Home > Humor, Movies & Television > Prop 8: The Musical

Prop 8: The Musical

3rd Dec 08 (Wed) Leave a comment Go to comments

All the buzz today on my RSS feeder… then I finally watched it and saw why there was such a buzz…

Written (by Marc Shaiman) in one day, recorded the music the next day, and shot in a day… here is Prop 8: The Musical featuring Jack Black (as Jesus) with Neil Patrick Harris, John C. Reilly, Andy Richter, Maya Rudolph, Margaret Cho, Rashida Jones and others:

(click pic goes to the funnyordie.com exclusive video)

~Dan – np: Hotel LightsFirecracker People

Advertisements
  1. rubyeliot
    4th Dec 08 (Thu) at 1:40 am

    it’s really actually embarrassing i think. it’s overflowing with straight up fallacies.

    ex: we should vote for gay marriage because it will bring lots of money into CA?

    this isn’t even true. not in the long run. at least that’s what the CA voter guide said during the election.

    the movie is pointless. it shows that he wrote it one day.

  2. 4th Dec 08 (Thu) at 7:05 am

    The end (re: economic benefits) is a little ridiculous, I agree. Neil Patrick Harris’ over-the-top delivery makes it enjoyable for me, at least.

    Overall, though… I found the little musical to be a fun & entertaining way to protest the outcome of the Prop 8 issue.

    “You pick and choose…”

  3. Nathan Ketchen
    4th Dec 08 (Thu) at 12:15 pm

    The “you pick and choose” thing is referring to Levitical laws that were abbrogated by Christ’s coming. The distinction between clean and unclean as it was for the ceremonial law is no more in the New Covenant context. That’s why Paul says in Galatians that there is now neither Jew nor Greek, slave or free, male or female, but all are one in Christ Jesus.

    When it comes to the moral law, there is nothing abbrogated. The moral law stands as inviolable in the New Covenant. For us to call good what God calls evil is dumb.

    A man who wants to put his penis into another man’s butt has some serious problems. Telling him that it’s okay to do that makes things worse, not better, by pushing him deeper into the slavery of his flesh.

  4. 4th Dec 08 (Thu) at 1:40 pm

    You have the right to that opinion… howver, I’ll leave it at the U.S. is not a Christian Nation.

  5. rubyeliot
    4th Dec 08 (Thu) at 1:47 pm

    the u.s. may not be a christian nation, but the video doesn’t really achieve any other purpose than to protest the outcome by spreading more hate. if there were good reasons behind the humor (as in smart), then it would be funny.

    i think it is detrimental to its cause.

  6. 4th Dec 08 (Thu) at 6:04 pm

    Being frustrated that christians (and other religious) don’t want to allow gays to marry and make a mini-musical about it somehow spreads hate? hmm. I don’t follow.

  7. 5th Dec 08 (Fri) at 7:04 am

    Dan. Gay people will destroy the world with there Gay ways. It is a fact of life. I mean letting 2 people that love each other get married is just wrong!!!!!!! It will undermine the 48 percent of straight people that don’t get divorced!!!!! Ridiculous. One of the many reasons I stopped going to church.

  8. Nathan Ketchen
    5th Dec 08 (Fri) at 8:53 am

    You’re right to say that this is not a Christian nation. This parody, however, is suggesting that it’s because of those evil hypoctritical Christians who just want to ruin everybody’s party that Pop 8 passed. The parody makes this a religious debate, so I respond in those same terms.

    Prop 8 actually passed because of so many black voters coming to vote for Obama, and I would venture to say that they were not thinking in terms of religion when they voted the way they did. Blacks don’t like homosexuality. Using similar logic to yours, for you to be against prop 8 makes you racist since blacks voted for it. Ridiculous, indeed.

  9. 5th Dec 08 (Fri) at 9:37 am

    I made no racist comments. People who don’t want other people to be happy and enjoy the same types of benefits as others has nothing to do with race. The vote outcome is an abomination to equal human rights, no matter what demographic of people voted. Saying that Obama won primarily due to African Americans voting for him is quite an ignorant/borderline racist thing to say.

    As far as the parody turning this into a religious debate… um… NO. It was a religious debate far earlier. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints sent $20 million for California “yes on prop 8” efforts. $20 Million from out of the state. $20 Million. Yeah, this 3-minute parody didn’t turn it into a religious debate. It already was one.

    Regarding the vote… I guess a good thing (IMO) from an equal human rights campaign standpoint: the margin of loss is coming down. I think it was 8 years ago that it lost by 20% or more. This time it was in the 5% margin.

  10. waltzinexile
    5th Dec 08 (Fri) at 11:10 pm

    I don’t think Mr. Ketchen actually understands much about stats…

  11. Nathan Ketchen
    9th Dec 08 (Tue) at 10:03 am

    Okay. So I didn’t know the Mormons had done so much. The parody doesn’t seem to be about Mormons, though. I admittedly don’t know much about the stats in this vote.

    I never said Obama won because of the black vote. I don’t think that, and am not racist. I was trying to make a point about your use of logic.

    What I mean by that is this: You say that my opinion of the Bible doesn’t matter becaue this is not a Christian nation. That is not logical at all. It does not follow. One thing has nothing to do with another. Besides that, I am a trained theologian. My “opinion” ought to count for something when it comes to the Bible, right? (granted, not very much, since I’ve only just been ordained).

    “You pick and choose.” is used to attack the Christians, or whatever religious group depicted here, and I was pointing out that the accusation is a blind error. It shows woeful ignorance of the Bible. You just dismiss me as if I’m some biggotted idiot who has no idea what I’m talking about, and your reason is that this is not a Christian nation. So I was trying (maybe unsuccessfully) to give you a taste of your own (flawed logic) medicine. I’ll try it again:

    Obama brought out the black vote (that doesn’t mean he won because of them, or that I am racist, it just states a fact). Blacks voted overwhelmingly in favor of prop 8 ( I read that in an article somewhere, can’t remember where). You think people who voted in favor of prop 8 are biggotted idiots who cling to some religion. Therefore you think blacks are biggotted idiots. You are a racist.

    Follow my logic? Now, of course I do not really think you are racist. I’m using messed up logic to attack you the way you use messed up logic to attack me. That seems pretty fair to me.

    • 9th Dec 08 (Tue) at 3:58 pm

      Your opinion does count. Every person’s opinion should count. But I think trying to legislate one’s religious beliefs on people who don’t hold those same beliefs in a specifically secular nation is an error in judgment when it comes to your “safe boundary” for pushing your religion on others.

      I think anyone who was against Prop 8 is a bigot with respect to human rights. Regardless of if Barack brought out the “black vote,” he brought out a lot more than that. Prop 8 supporters are bigoted against peopel different from them. Race has nothing to do with it.

      ~Dan

  12. Nathan Ketchen
    9th Dec 08 (Tue) at 8:13 pm

    Man, debating you is like trying to drink cement : )

  13. Nathan Ketchen
    10th Dec 08 (Wed) at 8:40 am

    Shmooth acroth the chethst!

    • 10th Dec 08 (Wed) at 8:44 am

      Seemingly non-sequitar to anyone else reading… if you ever make your way out here to Eugene, we have (what I hear is) a very good disc golf scene. I think I lost my discs when I moved from Westwood to Springdale. But there are a few shops here that sell them…

  14. Nathan Ketchen
    10th Dec 08 (Wed) at 8:46 am

    waitaminute… You believe gays should get married, and want that belief legislated, but it’s wrong for me to want my beliefs legislated.

    Somebody’s beliefs are gonna get legislated whether we like that idea or not, chum.

  15. Nathan Ketchen
    10th Dec 08 (Wed) at 8:48 am

    NYC has one disc-golf park in Brooklyn, but they don’t have the chain baskets. You have to aim at trees and drinking fountains and children. I miss it a lot. It was a great way to get out of the house and do something for free.

  16. 10th Dec 08 (Wed) at 9:13 am

    No offense meant, but gays wanting to get married is not a religious belief. It’s a human rights issue. Why should heterosexuals have rights that homosexuals aren’t allowed to have?

    If it’s not called “marriage,” fine. That’s only semantics. But they should be allowed some form of civil bond that is recognized in the same way that marriage is with respect to health & life insurance benefits, financial & tax purposes/benefits, and rights of survivorship with regards to estates/property ownership, etc.

  17. Nathan Ketchen
    10th Dec 08 (Wed) at 2:14 pm

    You believe it is a human rights issue. I believe homosexual activity is sin. One of us will have his belief legislated.

    You’re trying to pretend like your beliefs aren’t really beliefs.

    Following your line of argumentation, why would you not care for open murderers, too? They’re just victims, always being sentenced to life in prison and given the death penalty for their “crimes”. Why not give unrepentant murderers guns so they can kill more people and be happier? Or maybe we could pay to send them to school so they could learn all kinds of new and interesting ways to kill people. And what about health care?

  18. 10th Dec 08 (Wed) at 2:22 pm

    They are not beliefs… except I guess your beliefs think that equal human rights for all equates beliefs. I guess your religious beliefs don’t think everyone is equal. So, I guess we’ll agree to disagree.

    Re: murder. That’s something that doesn’t fit within a moral code built on altruism. It’s not appropriate conduct / it’s immoral. You don’t need the concepts of a god or sin to have a moral code that says that murder is wrong.

    With that being said, murderers still have the rights to health care and are able to be married. Their “sinful” conduct didn’t seem to remove any of those human rights. Bad choice for a parallel.

  19. Nathan Ketchen
    10th Dec 08 (Wed) at 3:10 pm

    I’m trying to drink cement again. You totally twisted what I said. I never said the concept of having equal human rights for all is a belief. It’s an unrealistic concept, but it is not a belief.

    Here’s where the belief bit comes in: Do you believe gay marriage is a human rights issue? I believe it is not, you believe it is. Therefore, one of us will have his belief legislated whether we like it or not. Stop pretending that your beliefs are not beliefs.

    Given your worldview, murder cannot be wrong in any way, just like gay sex. It’s the perfect parallel because it exposes your hypocrisy.

    Who is forbidding gay people to marry? They are completely free to marry and have healthcare.

  20. 10th Dec 08 (Wed) at 3:29 pm

    ¶1: I clearly disagree, but I’m not going down the same circle with you on it.

    ¶2: Not a belief, it’s a “natural right” or an “inalienable right,” as it were. Since we obviously quite clearly disagree on the basis of this, I’m not going down the same circle with you on it.

    ¶3: In my worldview / moral basis on altruism, murder is wrong. Gay sex is not. Murder hurts others. Gay sex does not. Bad parallel.

    ¶4: Prop 8 forbids gay people to marry (each other) legally in the State of California. I added the “each other,” as I assume you were playing a semantical game of, “oh, they can marry someone of the opposite sex and have healthcare.” That’s not the point, and you know it.

  21. Nathan Ketchen
    11th Dec 08 (Thu) at 8:28 am

    You totally know I’m right. I win. : )

  22. 11th Dec 08 (Thu) at 9:00 am

    Not really, but it’s not a winable argument from either of our sides at this point, as we’re fairly diametrically opposed at our foundations.

  23. Nathan Ketchen
    11th Dec 08 (Thu) at 1:03 pm

    I know I’m probably prolonging our agony with this, but here goes:

    Would you say you are a post-modern in your thinking? It’s a weird question because post-moderns hate labels. I’ve read up a little on modernism and postmodernism. Modernism was rooted in the enlightenment and saw a sharp distinction between what they call the pneumenal realm (religious stuff and afterlife stuff, etc.) and the phenomenological realm (things we can observe). Human reason ruled the day, and was seen as a unifying principle. But then science started to get weird. With things like the theory of relativity and certain other mathematical theories people began to realize that we can’t make a distinction between the phenomenal realm and the pneumenal realm after all. All reality is on a continuum and stretches out into infinity. So in the end modernism had to be jettisoned, and in its place “postmodernism,” in which there is no unifying principle to reality popped up; all is in flux and fragmented. The only thing that really matters is how I feel. Now fragmentation marks our society, and that fragmentation necessarily sets itself up to be in constant conflict. So now we have this idea that I can be happy with my beliefs and you can be happy with your beliefs (or whatever you want to call your beliefs), and somehow we can coexist. But we can’t, because somewhere somebody is going to be offended at me living my happy life in the way I have chosen, hence the conflict. You know, muslims are happy killing people who disagree with them, and that infringes on my inalienable rights, for example.

    I find it very interesting that while we try to live peacefully in our fragmented society that government comes in and forces itself to be our unifying principle. It becomes the new religion of a global society, and before we realize what’s happening, we are slaves.

    Uh, I forgot where I was going with this. Anyway, it’s food for thought. You are more in-tune with theoretical mathematics than I am. I’d be interested to hear what you’ve found in your advanced studies in that area.

    I’m not setting up the church as some sort of safe-zone from the philosophical mess of our culture, by the way. The church has largely turned away from rationality to sentimentality as well (I know you would say there never was any rationality in the church). You just have to think about how they use music to manipulate the emotions of the congregation.

    • 13th Dec 08 (Sat) at 2:03 pm

      I don’t know enough about what defines “post-modern” to say yes or no to your first question. I do think that there is no afterlife and there is no god, but that it can’t be known. I think we can tolerate others’ beliefs without necessarily respecting the beliefs. I think most of the Bible is utter rubbish, but go ahead and believe it if it suits you. Call it apathy towards what we see as silly or trivial in others’ belief systems. I don’t really care what most christians believe, as long as it’s not an injunction on the full and happy life of others who don’t hold that christian belief. This is where the Prop 8 comes in… it’s an injunction on other people’s happiness when it’s clearly not hurting heterosexuals if homosexuals are allowed to get married.

      When muslims are murdering people who don’t hold their beliefs, that’s where the toleration of this aspect of their beliefs STOPS. When christians and other religious are creating undue hardship on homosexuals for seemingly no good reason other than their religious pin the tail on the donkey game of “sin,” this is where the toleration of this aspect of their beliefs STOPS. Regarding your prior abrogation talk about what Jesus did to the Old Law. Was homosexuality in that Old Law? Did Jesus specifically mention homosexuality as being forbidden? Or did he say, sum it up in two new commandments: Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind…. and Love your neighbor as yourself. I don’t know/remember/don’t dwell on scripture, I’m curious. I think based on this, though, why is such a concerted effort put on the church’s crusade against homosexuality?

      Re: theoretical mathematics, I never really dealt with it. I dealt with calculus and linear/matrix algebra, which are actually very practical in their application across many fields.

      Re: music in church… The Renewed Mind is the Key… ;)

  24. Nathan Ketchen
    17th Dec 08 (Wed) at 1:59 pm

    I understand where you’re coming from. I’m not happy to simply agree to disagree on the issues, though. If I did that, how could I call myself a Christian? That attitude would be a concession of defeat.

    I gotta stop clogging up your blog, though. It is, after all, YOUR blog, and I should let you say what you’re gonna say.

    If I ever get annoying making comments, please tell me. I’ll honor your requests of silence.

    Re: the Bible’s teaching on homosexual activity. There’s no question that it was a terrible crime in the OT. The whole NT is the teaching of Christ because it was inspired by His Spirit. In Acts at the council of Jerusalem (chapter 15) the council sends a letter out to all the churches, regarding the gentile brethren which makes four requirements for the gentile believers (verse 20): 1. abstain from worshiping at idols. 2. abstain from sexual immorality. 3. abstain from eating things strangled (not sure what thet means). 4. abstain from blood (not sure how to apply that exactly).

    The sexual immorality category is pretty comprehensive, and given the clarifying teaching on what is proper in Romans 1, homosexuality falls under the category of sexual immorality.

    I hate that this is such a big issue. It is just like any other sin. Sins do become life-dominating in many cases, and sexual sins are particularly compelling because sex involves the whole person. I hate the label “homosexual”. A person who sucumbs to a temptation one time in a homosexual encounter should NOT be labeled as a homosexual. Or two times, or four, or however many. To be labeled “homosexual” puts a person in a situation that psychologically they get trapped into.

    I have very strong feelings of pity for those who get caught up in that viscous lifestyle. They are deeply troubled and lonely. I want to give them hope for change. Giving them the right to marry a member of the same sex diminishes that hope. Is that so hateful of me?

    • 17th Dec 08 (Wed) at 7:21 pm

      No worries… clog away.

      So, for #2… the people who cheat on their spouses who consider homosexuality to be a complete abomination are total hypocrites. Those people definitely “pick and choose.”

      Also, #3 and #4 are inspired by the HS and are part of Christ’s teachings, but we don’t know what it means or how to apply it? Fantastic.

      Not all homosexual people are troubled and lonely. I’d wager to say “few”… but I also realize that your worldview (of which I don’t expect you to be without) can’t see it any other way as troubling or lonely to be homosexual. Such is life.

      ~Dan

  25. 17th Dec 08 (Wed) at 9:26 pm

    Typo In Proposition 8 Defines Marriage As Between ‘One Man And One Wolfman’

    SACRAMENTO, CA—Activists on both sides of the gay marriage debate were shocked this November, when a typographical error in California’s Proposition 8 changed the state constitution to restrict marriage to a union between “one man and one wolfman,” instantly nullifying every marriage except those comprised of an adult male and his lycanthrope partner. “The people of California made their voices heard today, and reaffirmed our age-old belief that the only union sanctioned in God’s eyes is the union between a man and another man possessed by an ungodly lupine curse,” state Sen. Tim McClintock said at a hastily organized rally celebrating passage of the new law. But opponents, including Bakersfield resident Patricia Millard—who is now legally banned from marrying her boyfriend, a human, non-wolfman male—claim it infringes on their civil liberties. “I love James just as much as a wolfman loves his husband,” Millard said. “We deserve the same rights as any horrifying mythical abomination.” On the heels of the historic typo, voters in Utah passed a similar referendum a week later, defining marriage as between one man and 23 wolfmen.

    link

  26. Nathan Ketchen
    18th Dec 08 (Thu) at 12:23 pm

    #2: You’re absolutely right. I wouldn’t say it is wrong to call it “abomination” although the term is kind of dramatic. The sin of adultery is also pretty abominating.

    #3&4 have a meaning. All I’m saying is that without having studied them, I don’t know the interpretation. They probably have something to do with pagan religious rites that were prevalent at the time. If that’s the case, the council was requiring the gentiles to give up all pagan practices.

    As to your last point, there is no BEING homosexual. One who engages in homosexual activity should not be put in such a box. Do you see what I’m saying there?

    The news story illustrates the problem at its root. Man has no right to define marriage.

  27. 18th Dec 08 (Thu) at 12:36 pm

    I disagree on the “being” aspect. It’s not a choice.

    Re: the news story… gotta love The Onion.

  28. Nathan Ketchen
    19th Dec 08 (Fri) at 12:58 pm

    I know you disagree. The whole anti-Prop 8 ideology presupposes that it is not a choice. It’s not right, it’s not right (Ahoozit?).

  29. Nathan Ketchen
    19th Dec 08 (Fri) at 12:58 pm

    I DO love the Onion.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: