Friday, December 5, 2008

"Prop 8 - The Musical"

Watch this video:
"Prop 8 - The Musical"

That's right, if you don't support gay marriage you're an ignorant bigot who spreads hate and deprives people of their basic human rights. If Jack Black and NPH sing it in a musical, it must be true!

*End of Sarcasm*

You have a right to be with whomever you want.
You have a right to love whomever you want.
You do not have a right to force people to accept your love.
You do not have a right to tax cuts and state funded benefits if the people paying for those tax cuts and benefits don't want to give them to you.
You do not have a right to change definitions of religious terms unless those who follow that religion consent.

Prop 8 is not hateful and those who supported it are not ignorant. Liberals just need people to believe otherwise. The citizens of each state get to vote on whether or not they want to include gay couples within their state's definition of "marriage" because being "married" entails state-funded benefits. These benefits are NOT rights, and they are divvied at the discretion of the people who fund them (ie. citizens) via a popular vote. That’s how taxation works folks.

This entire issue is NOT a gay "rights" issue. It's a pissing match over privileges and an attempt to strong arm our culture into a particular way of thinking. Gays aren't being denied any “rights” that are otherwise guaranteed them in the constitution, the bill of rights, or the rest of the constitutional amendments.

What people have to understand about these debates is that, as we've discussed on this blog before, liberals have a monopoly on academia. Therefore, they usually also have a monopoly on coining the terms of the debate which, in turn, frames the debate in their favor. Therefore, liberals refer to this debate as an issue of "gay rights." If everyone refers to this issue as the argument of "gay rights," liberals have already won the battle. It's a pretty straight forward method of manipulation.

There is no "right" which gays are being denied, and so calling this debate a debate over "gay rights" is nothing more than a liberal attempt to create a straw man argument.

The knee jerk emotional response to my stance is that I'm merely "spreading hate," like this video suggests. It’s odd how liberals support free speech unless it opposes them... then it's "hate speech". But just in case my motives get confused, here is my stance on what needs to be done with gay marriage:

The genetic difference between a female human and a male human is minuscule. When the human fetus is forming it develops in a variety of ways. Certainly we can point to some men who are "manlier" than others, and some women who are "more feminine." There's a wide spectrum of gender related characteristics, not exclusive from this spectrum is sexual preference. What I take from this is that there are men born with a sexual preference for men, and women for women, and men for women, and women for men. It's not hard to imagine that the genetic development of a person's brain, hormones, and/or DNA might deviate from the norm relative to their physical body. I mean, men are born with high voices all the time, why is it not then possible for a man to be born with a sexual preference for men?

Just as there are people who are born with their sexual preference, I think that because sexual preference does very on a spectrum, there most definitely ARE people who fall in the middle of that spectrum (they often call themselves bisexual). These people in the middle of the spectrum DO have a choice over with whom they have relations.

That said, I think that a divergence in sexual preference from the genetic norm should be addressed like any other “sin” which follows a defection from genetic norms. Our society has already decided that we will not issue capital punishment for the “criminally insane,” so why then would we punish the “sexually insane?”

It seems to me that homosexuality is an unnatural act but not one which directly affects others (if you exclude the role gays played in the spreading of HIV in America). Therefore, there appears to me to be no real reason to punish gays though it is entirely up to each state as to whether or not same relations couples will be included in the benefits wielded to state-recognized unions. It is also up to each religion as to whether or not homosexuality will be accepted within their ranks (the Bible suggests that all sins are equal and that homosexuality is a sin - but then again I don't take the Bible literally so take from that what you will).

I do think that the American government needs to do a few things:
1) Distinguish between couple's benefits and couple's rights. Those things that are rights ought to also be guaranteed to gay couples, those things which are benefits are subject to popular vote (regarding who receives said benefits [ie. taxes])

2) Cease the process by which churches are involved in the official civil union process. A "civil union" should be nothing more than a state-recognized union of a couple which entails all the benefits that come along with such a union. A "marriage" is a religious institution, and ought have no baring whatsoever on matters of the state. This means that straight couples would have to apply for a civil union license through the state (which they already do) and then have their union approved by a state official (and not a priest, preacher, or religious figure). This would make them a civil union. If they want to be "married" they would handle that exclusively through their respective church. "Civil unions" and their benefits would be defined by popular vote (keeping in mind that the public could not/ should not vote on those things previously determined to be couples' rights).

An example of a couples' right might be the right to be considered a spouse during hospital visitation hours.
An example of a benefit would be tax breaks given to state-recognized civil unions.

I generally distinguish a benefit from a right through the understanding that rights are those things which are guaranteed to all American citizens (which generally do not affect others) and benefits are those things which are not guaranteed and generally given through the permission of a third party (in this instance, the third party is the popular vote of the state concerned). You get the idea.

To me, this appears to be the fairest middle ground on the gay debate. But it's hard to believe that either political party truly wants the issue to be settled because both parties risk a reduction in voter base should they relinquish this major hot-button issue.

Many Christians, conservatives, and Republicans generally agree with my stance. Those who adhere to the reasoning I cited above would, should and did support proposition 8 - not because of “hate” as this video claims, but out of a utilitarian interest for their communities. Americans have that right you know – to vote their opinion on matters like this? Gays on the other hand, do not have the right to have their union called a “marriage." One's a right, one isn't. See the difference?

And if you want to talk about hate, here are two recent post-proposition 8 events that might get the hair on your neck to stand on end:


Notice the news anchor says there's a lot of anger and hate coming from "both sides." I didn't see the elderly woman pushing anyone, stomping on their property, screaming in their face, or sticking hands or objects in their face. Did you?





These attacks are examples of real hate. Voting for a proposition is not, unto itself, a hateful action. There's only one side of this debate which has been projecting hate and it isn't the conservatives - despite what Jack Black and his Hollywood buddies would have you believe.

Hollywood actors generally have no skill to speak of outside of acting. Most have no education beyond high school or any credible sense of the real world. They live in their rich, isolated Hollywood bubbles and think that because they have no worries in their wealthy secular universe, that the rest of the country should follow suit. And America listens to the opinions of these often drug addicted, rich, relatively uneducated, unilaterally-skilled, and secular buffoons simply because they’re entertaining. Meanwhile, anyone in Hollywood who shows a sliver of conservatism is blacklisted.

Now, I don’t feel that this Jack Black musical adequately accounted for conservative opinion; do you? On the contrary, conservatives were portrayed as ignorant, bible-thumping, hateful, slick and sheltered simpletons.

Videos like this are exactly how Hollywood, the mainstream news media and the music industry influence thought. They entertain you and then they subvert your logic by appealing to your emotional inclinations.

There’s an old adage in PR: “Every clip matters.” This sentiment suggests that every media mention matters because each one affects public opinion to some degree. Each clip (or mention) unto itself is relatively harmless, but when these mentions go unaddressed by opposing opinion, they create a cumulative influence of general social understanding which becomes virtually impossible to reverse.

People watch things like this Prop. 8 Music Video for its entertainment value, unaware that they are being manipulated. Don’t fall for it folks. Identify these manipulative efforts and confront them directly.

2 comments:

Mark said...

Great post, man. You really nailed it, and I appreciate the intelligent perspective you put out there

Aaron X said...

Proposition 8 Protest St. Louis, MO (11-15-08)

Conservative Brawler's Archive

Brawler's Search