See more funny videos at Funny or Die
That petition link is Protect Marriage, Protect Children, Prohibit Divorce
And if you haven't already seen the fabulous Prop-8 musical, you've really been missing something... (Like my new buddy Ben, I'm dedicating the video below to [that guy] & his growing collection of sycophants, theocrats, & especially his sycophantic theocrats.)
See more Jack Black videos at Funny or Die
.gif)
11 comments:
The funny part about the first video is that some of the American Powerlings would probably line right up behind that. "Cause the Bible tells me so."
I saw the divorce one last night. Funny stuff but my wife thought the last dig was one too many.
Well, some might, but certainly not the two who commented on this very subject over there when I (well, "my buddy" Sully really, as quoted by Nero) brought it up about 2 weeks ago...
Tom the Redhunter sez:
"er, nowhere in the Bible is divorce absolutely forbidden."
Grace Explosion sez:
"God does recognize divorce from my point of view. I think we must honor individual conscience regarding divorce and remarriage."
(More at the links)
Amazingly (or not so much) they found the Biblical loopholes that allowed them to keep their divorces (In Grace's case that's literal. She actually is a divorced mom, if I recall her words correctly.)
Children need two parents, unless/until it interferes with mommy & daddy's divorce, then all bets are off, and Jesus understands and forgives...
My only problem with the divorce video is that I don't think it actually is all that funny, and the last line is the least funny of all. Maybe that line does give it a little too much punch in the gut, but as long as I forgive/forget that it came from a humor troupe & a humor site, I'm fine with even that...
On the other hand, I could also see cutting off the video before explaining that the words were all right from the "Yes on 8" propaganda... It might've been interesting to see how some of those folks would attack their very own message regurgitated back at 'em...
On that third hand (you folks all have three hands, don't you?), it was good the way it was, too...
I am personally against Gay marriage, but really don't have a problem with civil unions. It could prove to be a free-market rainbow wonderland. However, I will not have the tradition of marriage redefined so a special interest group can make everybody 'feel good' about themselves. This is as obscene as the incursions by the NRA and other powerful lobbying and special interest groups. They, meaning special interest groups, are a legal cancer that should be abolished.
If the Homosexual community feels that they need their identities validated by a foray of the Federal Government into the realm of morality, they are fools. There is an easy fix and California actually did the right thing with it. Let the state's community decide. If the flow of thought changes in the next 10-15 years Gays will be allowed to marry. If not, oh well, but keep fighting.
Nevertheless all the crying, whining, name calling, and aggressive protesting is not accomplishing except alienating them and their casue. Not exactly what I would call a recipe for success in the future.
-Jack Booted Conservative
As I've said ad nauseum elsewhere (here, here, a slew of comments among the stuff posted here), I believe marriage is/should be a religious thing, rather than a legal thing...
Morality too, is in the eye of the beholder, and the government should stay out of that as much as possible. I'm not all that interested in having others dictate what is & isn't right for me, or dictating to others what is & isn't right for them.
For me, this issue is all about the legal rights, and as long as the religious term of "marriage" is written into the law (where it never should've been, if you ask me) and determines those legal rights for a class of citizens, I'll be in favor of gay marriage. When we finally wise up & remove a term that defines a religious sacrament from US law, thereby letting the sacred be sacred & the secular be secular, I'll fight just as hard against any wackos who want to sue churches to force them to officiate over gay weddings against the tenets of the faith.
Marriage is a sacred rite.
Civil Union is a legal right.
As far as I'm concerned, there is no one tradition of marriage, anyway... Like picking & choosing from among the Bible passages we prefer to follow today, the tradition of marriage is no more or less than what folks want to define it as...
It is a relationship based on mutual love, except that it used to be arranged by one's parents, and often one did not meet one's spouse until very close to the wedding day.
It consists of one man & one woman, except that it often used to consist of one man & several women, and still does in some cultures.
It's main purpose was for procreation, except when it's main purpose was to form treaties & alliances between nations (among the wealthy & powerful) or as a barter for goods & money (among the lower classes.)
We follow the traditions we deem appropriate & worthy, & discard the ones we don't, and then claim we're standing up for "tradition," as though all traditions are worthy on their face...
Traditional marriage & the gender & societal roles involved in it have been redefined & reshaped continually over time & place, and will continue to be as long as we humans and the societies in which we live continue to evolve.
While I'm no fan of the money often involved in government lobbying, I've come to see the definition of "special interest group" as "a group fighting for rights & interests I already have, or do not want, need or care about, myself." While I'm as egocentric as the next guy--& moreso than many, as bloggers tend to be--the issue advocacy that meets my needs won't meet everyone else's needs, and that others have interests I do not have. I have no problem with folks getting together & advocating for the causes that affect them, be they gay people, gun owners, or gay gun owners.
I don't believe the people of CA did the correct thing. I don't believe we Americans can or should put the rights of any minority group to a majority vote. We are a constitutional republic, and not a democracy, to protect the rights of the less powerful from the more powerful, and this "vote" is a perfect example of why... (Imagine holding a popular vote on the rights of any other minority group over the years... Should we or should we not integrate schools? Should we or should we not allow women to vote? Should we or should we not incarcerate all Japanese-Americans during WWII?) There is a reason these things are decided by law, rather than by popular will... (& obviously, even law can get it wrong, sometimes...)
I agree that aggressive protesting isn't the way to go, but I also believe it is foolish to define any group by it's worst & weakest members... There are many anti-abortionists, but only a very few bomb clinics or shoot doctors for the cause... For the most part, protest does it's job, by making others consider the issues & see the people affected by them. As a person in favor of gay rights, I'm not all that worried about their alienating all that many open minds on the subject...
Repsac,
Admittedly, my own personal form of Conservatism is based on "Free Born or Natural Rights." However that is counterbalanced by the binding social contracts (The Law) that we adhere to as nation.
Natural Rights are usually defined as "the rule and measure of human acts is the reason, which is the first principle of human acts"
-Thomas Aquainas
(Yeah, I know a theologian, however, he was a brilliant philosopher and scholar.)
Our natural rights from which our liberty is derived is based on the concept of reason and those things which are natural to our physical state. Homosexual behavior, from a scientific viewpoint, a moral viewpoint, and a natural viewpoint, is not a normally occurring event. Therefore defining them as a minority group based on the "act of sodomy" or "sexual love for a person of the same sex" is quite erroneous. How that equals "enlightened thought" is beyond me. It sounds more like a feel good policy.
Making a comparison of the Homosexual movement to the Civil Rights movement (I understand you did not), which is becoming more popular these days. It is at best a sickly comparison. The plight of the Black community DEMANDED, to be altered because their suffering was based on slavery and a broken contract with the government (The defense of their rights by the Constitution was not enforced.)There is nothing in tradition or pragmatic thought that can be applied to the Homosexual plight of marriage. It does not fit the mold of natural rights therefore is not a violation of personal liberties in a non-Libertarian fashion.
Federal versus State intervention on the topic is another post and unfortunately I do not have the time right now to cover that. But I will give my thoughts on it later, if you are interested.
Repsac,
I forgot to say thank you for your thoughtful response. Quite an interesting take on the issue.
Homosexual behavior, from a scientific viewpoint, a moral viewpoint, and a natural viewpoint, is not a normally occurring event.
I'm not certain what you mean by a "normally occurring event," in that to me, a normal event is only what most do or are, and doesn't account for the exceptions to every rule. In other words, most of us are of average (normal) intelligence, but that does not mean we can or should discriminate against the genius or the idiot for being outside of that "normal" range. Just because most of us are right-handed, or enjoy eating broccoli, or have a particular skin color... ... Catch my meaning? (If I'm misunderstanding--which is likely--please explain further.)
As to nature & science, a quick google says that, while not "normal" behavior, there is a surprisingly large amount of homosexual behavior in animals.
Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate
Homosexuality in Nature
(Try it yourself, for more...)
Besides, are we humans not a part of nature?
Morality, as I said earlier, is best left to the individual & his God &/or his reason. As far as I'm concerned, once consent between the pair isn't an issue, it ain't nobody's business what they do or who they love, particularly the government's.
Therefore defining them as a minority group based on the "act of sodomy" or "sexual love for a person of the same sex" is quite erroneous.
Even assuming you were correct about a lack of "naturally-occurring" homosexuality, I don't see how the rest follows...
Take religion, for example, which is also not a naturally occurring or innate phenomenon. I am a Unitarian Universalist. There aren't many of us here, relatively speaking. If folks who aren't UU''s decided to get together & vote as to whether UU's could marry, or had the same right to worship as all those "major" religions, I'm willing to bet most would view us as a minority, and in need of protection from the tyranny of the majority.
Supposing it wasn't gay folks or UU's who couldn't marry, but auto workers, or bloggers, or any of the many other non-innate "groups" we add ourselves to, based on the choices we make in our lives.
I'm sorry, CT, but even on that score, I do not agree... Even if being gay was learned or chosen rather than innate, neither the choices we make or any lack of "normalcy" preclude minority status or the need for minority protection against majoritarianism.
How that equals "enlightened thought" is beyond me. It sounds more like a feel good policy.
Never really understood why some use that phrase, as though there's something wrong with feeling good. As far as I'm concerned, when something feels good, there is often a very good (logical, spiritual, or natural) reason why...
Making a comparison of the Homosexual movement to the Civil Rights movement (I understand you did not), which is becoming more popular these days.
Actually, there are several times where I have made that comparison (here, for example:Is there a right to marry whomever one wishes?), and I'm not ashamed to say so.
I've taken great pains to explain that the homosexual rights movement isn't the SAME as the civil rights movement, either in specific causes or the treatment of the minority parties, but I believe the foundations underlying both (along with every other "rights" movement in this country throughout our history) are the same; constitutional guarantees of inalienable rights set forth in our founding documents.
The plight of the Black community DEMANDED, to be altered because their suffering was based on slavery and a broken contract with the government (The defense of their rights by the Constitution was not enforced.) There is nothing in tradition or pragmatic thought that can be applied to the Homosexual plight of marriage. It does not fit the mold of natural rights therefore is not a violation of personal liberties in a non-Libertarian fashion.
That the plight of the black community was based on slavery did make it more emotionally stirring and more necessary to right, but I disagree that all other "plights for rights" should therefore be judged against that of black americans, and be found wanting on the basis that none is as bad as was theirs.
Anytime a minority group is not receiving equal treatment under the law on the basis of their minority status, it is a break with our Constitutional contract, and even if not as desperate or demanding as the plight of black Americans was, EVERY break with that contract needs to be righted if America is to live up to it's ideals and it's promise.
Laws that say "You cannot _____ because you are a _____." need to be in accord with our federal & state constitutions, whether we fill those blanks with "drink from certain water fountains", "marry", "vote" or "pray"; and "African American", "homosexual", "woman" or "Catholic" (or for that matter, what order we put them in).
"normally occurring event"
Quite simple in biological terms; each aperture, orifice, or appendage of the human body has a " proper usage. If it is used for something other than that that is a deviance form its original purpose and constitutes not a normally occurring event." Therefore is not natural.
This can applied to heterosexuals also. Does this mean we all take the puritan stance of missionary only and sex is only for procreation? No, that would be ridiculous.
What two CONSENTING ADULTS do in their own home is their business as far as I am concerned. If this is some sort of "sin" it is their burden to carry and not for me to judge.
However, if this is not a normally occurring event then how can someone claim prejudice or discrimination based on a deviated form of sexual orientation? (Let me make something clear, I do not use deviated in the protracted sense of abomination or sickness.) This would be like me claiming that the government is oppressing me because I like certain sexual heterosexual acts that are considered deviant. Then I demand minority status because of it. I would be laughed out of court.
Where the homosexual community does have a point is with violence used against them. That is the most basic and egregious infringement of anyone's civil rights. This is a concept that should be across the board. Regardless of race, creed, religion, or color.
As far as the animal reference, c'mon, you can do better than that. You seem intelligent and well informed.
There is no offense meant in this, but the links you provided are hardly a refutation of my arguments about Natural Rights. You have completely ignored half of the debate and that is reason. Animals are driven by instinct, we are driven by instinct and choice. Plus their deviations from the natural model actually only reinforces my point.
However exploring most of the evidence presented it is at best unreliable as pointed out in the wiki entry. The suppositions there gives rise to two points 1) It is about dominance (I.E. Prison Sex) 2)Strengthening social ties. However, this does not explain this behavior solitary animals.
Then there is also evidence of cross species sexual involvement. Does this mean by applying this anecdotal evidence that we should allow people who like to hump trees minority status? Afterall no one is getting hurt, the tree isn't conscious and humping it doesn't harm the environment. If further research is done I am sure we might even find it might help cool the world.
Sarcasm off, do you see my point? Although one might say I have just refuted my own scientific argument. There are certain absolutes, not all, but some. And the usages of most of the human body, minus certain extenuating circumstances, are examples of those absolutes.
With that final thought in mind, I am not trying to change anyone's mind here. This is just simply how I derived my conclusions based on my logic. There is no screaming from the pulpit or populism. It is simply how I feel as an individual. Thank you for plodding through my dissertation and I apologize about eating up your bandwidth. If I post here again it will be kept much shorter in the future.
-Wingnut-at-Large :)
Let me say at the outset that I believe homosexuality is more than simply a matter of how two bodies get together or fit together. Just as heterosexual relationships consist of far more than body parts & angles of attack, so do homosexual relationships. I believe it demeans the humanity of gay folks to believe that it is their methods of lovemaking alone that defines them.
Quite simple in biological terms; each aperture, orifice, or appendage of the human body has a " proper usage. If it is used for something other than that that is a deviance from its original purpose and constitutes not a normally occurring event." Therefore is not natural.
I understand what you're saying, I guess, but I really don't buy into it. Who is it who determines what is or isn't a body part's "proper usage" or "original purpose?" As man was evolving from pre-verbal to verbal, was his grunting an improper usage of those body parts that make it possible, because they'd never been used that way before, & thus it wasn't "normal?" When the first person to do so caught something thrown at him, or realized he could juggle three objects, or hit animal skins stretched over hollow wood bowls to make pleasing sounds, were these proper uses of his hands, or deviations from the norm up to that time?
We control our body parts; they do not control us, or of themselves dictate what does or does not constitute their proper usage. Our minds are in charge for a reason.
This can applied to heterosexuals also. Does this mean we all take the puritan stance of missionary only and sex is only for procreation? No, that would be ridiculous.
I agree that that is ridiculous, but I fail to understand why you believe that taking a stance against homosexual acts is any less ridiculous than a stance against any given heterosexual acts (particularly any that can be performed by either heterosexuals or homosexuals), based on your "proper use of body parts" theory. If one believes that THAT isn't supposed to go THERE, it's wrong, no matter the gender of the folks putting THAT THERE.
You're welcome to believe it, but I just don't buy it, and cannot accept it as a reason to deny rights to homosexuals.
What two CONSENTING ADULTS do in their own home is their business as far as I am concerned. If this is some sort of "sin" it is their burden to carry and not for me to judge.
However, if this is not a normally occurring event then how can someone claim prejudice or discrimination based on a deviated form of sexual orientation? (Let me make something clear, I do not use deviated in the protracted sense of abomination or sickness.) This would be like me claiming that the government is oppressing me because I like certain sexual heterosexual acts that are considered deviant. Then I demand minority status because of it. I would be laughed out of court.
I suppose the reaction of those in the courtroom would depend on whether or not you were being oppressed based on those behaviors... If US or state law denied marriage to every person who was a regular party to oral sex, for example, I would guess you'd feel differently, even if such a law would not personally affect you.
Besides that, we seem to have a different interpretation of rights & privileges, here... I start from the assumption that we, the people have all the rights, and the state must show good cause to remove them. You seem to be arguing as though you believe the state grants our rights, and the people must show that they deserve them (in this case by exhibiting "normal" behavior) in order to receive them. Rather than asking why homosexuals should be allowed to marry, based on their "deviant" behavior, I think you should be asking whether there's anything about their behavior that gives the government the right to withhold marriage from them.
Where the homosexual community does have a point is with violence used against them. That is the most basic and egregious infringement of anyone's civil rights. This is a concept that should be across the board. Regardless of race, creed, religion, or color.
I feel the same about all rights, even those whose betrayal does not lead to violence...
As far as the animal reference, c'mon, you can do better than that. You seem intelligent and well informed.
There is no offense meant in this, but the links you provided are hardly a refutation of my arguments about Natural Rights. You have completely ignored half of the debate and that is reason. Animals are driven by instinct, we are driven by instinct and choice.
I guess I didn't understand your Natural Rights argument, then...
It seemed to me that by saying Our natural rights from which our liberty is derived is based on the concept of reason and those things which are natural to our physical state. Homosexual behavior, from a scientific viewpoint, a moral viewpoint, and a natural viewpoint, is not a normally occurring event., you were in part saying that homosexuality doesn't occur in nature, and therefore is not a natural right. In fact, homosexuality does occur in nature, so I was curious as to whether whether the reverse was also true. (If homosexuality does occur in nature, does that mean it is a natural right?) ((Personally, I don't buy either premise. Homosexuality occurs among man. That's all I need to know.))
As far as reason, I felt that the whole of the conversation aside our foray into homosexuality in the animal kingdom addresses that aspect. I see nothing in reason that condones denying rights to homosexuals, either.
In fact, I feel I'm making a more impassioned plea for natural (that is innate, or God given) rights than you are. As I said above, my whole argument is based on the idea that homosexuals are endowed with the same rights as the rest of us, and we, as individuals or as a government, have to show cause before denying those rights based on who they choose to love or have sex with.
Plus their deviations from the natural model actually only reinforces my point.
How so?
Then there is also evidence of cross species sexual involvement. Does this mean by applying this anecdotal evidence that we should allow people who like to hump trees minority status? Afterall no one is getting hurt, the tree isn't conscious and humping it doesn't harm the environment. If further research is done I am sure we might even find it might help cool the world.
Again, I'm wondering whether you were actually appealing to evidence in that natural world in your comment from last time. I thought you were, which is why I provided the links I did. If you were not, I obviously misunderstood... (I wonder because, If you were, you're comment here would best be reflected back on you...) That said...
I would say that if someone enjoys humping trees, it isn't that he deserves minority status on that basis, but that we don't deny him the same rights as he & everyone else was born with & enjoys strictly because of his strange method of gratification, either. What he & a white oak do in the privacy of his own arboretum is their business as far as I am concerned. If this is some sort of "sin" it is their burden to carry and not for me to judge. I would further say, it is not our business as individuals OR as a government. And that is my point about homosexuality, as well.
Sarcasm off, do you see my point?
I'd venture to guess that at this point, you're answering that question "no, he didn't." So be it.
Although one might say I have just refuted my own scientific argument. There are certain absolutes, not all, but some. And the usages of most of the human body, minus certain extenuating circumstances, are examples of those absolutes.
I just don't buy that, for the reasons I outlined above. I just don't. I think we were given the minds we have to constantly expand our mental & physical capabilities, and I find nothing innately moral/immoral, or proper/improper about any possible body part use. That comes later, with our ability to reason & to judge, and I agree that there are immoral & improper acts... I simply don't agree that an act is immoral or improper because someone or other determined that the body part in question wasn't designed to do that.
With that final thought in mind, I am not trying to change anyone's mind here. This is just simply how I derived my conclusions based on my logic. There is no screaming from the pulpit or populism. It is simply how I feel as an individual.
I have no issue with personal beliefs, until they become mandates for others. If homosexuality (or eating shellfish, or sunbathing naked, or wearing white after Labor Day) is immoral or illogical for you (not you in particular, but the universal "you"), I invite you to not partake of those things. But when you pass laws that say no one can partake of those things because they are immoral or illogical to you, expect an argument from me (and by me, I do mean me.)
Here in America (& i'd argue, everywhere else, too) we, the people are presumed to have inalienable rights, and should never allow the government (or any other mob mentality) to deny those rights without showing causes that apply to everyone equally. No one has done so to my satisfaction in the case of gay marriage, so I will continue to argue in it's favor.
Thank you for plodding through my dissertation and I apologize about eating up your bandwidth. If I post here again it will be kept much shorter in the future.
No need sir... Discussions like this are what the blog is here for... Use as many words as you deem necessary to say what you have to say...
Post a Comment