Now I’m offended.
1. It wasn’t the grouping of being “black, a girl, or gay” (:00:12-:00:16) that did it. I understand what is being implied. I’m not sure that straight black men and women appreciate being grouped with gays. I hope to get an opinion or two from that demographic in the comments of this post.
2. It wasn’t the accusation that conservative religious folks wanted to change the constitution and “spread some hate…through proposition eight” (:00:28-:00:34). The peaceful and democratic process of gathering the conscience of a divided people at the polls in order to accurately tally and subsequently legislate the voice of the majority vote is substantially different in nature than spreading hate.
3. It wasn’t the out-of-context scripture quotes that broke me. (:01:04-:01:34). Both sides of the argument are guilty of dubious citations; and even if both had accurate interpretations, neither would win converts – because everyone knows that bible bashing only leads to more contention. However, the fact that holy cannon is deliberately misinterpreted for the purpose of discrediting all of it is proof of intent to incite ill will. Now reconsider paragraph two (above this one) and try to figure out who is spreading hate. Is it the straights with their votes or the gays with their misquotes?
4. Finally, it wasn’t Jack Black (actor Thomas Jacob) portraying a Jesus that disavows scripture that got to me. In fact, I was pleased to see precision in casting a Jew for the part. Sadly, his acting was so boorish as to make me wonder if this was his ”first read” through the script. All things considered, his participation in Prop 8 The Musical entitles him to a seat next to Tom Hanks on the Anderson list of actors/directors/producers never to be patronized or in any other way supported. This decree applies to all who played a part in this play.
Here is what insulted me:
The skit suggests that everyone can agree if they look at it economically. Nonsense. Do sterile seeds produce any yield? Why would any group draw attention to its greatest weakness? Gay communities are parasitic to reproductive communities. There is no long term economic advantage or common ground whatsoever here. Why promote such a divisive and easily defeated issue? It’s not funny; it’s absurd, and it invents a financial fallacy suited only for fools. Frankly, this flick is a flamboyant flop. Star studded or not, the names affiliated with it will lose value faster than the dumpster-diving U.S. Dollar.
Clearly, not a single soul involved with this production has any financial common sense. How is it that nobody realized that the pivotal moment is based on the most preposterous economic notion of the century? The creator of this micro-musical insults my intelligence and reveals his/her excruciatingly embarrassing ignorance while simultaneously delivering a devastating blow to the plot.
Here is my advice to those inclined toward the gay agenda. Steer clear of financial issues. You have more in common with fundamental Christians than financiers. You’ll get more sympathy there too. While gays have stable rental values during their significantly lower lifespans, they only produce in the moment, but they leave no legacy or rent-heirs (just made that word up).
Think of it this way, what is the fertility rate of a gay population? Got the answer? Good. It is because of that generationally negative factor that governments and banks and churches prefer the traditional marriage and family. Remember, children – the product of a reproductive population, are the future tax base, defenders & growth components of every country. They are assets, not liabilities.
Some suggest that our country should not focus on new families. The author whole-hardheartedly agrees. Our country doesn’t need to focus on raising new families – especially the self-serving, short-sighted, two-person (and one canine) variety. It should focus on the traditional family because secure, long-term societal and economic growth cannot occur via the gay structure. In fact, if our global population went gay, mankind would become extinct in one generation.
If you think that is far fetched, consider that global population growth in 1967 was increasing at 2.2% annually. In 2002, that figured dropped nearly 50% to 1.2% globally. For additional consideration, what is the cure for negative/declining population figures in Japan and Germany? More gays? (rhetorical).
What to do with gays? Consider the Spartans. An army of amazing gay warriors who conquered lands and left those lands to the traditional family. Cool huh? That way there are no mourning widows or sobbing children because no fathers were killed during the battle – just a bunch of dead gay men. Sure their parents will be hurt, but heck, they were already in pain for the gay choice, which is a dead end/no grandchildren proposition, so it really shouldn’t hurt THAT much.
Post a Comment