t gay people gay even before they perform a sexual act with someone of the same sex?
This post is about the theatre industry being held hostage by the gay community. Try to be in the theatre and have any strong feelings about traditional families… ask Kristin Chenowith what happens when you are perceived as even being associated with groups that promote traditional families….. George Bush was wrongly accused of implying that if you didn’t agree with him, you were the enemy when he said “If you are not with us, you are with the enemy. ” But, the irony is that the liberal-left wing within the theatre industry truly DOES feel that if you are not 100% behind their agenda you actually are the enemy… ask Scott Eckern.
==a religious figure says: “Jesus, the bible says these people are an abomination.”. This is demonstrably wrong. The bible refers to the act as an abomination.==
And, yet, God condemns the actors.
==I did not claim that people who perform the act are free of sin and I made no claim about their post-mortal destination. What I said was, the Bible does not call them an abomination.==
Almost a distinction without a difference, or is it difference without a distinction.
If they are who and what they say they are, and that the proof of it is their conduct, then the abominable act proves that they are an abomination, no?
==you can be a homosexual without ever performing an act, right?==
Not likely.
Even if they can, they lust after another person. That lusting objectifies that other person. That is sin, too.
== Aren’t gay people gay even before they perform a sexual act with someone of the same sex?==
That’s what THEY say, huh, and, if we are going by what they say — that they claim to be homosexual but offer no proof other than saying so — we have to go with this, I guess.
Point 1: No, it is not a distinction without a difference… God does call some people an abomination, in this case, he does not, he refers to the act alone… and for a religious person to do so would be taking the name of God in vain, wouldn’t you agree?
Point 2: Yes, they may lust after a person, and you are right to call that a sin, but it is not an abomination, and it is a sin that every human being is guilty of at one time in his or her life, regardless of their gender or proclivity.
Point 3: But, this is a debate about public policy, not about a persons thoughts. How can the government provide protection or rights for a class of people based on what is in their minds? It can’t be done.
==God does call some people an abomination, in this case, he does not, he refers to the act alone… and for a religious person to do so would be taking the name of God in vain, wouldn’t you agree? ==
No. Anyway, I’m not a “religious” person.
==Yes, they may lust after a person, and you are right to call that a sin, but it is not an abomination, and it is a sin that every human being is guilty of at one time in his or her life, regardless of their gender or proclivity. ==
However, those who are born again are no longer guilty.
==this is a debate about public policy, not about a persons thoughts.==
Public policy, inevitably, can be traced back to persons’ thoughts.
== How can the government provide protection or rights for a class of people based on what is in their minds? It can’t be done.==
The inner dialogue, inevitably, translates into conduct.
Stage Right ~
Well since you’ve actually read and measured everything I’ve written, I’ve extended you the same respect. My only question for you now then is ….
If the Prop. 8 video had painted the religious figure more accurately, would that have made any real difference in your opinion of it? Is that glossed-over nuance representative of larger problems within the gay community? And, if so, what tactics should the gay community be taking, if it’s progress and enlightenment we seek in the society we live, just as the African-American community was striving for, particularly in the 1960’s?
==…what tactics should the gay community be taking, if it’s progress and enlightenment we seek in the society we live, just as the African-American community was striving for, particularly in the 1960’s?==
Not the same thing.
Race is an immutable, human characteristic.
Homosexuality is mutable cuz it comes about as the result of choice.
Regarding interracial marriage: The interracial couple conforms to God’s template for “marriage” — that is, a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife. Not so for the same-sex couple.
Ignorance is also a choice.
I meant ignorance is a choice.
Attmay – A sheynem dank
==I meant ignorance is a choice.==
I’m glad I chose not to be ignorant, and to understand what really is.
Give us the uncontradictable, unimpeachable line of scriptural thought that says you can be homosexual AND Christian.
==This post is not about whether homosexuals are sinners, because technically, you can be a homosexual without ever performing an act, right? ==
Pro 23:7 For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he…
Words lead to thoughts lead to conduct. So:
(Pro 18:21) Death and life are in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof.
“I think, therefore I am,” someone said.
So, thoughts are the most part, if not all of what the person is, or, in the case of those who claim to be homosexual, who, or what, the person SAYS he is. This is where the choice to go homosexual comes in. It’s an inner dialogue the thinker believes includes God’s voice even though the scoffer cannot possibly know God’s voice without reading the Word of God, according to His intention. The choice to go homosexual is the result of a corrupt, inner conversation, what the Word of God calls, “filthy conversation.”
Your use of Proverbs 23:7, completely out of context, is the kind of thing that gives religion and the use of the bible a bad name in some circles. And, in my opinion, this is a most glaring example of “Taking the Lord’s name in vain” because you are citing the word of God in a way so that it seems to validate your position in condemning a group of people, and yet, the actual context of God’s words does no such thing.
Here is one explanation: http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~cmadd01/thinketh.html
But, I suggest you “Google” ‘Proverbs 23:7, interpretation’ and you will see the error of your ways. Though, I do not expect humility or an apology from you based on the hubris you display in your comments.
==Your use of Proverbs 23:7, completely out of context…==
Of course it isn’t. We’re talking about whether what a person thinks is part of being a person, whether one can think/be “homosexual” and not be responsible, biblically-speaking. It’s one thing, biblically, to let a thought pass through, and it’s another to harbor it.
==… is the kind of thing that gives religion and the use of the bible a bad name in some circles.==
They give it a bad name, but I don’t give it a bad name.
== And, in my opinion…==
Romans 1:18
==… this is a most glaring example of “Taking the Lord’s name in vain”…==
Not quite.
==… because you are citing the word of God in a way…==
In your worldly opinion, remember.
==… so that it seems to validate your position in condemning a group of people…==
I condemn nobody. I merely report what the Word of God says about the subject.
==… and yet, the actual context of God’s words does no such thing.==
You don’t have to accept what the Word of God says. Your not accepting it doesn’t impact MY Salvation, and it doesn’t change what God says, that what we now call “homosexuality” is an abomination, that separation of iniquitous people from Him leaves them in Hell and that THEY will go to Hell, not their conduct, for their thinking is not separate from them, for, as they think, they are.
Another example of thinking making the person:
(Mat 5:28) But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
(Rom 1:27) And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
– that is, they thought about it, then acted. Their thoughts and behavior were THEM.
And, then…
(Jas 1:15) Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
==I do not expect humility or an apology from you based on the hubris you display in your comments.==
Romans 8:1
==…your position in condemning a group of people…==
Where’s the “condemnation”?
From: http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~cmadd01/thinketh.html
“Proverbs 23:7.
‘For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he: Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart is not with thee. ‘
This verse is usually used to teach that you are a product of your thinking; you become what you think. However, reading this verse in its context makes it clear that it is speaking about nothing of the sort.
Proverbs 23:6-8.
6 Eat thou not the bread of him that hath an evil eye, neither desire thou his dainty meats:
7 For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he: Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart is not with thee.
8 The morsel which thou hast eaten shalt thou vomit up, and lose thy sweet words.
This passage is talking about dealing with a man who has “an evil eye,” that is, a stingy man. The passage is talking about eating a stingy man’s food, but it also applies to borrowing a stingy man’s money, or borrowing his car. The warning in this passage is not to be deceived by his friendly attitude and his generous words. Instead, remember what kind of man you’re dealing with, and modify your behavior accordingly, because he’s keeping track of every little thing you’re getting from him, and he’s going to make sure that he gets every bit of it back, one way or another.
So what does this have to do with becoming what you think? Not a thing. This is a case where, because a verse sounds similar to something we believe or want to teach, we we don’t examine it too closely. Instead, we cite it as evidence and move on.”
————————————-
Yes, you took the verse COMPLETELY out of context and completely changed its meaning. The verse does NOT suggest that “a person is what they think”
I think much more of God than to think that a person’s thoughts are as abominable as his actions.
I have made two comments now about your mis-quoting and mis-representation of Proverbs to imply that it is a biblical teaching that a person’s thoughts are equally as sinful as their actions, and you have merely disagreed that you have mis-quoted instead of offering any kind of scholarly or third party evaluation of the text to validate your use of it (as I have). Since you refuse to acknowledge or address that very important and basic assault on your argument, then I think we should now agree to disagree and move on.
I expect you to want to have the last word, feel free, I won’t spend any more time replying.
==…you took the verse COMPLETELY out of context…==
No, I didn’t.
==… and completely changed its meaning.==
No, I didn’t.
== The verse does NOT suggest that “a person is what they think” ==
Yes, it does.
==I think much more of God than to think that a person’s thoughts are as abominable as his actions. ==
A person’s thoughts are words. His thoughts make him what he is because of his inner dialogue. His “talking to himself,” inevitably, translates into conduct.
==I have made two comments now about your mis-quoting and mis-representation of Proverbs to imply that it is a biblical teaching that a person’s thoughts are equally as sinful as their actions, and you have merely disagreed that you have mis-quoted instead of offering any kind of scholarly or third party evaluation of the text to validate your use of it (as I have). Since you refuse to acknowledge or address that very important and basic assault on your argument, then I think we should now agree to disagree and move on. ==
You go first.
==I expect you to want to have the last word, feel free, I won’t spend any more time replying.==
Gee, I’m crushed.
==…your position in condemning a group of people…==
So, where’s the “condemnation”?
Doesn’t Proverbs 23:7, even within a context, employ a principle that applies to everybody? If so, I didn’t take it outta context.
You must be logged in to post a comment.