Home > Sex Radicals > Jews Bad. Sexual Promiscuity Good.

Jews Bad. Sexual Promiscuity Good.

March 7th, 2011

It’s hard to know where to start with this moving video.

Is it the hypocrisy?  I’m sure those people who authorized, produced and participated in the making of the play are quick to scream, “HATE, HATE, H8!!!!” at those who differ with them over marriage redefinition.  I’m sure they would say that the Jew hatred evident in the play is nothing but affectionate teasing.  I’m sure.  Calling Jews a bunch of neurotics doesn’t sound very affectionate to me.  I wonder what they would say to the light comedy I came up with in my forthcoming novel  Bias Incident: The World’s Most Politically Incorrect Novel.  I can say that my novel is much kinder to gays than their play is to Jews.  Much, much kinder.  Nonetheless, I’m sure those hypocrites will be screaming for fatwas when they find out about what’s in the work.

Maybe I should comment on the cowardice of the work.  Jews are an easy target.  Why would they not gently tease some religions that are a lot less gentle to gays than Judaism.

Maybe I should comment on the immorality of it.  Do you mean to tell me that a character in a school play abandons his family to have an affair?  Who cares what gender the person he’s cheating with is?  The very fact that he’s leaving his family to pursue his own pleasure is selfish and immoral.  “Oh, no”  I’m sure the drooling idiots who would support this play would respond, “it’s not for pleasure.  It’s for love.”  Yeah, whatever.  I’m sure the abandoned wife and kids will have to find a new husband and daddy to love.  Nobody cares about their feelings because there is something more important than family love:  romantic love.  First love.  Just as the character sings “I’d kill for first love.”  Yeah.  Just like a junkie would kill for heroin.  It’s not any more noble than that.  Is this what our government schools are teaching our children?  Shame on them.  Shame on anybody who does not condemn this in the strongest terms.

Maybe I should comment on the stupidity of it.  Do you mean to tell me that a character in a school play catches awful diseases from his promiscuity and, at the end of his life says it was worth it?  It’s worth dying a gruesome death for momentary pleasure?  It boggles the mind that people didn’t throw rotten fruit at the stage.

Is this why people have to pay confiscatory local tax rates?  To pay for their children to be propagandized with hypocritical, cowardly, immoral and stupid plays?  G-d save us from those our government has appointed to “educate” our children.

Be Sociable, Share!
Categories: Sex Radicals Tags:
  1. Mark
    March 7th, 2011 at 16:58 | #1

    What a crock. If the play didn’t have gays in it, MassResistance would not even be involved. And to falsely accuse the play of being anti-Semitic? When both Lapine and Finn (the writers) are Jewish? Nonsense.

    “Do you mean to tell me that a character in a school play catches awful diseases from his promiscuity and, at the end of his life says it was worth it? It’s worth dying a gruesome death for momentary pleasure? ”
    Have you ever seen the play? The character in question is far from perfect but, in the end, he meets a person he loves. Few people, no matter what they do in their life, when that find that special love would not regret their past since it lead them to that person. It is NOT for a momentary pleasure (nice way to cheapen someone else’s relationship) but for the life their shared.

  2. Rich
    March 7th, 2011 at 17:00 | #2

    Do you ever screen your sources? This guy is certifiable.

  3. March 7th, 2011 at 17:22 | #3

    Oh wow. I cannot believe NOM’s Ruth Institute is following MassResistance on this. Wow.

    Some facts:

    -Falsettos is an *incredibly* celebrated piece of theatre, winning two Tonys in its year of eligibility and the hearts of countless critics in that year and the time since.

    -Its creators, James Lapine and William Finn, are both Jewish

    -The guy helping MassResistance (a longtime SPLC hate group) make these claims is Yehuda Levin. Levin is one of the most incendiary, anti-gay figures in NY politics. Many of you might remember him from the Carl Paladino debacle.

    -When MassResistance tried to drum up controversy around this in 2009, the local community defended the play. MassResistance’s outrage played out in an echo chamber.

    I could go on.

    Seriously, you guys don’t want to follow down this path.

  4. March 7th, 2011 at 17:36 | #4

    “marriage redefinition”? Barely. Unless you are claiming that EVERY SINGLE heterosexual couple that has EVER gotten married was ONLY to have children, then the “definition” of marriage has already been redefined from what it exists ONLY in your head.

  5. March 7th, 2011 at 17:46 | #5

    Mass Resistance? Really? This blog is going in a frightening direction. So much for the claim that you’re not anti-gay.

  6. March 7th, 2011 at 18:14 | #6

    Yay! Ari’s back!

  7. Ari
    March 7th, 2011 at 18:50 | #7

    @Rich
    Thank you. That really means a lot to me.

  8. Leland
    March 7th, 2011 at 18:54 | #8

    Wintery Knight :
    Yay! Ari’s back!

    You’ve been missed, Ari. Your return could not be soon enough as far as I’m concerned.

  9. Ari
    March 7th, 2011 at 18:55 | #9

    -Its creators, James Lapine and William Finn, are both Jewish
    Yeah, So’s this guy: http://www.yousefalkhattab.com/
    What’s your point? The guys who made that play converted to leftism, the guy I linked to converted to Islam. Both hate Judaism.

    -Falsettos is an *incredibly* celebrated piece of theatre, winning two Tonys in its year of eligibility and the hearts of countless critics in that year and the time since.
    Proving my point for me. Thank you. I didn’t realize that. But it’s very helpful.

    I’d never heard of MassResistance until I was emailed the link I posted on. But they brought the goods: they provided the needed footage. The fact that the SPLC calls them a “hate group” only enhances their credibility. The SPLC is a fraud.

    And to all the people who commented to defend this excrement, you’ve really said a lot about yourselves.

  10. Ari
    March 7th, 2011 at 19:01 | #10

    Leland,
    Thank you for your kind words.

    I’ve been working very hard on getting Bias Incident: The World’s Most Politically Incorrect Novel ready for publication. It should be out in a month or so.

    Dr. J is paraphrased in it, so it’s sure to give Mark, Rich, Rob, Jeremy, Heidi, and b4Marriage conniptions. It’s sure to make nerdygirl wish I was still available. I’m hoping they can find it in their hearts to issue a fatwa when it’s published (or whatever it is Lefties issue).

  11. Ari
    March 7th, 2011 at 19:02 | #11

    Mark wrote (I’m trying not to gag here):

    The character in question is far from perfect but, in the end, he meets a person he loves. Few people, no matter what they do in their life, when that find that special love would not regret their past since it lead them to that person. It is NOT for a momentary pleasure (nice way to cheapen someone else’s relationship) but for the life their shared.

    Way to cheapen the love that the now ex wife and abandoned children must have had for their husband and daddy.

  12. Mark
    March 7th, 2011 at 20:02 | #12

    @Ari
    “Way to cheapen the love that the now ex wife and abandoned children must have had for their husband and daddy.”

    I suppose you would have been happier if they all died in the end.

  13. Ari
    March 7th, 2011 at 20:10 | #13

    Mark wrote:
    “I suppose you would have been happier if they all died in the end.”

    What’s that even supposed to mean? Why would I be happy if people die?

    Perhaps the play would have been better if the character said, “You know, I have these temptations, but I’m going to stick it out with my family because they need me.” That sounds like a victory for love right there. And none of that worthless, drug-like “romantic love.” I mean REAL love, in which people are willing to do their duties to their fellow human beings (especially those people to whom they have explicitly undertaken marital and parenting responsibilities) at any cost.

    But that’s not the kind of thing that’ll get you worthless trinket called a “Tony Award.” It’s not the kind of thing that’ll get you the praise of drooling morons called “drama critics.” Apparently, it’s not the kind of thing that’ll make a guy like Mark your fan.

  14. Ruth
    March 7th, 2011 at 21:51 | #14

    @Ari
    Welcome back, Ari!
    I’ve always wondered why grocery stores sell rotten fruit at a big discount.
    What could someone do with it?
    Now I know.

  15. nerdygirl
    March 7th, 2011 at 22:06 | #15

    Ari, it would never work. There is no man worth giving up pork and shrimp for.

  16. Mark
    March 8th, 2011 at 05:32 | #16

    @Ari
    “But that’s not the kind of thing that’ll get you worthless trinket called a “Tony Award.” It’s not the kind of thing that’ll get you the praise of drooling morons called “drama critics.” Apparently, it’s not the kind of thing that’ll make a guy like Mark your fan.”

    Because it would be a lie, Ari. You really feel a person should live a lie for others? Does not truth hold any value for you?

  17. Mark
    March 8th, 2011 at 05:33 | #17

    @Ruth
    “I’ve always wondered why grocery stores sell rotten fruit at a big discount.
    What could someone do with it?
    Now I know.”

    Very “christian” of you Ruth.

  18. Ari
    March 8th, 2011 at 06:31 | #18

    Mark wrote:

    “Because it would be a lie, Ari. You really feel a person should live a lie for others? Does not truth hold any value for you?”

    If a person undertakes obligations towards another– such as getting married to them, and then having children, I believe him to be duty bound to carry out those obligations until they are completed. The children, in this case, need a daddy and a mommy. The adult’s desires are secondary. The feelings don’t matter as long as the agreed upon services are provided. (In this case the agreed services would be those of husband and father).

    This applies both to people who are straight and people who are not. The fact that I believe I would be having more fun with a harem or with a different woman every week does not change my obligations to my family.

    You see, for you, the issue is of “truth” and “lies.” I think that’s all a bunch of crap. To me the issue is one of honor versus selfishness. The “Falsettos” teaches selfishness. Public schools are teaching selfishness by presenting that travesty. You also are advocating selfishness (again, as per your usual M.O.).

  19. Paul of Alexandria
    March 8th, 2011 at 07:03 | #19

    @Ari
    Marriage is tough, and you’ve got it square, Ari. Thank you. There have been many times when – momentarily – I’ve wished that I could be free of my wife and kids and go and do my own thing; living with someone as incomprehensible and illogical as a female can be downright maddening sometimes! :) But, nobody would win if I did that; I might find “fulfillment” but my children would suffer (and I’ve seen other families broken by divorce) and my wife certainly would suffer; and in the end I would have to explain to my ancestors and my God why I did what I did.

  20. Mark
    March 8th, 2011 at 08:27 | #20

    @Ari
    No, I am not promoting anything like selfishness. You, however, want to promote a Disneyesque sense of a Leave It To Beaver sense of “family”. I do not feel people should stay in a loveless marriage “for the sake of the children”. I have counseled enough kids whose parents stayed together for their sake to know better. These kids KNEW their parents didn’t want to be together and felt guilty, betrayed and had problems in their adult life with relationships. The kids from divorces also have their problems, don’t get me wrong but it is a fantasy blanket statement that says parents should stay together to raise their kids. Oh, and all these kids were in OSM settings.

  21. Mark
    March 8th, 2011 at 08:28 | #21

    @Paul of Alexandria
    “but my children would suffer (and I’ve seen other families broken by divorce) and my wife certainly would suffer; and in the end I would have to explain to my ancestors and my God why I did what I did.”

    Think a lot about yourself, do you?

  22. Ari
    March 8th, 2011 at 09:13 | #22

    Mark,
    You have ceased to amuse me.

  23. Ari
    March 8th, 2011 at 09:22 | #23

    Paul,
    What Mark doesn’t seem to understand is that REAL love is the determination to perform your obligations towards another person. A marriage that has that (even if it is bereft of romantic love) is NOT a loveless marriage. The children of a marriage in which both partners are determined to perform their obligations to one another would never know whether there is romantic love or not because the husband and wife would behave towards one another in a way that is conducive to the happiness of their partner and the happiness of their family.

  24. Mark
    March 8th, 2011 at 09:53 | #24

    @Ari
    “You have ceased to amuse me.”

    I love how when you cannot respond rationally, you resort to some sort of escape. Typical.

  25. March 8th, 2011 at 09:53 | #25

    “The children of a marriage in which both partners are determined to perform their obligations to one another would never know whether there is romantic love or not…”

    Because performing obligations looks exactly like romantic love, and vice versa?

    Some opponents of marriage equality seem to thrive on vague, abstract statements completely removed from the truth and experience of everyday life. The quote above is a perfect example.

  26. Mark
    March 8th, 2011 at 09:55 | #26

    @Ari
    “What Mark doesn’t seem to understand is that REAL love is the determination to perform your obligations towards another person. A marriage that has that (even if it is bereft of romantic love) is NOT a loveless marriage.”

    Oh, Ari, what you FAIL to understand is that I was talking about a loveless marriage (why do you guys ALWAYS go for the sex aspect?). And, many of the divorced families I work with DO love their children and work hard to help them succeed. But, there is no reason for two adults to stay together if they do not love each other. And the kids know it.

  27. Ari
    March 8th, 2011 at 09:56 | #27

    Mark,
    It is your obligation to make argument challenging enough and to phrase them entertainingly enough to make responding to you worth my while. Failing that, you will only get responses from me until I tire of you.

    That said, read what I wrote to Paul.

  28. Mark
    March 8th, 2011 at 10:16 | #28

    @Ari
    “Failing that, you will only get responses from me until I tire of you.”

    LOL, or you are unable to answer rationally or with any substance. I know, I’ve seen your responses before.

  29. Ari
    March 8th, 2011 at 10:48 | #29

    Mark,
    Whining bad. Writing something amusing good.

  30. Mark
    March 8th, 2011 at 10:55 | #30

    @Ari
    “Whining bad. Writing something amusing good.”
    No whining from me. But your failure to use proper English says a lot.

  31. Mark
    March 8th, 2011 at 10:56 | #31

    However, I do notice how you (as always) degenerate into insults instead of talking about your own post. Sad you don’t even have enough faith in what dribble you present to discuss it.

  32. Paul H
    March 8th, 2011 at 14:24 | #32

    Ari:
    If a person undertakes obligations towards another– such as getting married to them, and then having children, I believe him to be duty bound to carry out those obligations until they are completed. The children, in this case, need a daddy and a mommy. The adult’s desires are secondary. The feelings don’t matter as long as the agreed upon services are provided. (In this case the agreed services would be those of husband and father).
    This applies both to people who are straight and people who are not. The fact that I believe I would be having more fun with a harem or with a different woman every week does not change my obligations to my family.

    I haven’t seen the play, but this is very well said. A man who honors his marriage vows and stays with his wife and family, despite temptations to the contrary, is being a real man. A man who leaves his wife and family so as to be “true to himself” — regardless of his sexual preferences — has failed to do his duty, and is behaving as a spoiled child, not as a true man.

  33. Sean
    March 8th, 2011 at 18:20 | #33

    Jews are funny, and make good lawyers.

  34. Paul H
    March 9th, 2011 at 03:52 | #34

    I am only slightly familiar with MassResistance. Could one of the commenters here who claims that they are a so-called “hate group” please provide a specific example of something they have posted that leads you to that conclusion?

  35. Mark
    March 9th, 2011 at 05:28 | #35

    @Paul H
    “I haven’t seen the play,”

    Then you comments really are pointless. I find it very interesting that people are so free to condemn something they have no idea about. It is the height of ignorance.

  36. Mark
    March 9th, 2011 at 05:28 | #36

    “your”

  37. Ruth
    March 9th, 2011 at 09:57 | #37

    @Mark
    Words are preferable to rotten fruit.
    Only God knows when words will no longer suffice.
    That is why Yeshua, filled with the Holy Spirit, could take a whip into the Temple, overturning the tables of the money changers there.

    @Sean
    Your comment is offensive.
    As a follower of Yeshua, I owe my Scriptures, my Messiah, and countless blessings in this world to the Jewish people.

  38. Paul H
    March 9th, 2011 at 10:17 | #38

    Mark :
    @Paul H
    “I haven’t seen the play,”
    Then you comments really are pointless. I find it very interesting that people are so free to condemn something they have no idea about. It is the height of ignorance.

    I don’t know what you are talking about. Are you saying that I am condemning that play? Where did you get that idea? I intended to do no such thing. I was only commenting on the general validity of Ari’s comment. Whether that comment applies to this particular play, I have no idea — which should be obvious since I say I haven’t seen the play.

    It appears that once again, you are just casting about for an excuse to vent your negativity.

  39. Bob Barnes
    March 9th, 2011 at 10:30 | #39

    Ari :
    Bob Barnes,
    Any money you spend on a copy of Strunk & White’s “Elements of Style” will be money well spent.

    Try focusing on content and substance, something sorely lacking in your posts.

  40. Paul H
    March 9th, 2011 at 10:37 | #40

    Paul H:
    I am only slightly familiar with MassResistance. Could one of the commenters here who claims that they are a so-called “hate group” please provide a specific example of something they have posted that leads you to that conclusion?

    The reason I ask this, by the way, is the following: Let’s consider two groups of people:

    (1) People in “group 1″ really do hate people who have same-sex attractions and/or people who engage in the “gay lifestyle.” Or at least people in this group often act as if they hate such people. (I suspect that relatively few people fall into this group, and certainly I heartily condemn the attitudes of people in this group.)

    (2) People in “group 2″ disapprove of the so-called “gay lifestyle,” but do not hate those people who participate in that lifestyle or those who are tempted to do so.

    Unfortunately, people who do approve of the “gay lifestyle” often do not differentiate between “group 1″ and “group 2″ — instead they label all people in both groups as hateful, discriminatory, homophobic, etc.

    I am interested to know whether there is any legitimate evidence that the MassResistance folks belong in group 1 rather than group 2. (And there may be legitimate evidence; I really don’t know enough about them.) Even if you disagree with my methodology in defining these two groups, I still would be interested in this information so that I could make my own determination.

  41. Mark
    March 9th, 2011 at 14:40 | #41

    @Paul H
    “It appears that once again, you are just casting about for an excuse to vent your negativity.”

    Forgive me. Since the topic of this post was the play, I reasonably assumed that was what you were referring to in your comments.

    However, I personally prefer truth to fiction. I think a man who stays in a relationship because of the children it thinking more of himself than the children. Many men leave their families (as do women) and are still very supportive of them. Life is too short to live a lie.

  42. Mark
    March 9th, 2011 at 14:42 | #42

    @Ruth
    “Words are preferable to rotten fruit.”

    And understanding goes even farther.

  43. Betsy
    March 9th, 2011 at 14:51 | #43

    “further”

  44. Betsy
    March 9th, 2011 at 14:53 | #44

    One could say that leaving one’s family to be with another family is the real lie.

  45. Ari
    March 9th, 2011 at 15:21 | #45

    Mark :
    @Ruth
    “Words are preferable to rotten fruit.”
    And understanding goes even farther.

    YEAH, Ruth. You’ve got to be more like Mark. Don’t you see Mark’s Herculean efforts to truly understand the position of the Ruth Institute. He doesn’t come in here just slinging accusations of hate or misrepresenting commenter’s positions. He’s the model of understanding and tolerance.

  46. Mark
    March 9th, 2011 at 18:11 | #46

    @Ari
    “He’s the model of understanding and tolerance.”

    Why thank you, Ari.

  47. Mark
    March 9th, 2011 at 18:12 | #47

    @Betsy
    Thanks, Betsy

  48. Mark
    March 9th, 2011 at 18:12 | #48

    @Betsy
    “One could say that leaving one’s family to be with another family is the real lie.”

    How is it a lie?

  49. Betsy
    March 9th, 2011 at 18:32 | #49

    Mark, let me put it this way: Say there is a man in a loving, happy relationship with his wife. Then comes along a new woman at work. He, being a visual person, as are all men, is immediately attracted to her. They work together for a while. Next thing you know, he decides he’s in love with her and leaves his wife and children to live with her.

    Did he make the right decision? Would staying with the wife and children that he loves really be a lie? Consider that had this new woman never come along, he would have been perfectly happy as he was. Is it really worth the devastation caused to his family to go off with another woman because to not do so would be “living a lie”? Or perhaps he should man up, do whatever it takes to not put himself in the way of temptation with this woman, obey the covenant of his marriage, and be the father to his children that they deserve by staying with them and their mother.

    The lie, if he left his family for someone else, would be in telling himself that it’s okay to do so. Real men accept vows they have made “till death do them part” even when it’s difficult. Hence, in good times and in bad–including the times when he’s tempted to leave.

  50. Sean
    March 9th, 2011 at 19:14 | #50

    I don’t think marriage is really about “’til death parts us” anymore, for all practical purposes. People want to be happily married and barring that, they get divorced and find someone else. What point is there being married to a horrible person? Staying married just to not divorce seems misguided.

    Ideally, divorce is a mutually agreed upon decision. Things get messy when one person wants to divorce and the other person doesn’t. I think for a lot of couples, though, it is a mutually acceptable decision.

  51. Betsy
    March 9th, 2011 at 19:25 | #51

    Maybe people get married too quickly then. How long does it take them to realize they’re “married to a horrible person”? Maybe more people need to take marriage prep classes. “I don’t think marriage is really about “’til death parts us” anymore.” Well, it certainly should be. If people go into marriage figuring they’ll probably get divorced if things get rough, why bother getting married? Any marriage that begins with a prenup has failed before it even began. If you have the attitude that divorce is always an option, you most certainly will use that option.

    This is ironic, Sean, since you so often yell about the need to outlaw divorce.

  52. a serious question
    March 9th, 2011 at 20:44 | #52

    It has been many years since I was in high school. When my high school advertised that our plays were getting wilder, they meant Thornton Wilder.

    The serious question I have is what has been the reaction of the parents in the high school in question and more generally of the citizens who vote for the school board?

  53. March 10th, 2011 at 10:40 | #53

    @Paul H

    When you differentiate between group 1 and group 2, you are making the very basic mistake of assuming that hating someone and acting hatefully towards that person are one and the same thing. Clearly they are not.

    Just for example, any individual member of a white supremacist organization might argue that he does not “hate” black people, he just thinks that mixing of the races is abomination.

    This is more the belief system and ensuing behavior of such groups as Mass Resistance. They may not “hate” gay people, so long as gay people stay deep in the closet, have no interaction with children whatsoever, and have no place in public life. And when gay people refuse to follow these rules, Mass Resistance falsely reports that gay people are all pedophiles, or other ridiculous things.

    Thus they are a hate group.

  54. Paul H
    March 10th, 2011 at 14:12 | #54

    Emma:
    @Paul H
    This is more the belief system and ensuing behavior of such groups as Mass Resistance. They may not “hate” gay people, so long as gay people stay deep in the closet, have no interaction with children whatsoever, and have no place in public life. And when gay people refuse to follow these rules, Mass Resistance falsely reports that gay people are all pedophiles, or other ridiculous things.
    Thus they are a hate group.

    What I’m asking for is a specific example of this. Can you please give me a link to a specific article or statement on their website that leads you to the conclusion that they are a “hate group”?

    If you can, it would help me to draw my own conclusions as to whether they really are hateful, or whether you and others are overreacting. (I won’t necessarily expect you to agree with whatever conclusions I draw.)

  55. March 10th, 2011 at 17:39 | #55

    Sure Paul. Here’s a link to a story in which Mass Resistance assumes that if gay people goes to an amusement park, they must have a “disturbing” interest in children.

    http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/10c/six_flags/index.html

    This vicious, irrational stereotyping of gays as a danger to children is hateful. I mean, look at this statement:

    “And there’s something about children’s activities, such as amusement parks (and public schools, parades, etc.) that attracts the homosexual movement in an obsessive and disturbing way.”

    If you can read that without seeing it as hateful, then there’s this conversation is a lost cause.

  56. March 10th, 2011 at 17:40 | #56

    Oh, too many typos. Blame it on a long work day and 90 minute commute home in bad traffic.

  57. Paul H
    March 11th, 2011 at 15:12 | #57

    Thanks, Rob. I definitely don’t agree with the way that article was written. It is disrespectful and seemingly rather paranoid as well. I wouldn’t call it hateful, because I don’t have enough information to know if they are motivated by hate, or by some lesser motive. But I would agree that it is disrespectful and very possibly offensive.

  58. Betsy
    March 11th, 2011 at 15:47 | #58

    Paul H, and what is your opinion of the people in the video?

  59. March 11th, 2011 at 21:59 | #59

    @Paul H
    So under what terms would it NOT be hateful to portray an entire group of people as child molesters? (Unless, of course, you are discussing a group of child molesters, which is clearly not the case here.) Even if their motive isn’t “hate” as such — say it’s “fear” instead, unfounded as that may be — the rhetoric they choose to employ is still hateful.

    A behavior can be hateful regardless of the underlying motive, can’t it?

  60. Chairm
    March 11th, 2011 at 23:00 | #60

    Relatively few people divorce because their husband or wife is a “horrible person”.

    The vow made is a lifetime commitment of fidelity (sexual and otherwise) to the marriage idea; both the husband and the wife made the obligation, one to the other, and to society, with consent and a prospective view toward formation of their family.

    If today the divorce culture has obscured the nature of the commitment, then, that says a great deal more about the easy-divorce revolution than it says about the commimtment which has not changed.

  61. Chairm
    March 11th, 2011 at 23:04 | #61

    Emma said: “Just for example, any individual member of a white supremacist organization might argue that he does not “hate” black people, he just thinks that mixing of the races is abomination.”

    Does not this play suggest, strongly, that mixing of sexual orientations in marriage is just as wrong? Yes, I think so. Hence the lauding of the decision to abandon marriage and family. If sexual orientation is supposed to be like race, then, how is such a view not also like racism, Emma?

  62. Chairm
    March 11th, 2011 at 23:13 | #62

    Rob, you present the link to the Mass Resitance article but pre-emptively declared that “If you can read that without seeing it as hateful, then there’s this conversation is a lost cause.”

    1. You invited discussion of the article by posting the link. So how can the conversation be a lost cause just because you have drawn your conclusion before others have?

    2. Why should agreement with you be the basis for further conversation of that article?

    You exagerated, I think, when you described the content of that article as “vicious, irrational stereotyping”.

    The article pointed out that the “gay day” was closed to the general public. The event was meant to give special treatment to the gay identity group at a family amusement park. The gay identity group does like to do this sort of thing — to make big whopping political statements — on the grounds that they seek to normalize the sort of behavior that is exhibited at such events.

    The photos in the article attest to that.

    Now, you might read into the article some sort of stereotyping. But the actual content of that article is spot on. Would you deny that the event was political in nature? That it was about making a statement on a stage that is family-orientated and mainstream? I don’t think there is room for much disagreement there.

  63. Paul H
    March 12th, 2011 at 05:19 | #63

    Emma:
    A behavior can be hateful regardless of the underlying motive, can’t it?

    Perhaps, but I wouldn’t tend to label a group as a “hate group” unless they were clearly motivated by hate. As I understand and use the word “hate,” it describes how someone feels, i.e., someone’s motivations. And it is a very strong word. It is far beyond dislike or aversion. So I am hesitant to use the word “hate” to describe someone’s feelings and motivations, unless they have made it very clear that “hate” is in fact what is motivating them.

    For example, I have participated in discussions on an Evangelical-leaning message board, in which extremely harsh things were said about Catholic beliefs, Catholic practices, Catholic saints, Catholic leaders, etc. But even though I (as a Catholic myself) was offended, I didn’t necessarily think that the people making these comments were motivated by hate, even though their comments sometimes came across to me as sounding hateful. To me there is a difference.

  64. March 12th, 2011 at 06:48 | #64

    Yes, Chairm, I would deny that this was a political event.

    And no, Chairm, the article’s main point is not about whether it was a political event. The main point is revealed in the headline:

    “Gay Day” at Six Flags New England amusement park this Sunday
    Obsession with children’s activities a disturbing part of homosexual lifestyle

    But this is all a red herring. Paul asked for evidence that they’re a hate group. I provided it. Even if you argue that the article contains valid points (and I don’t), it still has hateful and untrue statements like:

    “And there’s something about children’s activities, such as amusement parks (and public schools, parades, etc.) that attracts the homosexual movement in an obsessive and disturbing way.”

    Frankly, I’m astonished you can read something like that and respond with something like, “Now, you might read into the article some sort of stereotyping.”

    Might? Might? No, there’s no “might” about it.

    And you think it’s only there if I read it into the article? No, it’s written right into it.

  65. Chairm
    March 12th, 2011 at 14:45 | #65

    That video of the kids doing this play is … tragic.

    http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/11a/falsettos/index.html

    Rather than kill the messenger (i.e. the website on which the video is available) watch the video and decide for yourself. By what objective standards could an educator consider this to be good stuff for high school students to portray on stage?

  66. Chairm
    March 13th, 2011 at 12:46 | #66

    Okay, Rob, do you deny that the amusement park is a venue for activities for families with children? Of course it is.

    Okay, you say that Gay Day is not a political event. What is it then? The images in the article include the poster for the event. Shall we turn a blind eye to it, perhaps, and consider only your accusations of hatred?

    Look, I don’t know the people at that website. I don’t know their organization very well. But there is not much there to peg with the very radical accusation of their being a hate group. You disagree with them, okay. But since when is disagreement with you the definition of hatred?

    It is not a red herring. The content of the article is the context for the headline. If you claim that the headline, alone, is evidence of a hate group, then, you are straining yourself. For such an accusation you would surely need something a good deal more solid and straight forward. When you lower your standards just to throw out a politically motivated accusation, you water down the very notion, as problematic as it is, of ‘the hate group’.

    I can tell you that I have faced hateful groups first hand, on other issues, and your so-called evidence is paltry. It really is.

    The homosexual movement does show quite an obsession with public schools, with parades (see how they tried force firefighters to participate in gay pride parade as they have forced other public officials), and in this instance with a family venue for children activities. This is neither unique with Six Flags nor is it a random accident. It is purposeful and political. You might claim that this focus of the homosexual movement is justified in some benign way, but the focus is not something you can sincerely deny. It exists.

    In sum: the movement does have this focus and that is manifest in the gay day event and in other activities regarding public schools and the like. You might wish to dress that focus with roses and pretty ribbons. Just because you disagree with the assessment of others does not mean you have provided evidence of a hate group.

    If that is the best you have, and that is the standard you’[d used, then, I am quite certain loads of comparable evidence can be found to suggest that the HRC and other gay political and social groups are hate groups.

    Not all stereotyping is hateful, you might say in your defense or in defense of these gay political and socila groups; but you have made your accusation of hatred based only on your interpretation that the article about a gay day event is stereotyping.

    You strain and bust a gut to make such an accusation.

    Meanwhile, you’ve not bothered to comment on the video of those school kids presenting the play in question in Ari’s blogpost. Why is that, Robv? Double-standard perhaps.

  67. March 13th, 2011 at 23:01 | #67

    @Chairm, you wrote: “If you claim that the headline, alone, is evidence of a hate group, then, you are straining yourself.” No, actually, I quoted not just the headline, but the text of the article, too.

    This is why I find it hard to engage you or understand your posts. When you talk about what you claim are my statements or my beliefs (or those of marriage equality supporters in general), it rarely seems to match up with reality.

  68. March 14th, 2011 at 09:43 | #68

    @Paul H

    So maybe we should move away from the word “hate,” which seems to be at issue. What word would you use for a group that publicly advocates the idea that all members of another group are child molesters? (Again, unless you are talking about a list of actual child molesters, of course).

    Say Mass Resistance made the same claim about, I don’t know, brown-eyed people. Or left-handed people. Or Catholic priests. Would you call this hateful? Ignorant? Just plain stupid? Merely mean-spirited rather than hateful?

    Perhaps we could come up with a list of “mean-spirited groups” instead of “hate groups”: groups that disseminate demonstrably false but very negative information about other groups they don’t like.

  69. March 14th, 2011 at 09:55 | #69

    @Paul H

    One other point that occurs to me: it doesn’t seem quite fair to equate a large public-policy-influencing organization whose sole purpose is to take away certain rights from a group of Americans (gay couples in Massachusetts who have had these rights for several years now) with angry comments on a blog.

    A large public organization has an obligation, I think, to behave in certain ways, and to eschew overly inflammatory and negative rhetoric. While it would of course be lovely if all individuals also eschewed overly inflammatory and negative rhetoric, individuals don’t quite have the same obligation to do so. (In my opinion.)

  70. Paul H
    March 14th, 2011 at 11:18 | #70

    Betsy :
    Paul H, and what is your opinion of the people in the video?

    Based on the first half (I didn’t get to the second half), the play appears to be offensive, morally bankrupt, and lacking in any artistic merit whatsoever. I am not in a position to be certain that the play truly is as bad as they make it look from the clips and explanatory subtitles that they showed. But if it is, then I would definitely be pulling my kids out of any school that staged this play.

    As far as the kids in the video, I feel sorry for them.

  71. Chairm
    March 14th, 2011 at 12:32 | #71

    John said: “No, actually, I quoted not just the headline, but the text of the article, too.”

    Technically, sure, but that text matches the headline. My point stands. If you claim that is evidence of a hate group, then, you are straining yourself.

    Okay, take a step back. Now, would you agree that your own comments here (and on your blogsite) are subject to the same criteria for assessing what is and is not evidence of a hatred? If you say, no, then, you deeply undermine your accusation. If you say, yes, then, please state the criteria with which all of your own comments can be assessed just as readily as this particular article (headline and text below the headline) that you presented as evidence of hatred.

    The criteria, John, just the criteria. Let readers compare and contrast.

  72. Chairm
    March 14th, 2011 at 12:33 | #72

    Meanwhile, John, you’ve not bothered to comment on the video of those school kids presenting the play in question in Ari’s blogpost.

    If you have fair criteria for assessing hatred, please assess the play’s content.

  73. Chairm
    March 14th, 2011 at 12:38 | #73

    Emma, you have yet to present a group that “that publicly advocates the idea that all members of another group are child molesters” so you question is rather peculair.

    What would you call a pro-SSM group that publicly advocates the idea that all members of NOM are bigots or that the marriage idea is hateful?

    You know, a group that that disseminate demonstrably false but very negative information about other groups they don’t like.

  74. Chairm
    March 14th, 2011 at 12:39 | #74

    And, Rob, in an earlier comment I did discuss the content of the article. You have dodged that.

  75. Betsy
    March 14th, 2011 at 13:05 | #75

    Paul H, Thank you for that. It was nice to have your opinion on the play. I was actually intending to ask your opinion on the people in the video in the TFP post!

  76. March 14th, 2011 at 14:20 | #76

    @Chairm, here’s my criteria: if a group makes broad and false insinuations that a group has an obsessive and disturbing interest in one of the most heinous crimes imaginable, then the accusers are a hate group.

  77. March 14th, 2011 at 14:22 | #77

    Chairm, yes, you talked about the content of the article. But that’s not what I was talking about. You wrote about me, “If you claim that the headline, alone, is evidence of a hate group, then, you are straining yourself.”

    But I made no such claim.

  78. Chairm
    March 14th, 2011 at 19:54 | #78

    Rob, as I said, technically, sure, you quoted a bit from the first paragraph of the article but that text matches the headline. My point stands. If you claim that is evidence of a hate group, then, you are straining yourself.

    And, yes, you did make such a claim. So you now dodge with a quibble. Do you approve of the headline but disapprove of the bit you quoted from the first paragraph? Explain the difference that makes all the difference in your claim, Rob.

    Meanwhile, you linked to the article. The article you introduced has content. Your latest remarks have dodged that too. Your interpretation is all the evidence you have actually provided. And it is not as decisive as you pretend.

  79. Chairm
    March 14th, 2011 at 20:04 | #79

    Also, Rob, you have yet to direct your comments to Ari’s stated concerns regarding the content of the play. You know, the play that is the subject of his blogpost but which you have chosen to dodge.

    The video that features clips of the play that Ari discussed in his blogpost, that video was compiled by the national Orthodox Rabbinical Alliance of America. Yet you have here chosen to dodge that source, too, and instead have made your focus an attack on the middle-man, MassResistance which includes the video in a blogpost. You have attacked with nothing more than your poorly supported accusation of their being a hate group.

    The content of the play, Rob. The source of the video clips, Rob. The concerns stated in Ari’s blogpost, Rob. These are not worthy of discussion but your interpretation of a different article is your focus.

    You dodging is well noted.

  80. Chairm
    March 14th, 2011 at 20:52 | #80

    And you have dodged some more.

    I had asked the following: “please state the criteria with which all of your own comments can be assessed just as readily as this particular article (headline and text below the headline) that you presented as evidence of hatred.”

    Instead of meeting that query, you replied: “if a group makes broad and false insinuations that a group has an obsessive and disturbing interest in one of the most heinous crimes imaginable, then the accusers are a hate group.”

    That is not criteria that fulfills the query, Rob.

    You have merely restated your accusation in the superficial form of a single criterion: your interpretation cum accusation.

    The if-then type statement skips over the need to provide evidence more substantive than your own self-serving interpretation/accusation. Indeed, you have admitted that the context is not your concern; you would rather transplant the bit you quoted to your own context — your interpretation. That is a self-serving approach.

    It turns out that you have made a false insinuation, Rob. You have made yourself the very sort of accuser that you’d condemn as hateful.

    You are playing an old game. Throw mud at someone and even if it all slides off you hope that some remnant of the smear will persist.

    At the very least, the game is played here by you to deflect attention away from the actual topic at hand. Accuse the host of the video clips but dodge the source that compiled the clips and dodge Ari’s stated concerns about the play itself. Dodge the context of the article from which you chose to quote a bit; dodge the context of the website and of the group.

    You are a dodger, Rob, but not very artful.

  81. March 14th, 2011 at 22:15 | #81

    Actually, Chairm, I did address the clip, but the moderator appears to have rejected it.

    Also, Chairm, once again, your description of what I said (“Indeed, you have admitted that the context is not your concern”) .bears no resemblance to what I said.

  82. March 14th, 2011 at 22:17 | #82

    “And, yes, you did make such a claim.”

    No, I didn’t, and now I’m starting to worry for you.

    “So you now dodge with a quibble. Do you approve of the headline but disapprove of the bit you quoted from the first paragraph? Explain the difference that makes all the difference in your claim, Rob.”

    There’s no difference, Chairm, and that’s the point! The headline and the article both say the same foul and loathesome thing.

  83. March 15th, 2011 at 05:51 | #83

    @Chairm
    Mass Resistance publicly insinuates that gay men and lesbians are a danger to children.

    Who is saying the marriage idea is hateful? To the contrary, marriage can be a very good and beautiful thing and must be open to all couples, not just couples that NOM approves of.

  84. March 15th, 2011 at 05:52 | #84

    @Chairm
    Also, who is John?

  85. Chairm
    March 15th, 2011 at 22:42 | #85

    Okay, Rob, do you mean to say that your previous comments focussed on the context? Please confirm, correct, or clarify. Thanks.

  86. Chairm
    March 15th, 2011 at 22:45 | #86

    Rob said: “I did address the clip, but the moderator appears to have rejected it.”

    Perhaps it is still in the que. Perhaps you can retry. It is good to learn that you have something to say on the matter.

  87. Chairm
    March 15th, 2011 at 22:49 | #87

    Rob said: “The headline and the article both say the same foul and loathesome thing.”

    You said that it was evidence of hatred. But the evidence you have offered is actually your interpretation of the headline and of the bit you quoted from the article’s first paragraph.

    The rest of the article, including links to other related articles, provides the context. I engaged you on much of that but you said that you were not talking about it. Did you mean something else?

  88. Chairm
    March 15th, 2011 at 22:52 | #88

    I had said: “you quoted a bit from the first paragraph of the article but that text matches the headline. My point stands. If you claim that is evidence of a hate group, then, you are straining yourself.”

    But, Rob, your latest response has confirmed that you did make such a claim. Why would you deny it?

  89. Chairm
    March 15th, 2011 at 23:30 | #89

    Let’s look at the headline and the bit that Rob quoted from the article’s first paragraph.

    Headline: “Gay Day” at Six Flags New England amusement park this Sunday”.

    Subheadline: Obsession with children’s activities a disturbing part of homosexual lifestyle.

    Snippet of text: And there’s something about children’s activities, such as amusement parks (and public schools, parades, etc.) that attracts the homosexual movement in an obsessive and disturbing way.

    The headline is accurate. Does Rob or Emma dispute its accuracy? I expect not.

    The subheadline is in dispute. As is the snippet of text. Rob says they mean the same thing so let’s take them as one and the same thing.

    The article provides the context as do other related articles.

    What children activities?

    The following, I think, is beyon dispute: events at public schools, parades, and reading time in children sections of libraries. The amusement park is a venue for family activities so that is not disputable either.

    But perhaps Emma and Rob would dispute that these are children activities. I expect not.

    This also includes activities such as events like kids’ transgender proms (at which activists distribute condoms and pamphlets on anal sex), youth pride days, school day of silence, the play Falsetto, mandatory gay day for elementary schools, gay youth film festivals, class trips to SSM/Civil Union ceremony.

    These, also, are beyond dispute, I expect.

    What obsession?

    The movement’s activists use these activities as political opportunities.

    You might feel that is benign, perhaps, but it is all in aide of normalizing the homosexual lifestyle. You might feel this is the manifestation of their dedication, but it does also appear to be an obsession in terms of a persistent preoccupation of the activists and those who support their political attendance at children activities.

    The movement’s particular focus on children activities serves a purpose that you might excuse, however, the article is a piece of advocacy and so its bias is against that purpose which the writer found disturbing.

    Maybe you would not characterize this preoccupation as political nor as obsessive. But I expect you would not dispute it is a significant feature of the homoexual movement. As for whether or not this is disturbing, well, ask a reasonable person the following questions:

    What do you think attracts the movement’s attention to children activities? Does the preoccupation not disturb you at all? Why is the lifestyle promoted in this way by these activists?

    You might disagree with the headline and the bit you quoted because you’d agree with the bias of the activists, perhaps, but that is not evidence of a hate group. It is evidence of disagreement.

    Your interpreation may be plausible, but it is not decisively so. The context sheds light on the bits you decided to focus on, here, for the political purpose, Rob and Emma, of deflecting away from the content of the play, and away from dealing with the source of the video, and turning this into an opportunity to attack a group which opposes the movement’s strategy regarding children.

  90. Chairm
    March 15th, 2011 at 23:53 | #90

    Now, the content of the article, and the related articles, and of the website itself and of the group, that is really not what you cited as evidence of a hate group.

    You offered your interpretation as evidence.

    Is your interpretation beyond dispute? Early on you tried to protrary it that way. And when asked for criteria you merely restated your interpretation/accusation as a single criterion. A criterion that you taylored to place your own bias beyond dispute. Or seemingly beyond dispute.

    Your interpretation/accusation: broad and false insinuation that a group has an obsessive and disturbing interest in one of the most heinous crimes imaginable. This vicious, irrational stereotyping of gays as a danger to children is hateful.

    Given your stated view, then, you have made no distinction between the homosexual movement and all homosexuals as a group. Would you then fault the writer of that article for doing just as you did?

    Perhaps you did it due to sloppy writing; would you not consider the writer also subject to at least the same level of imprecise writing? Or would you quibble that the writer wrote — or should always write — with greater precision than yourself?

    Your interpretation depends on ignoring mention of the movement and the lifestyle that the movement seeks to normalize via its attention to children at these sorts of activities. But if you find such attention to be benign, and would insist that all take the same default position as yourself, then your interpretation is contingent on ignoring a distinction that the writer of the article did make in the bit of text you quoted initially.

    You expressly said that you do not interpret the gay only day to be a political event. But in a related article in Bay Windows a member of the movement, and a former editor of the publication, attended the amusement park activities and described his own view of it:

    Quote:

    But once again something struck me as remarkable: the presence of so many children who seemed so happy to be surrounded by so many LGBT adults who not only seemed quite adept at having fun themselves in large numbers (without a police officer or drunken fistfight in sight), but who also seemed so ready to shower on kids the kind of attention that makes kids feel special in ways that kids need to feel as much as possible.

    Everywhere you looked there was some LGBT adult interacting with children in the most harmless and loving ways you can imagine: taking them on rides, buying them treats, taking a real and completely innocent interest in them and whether they were having enough fun.

    The entire day at Six Flags made me think of this year’s Boston Pride parade, in which I marched for the very first time with a contingent that made a point of handing out beads, balloons, and all kinds of toys that make the faces of little kids (and some adult kids) light up with happiness. It was literally hours of walking up to little kids — many of them with what appeared to be straight parents — on the sidelines and making those kids happy by giving them things, asking for nothing in return but a wave and smile.

    [,,,]

    The list of abuses by God-fearing men and women in fundamentalist and Catholic churches seems as endless as it is heartbreaking.

    Meanwhile, when is the last time you heard of a child — any child — being abused, sexually or otherwise, at an LGBT event? The answer is never.

    The world is learning: we are the ones who treat kids with the respect and love they need to flourish and thrive.

    It is they — the fundamentalist ministers, youth pastors, and priests — who need to be kept away from the children. Can there really be any doubt about this any longer?

    * * *

    Now, does his remarks, particularly the conclusion, not indulge in stereotyping? He produced a glowingly favorable stereotype of “LGBT adults” who are “ready to shower on kids the kind of attention that makes kids feel special”. He set that against a dark disfavorable stereotype of “God-fearing men and women” and of “fundamentalists” and Catholics in particular; and of ministers, priests, and pasters of those faith groups.

    Was that hateful, Rob and Emma? Was it okay to stereotype the LGBT adults with a squeaky clean image? Perhaps you will excuse this as his erring on the side of over-compensating. But that would set forth a double-standard, surely.

    Likewise, consider the bizarre things that go on display on gay pride events — such as those photographed at the amusement park. This you would approve of as positive stereotyping of the movement and homosexual persons in general? It is self-inflicted on a gay only day.

  91. Chairm
    March 16th, 2011 at 00:11 | #91

    To repeat your interpretation/accusation: broad and false insinuation that a group has an obsessive and disturbing interest in one of the most heinous crimes imaginable. This vicious, irrational stereotyping of gays as a danger to children is hateful.

    The homosexual movement advances its cause at children’s activities. That is not an over-broad statement. It is not a false statement. It is not a hint nor an indirect suggestion. That the write found it to be a disturbing preoccupation or obsession was not implied nor insinuated; it was said upfront and boldly.

    Did the article say that doing this sort of thing was a heinous crime? No. But clearly the writer objected to it.

    Now, if, in contrast, you read the Bay Window quote and its bold and upfront bias as more benign or as tasteful or as something other than hateful, okay, but that would return us to the query for criteria.

    Was the writer of the MassResistance article over-compensating for the hostile remarks in the Bay Window (which appeared before the MassResistance article)? Would you even consider that as plausible?

    If, on the other hand, you want to discuss the connection between childhood sexual abuse and adult homosexuality, we could do that, but that would mean diverting further from 1) the Falsetto play and 2) the interpretation/accusation you made against the group whose website hosted the video compiled by the national Orthodox Rabbinical Alliance of America and not by MassRessistance.

  92. Chairm
    March 16th, 2011 at 00:35 | #92

    Emma, the core meaning of marriage is the marriage idea. In courtrooms and in every public venue available to them, SSM advocates and supporters declare that this is bigoted, hateful, and unconstitutional.

    Yet what is so hateful about 1) integration of the sexes, 2) provision for responsible procreation, and 3) these combined as a coherent whole, i.e. a foundational social institution of civil society?

    How can the unity of motherhood and fatherhood be deemed bigoted?

    I can’t say but SSMers declare this all the time.

    Society, they insist, may not discriminate between marriage and SSM. But on what justification have you, Emma, justified discriminating in favor of the gay type of relationship and the rest of nonmarriage? All you have offered is gay identity and other stuff that you know would not be legal requirements under SSM law.

    When it is pointed out that marriage law does deal with a sexual type of relationship between man and woman, SSMers routinely deny it even thought the legal requirements of marriage law make this very clear. It is the core meaning of marriage, including its two-sexed sexual basis, that justifies the special status of marriage in our society. Yet SSMers deny that, also, but offer nothing to justify treating SSM as the answer to a gaycentric grievance against society.

    And how is it possible to argue that constitutional law requires that society replace the marriage idea with the SSM idea — which SSM argumentation concedes is not a sexual type of relationship at law — because of same-sex sexual attraction, same-sex sexual behavior, same-sex sexual romance, and gay identity? The contradiction sticks out like a sore thumb.

    Routinely the SSM campaign denounces the defenders of the core meaning of marriage; they call us bigots, haters, and worse. That is not something you can sincerely deny has been going on now for years. Why would you feign ignorance of all of this?

    Or did you mean something else? That for you the SSM idea is one and the same as the marriage idea? Because if that is your meaning, then, see all of the points above.

    The conflict is over different ideas. The SSM idea is an open rejection of the marriage idea. It is presented as merely a new way to use the word, marriage, and as an expansion of those eligible for the speical status. But there is no justification for either this misuse of the word nor for the special status demanded for the SSM idea.

    So the SSM campaign relies on namecalling and insinuations and villification as its first resort, not as the over-excited rhetoric of extremists amongs their supporters. And this originates with and is fueled by the assertion of gay identity politics as superseding the core meaning of the most child-centered social institution we have; as over-riding the core meaning of the foundational social institution that has united man and woman, husband and wife, fatherhood and motherhood, for millennia. All of the substance and reasoning and fair lawmaking that supports the man-woman basis of marriage is waved aside as hateful and bigoted.

  93. Chairm
    March 18th, 2011 at 10:00 | #93

    The content of the play, Falsetto, should not be part of activities in public schools and yet the homosexual movement’s activists have lauded it and pushed it in front of school children. Their political obsession with this sort of content aimed at children’s activities is reprehensible.

  94. Greg
    March 21st, 2011 at 16:26 | #94

    How is this still a debate? Chairm is trying to screw this up into a ridiculously complex issue.

    Google “anti-Semitism falsettos”. You’re going to find that all the controversy about Falsettos being blatantly anti-Semitic stems solely out of this article that’s at Town Meeting in about a month. And it’s all shenanigans- why is this being brought up now instead of 1992? Has the nation had it wrong for 19 years? Somehow oblivious to this *self* hatred of Judaism?

    This also shows how MR claiming “Falsettos is anti-Semitic” is complete fabrication. And I don’t give a crap that the Rabbinical Alliance is squawking, they did it after MR told them to after the 2009 push to condemn it, and it’s all shenanigans. The bar mitzvah scene and Exodus scene are not *mockeries*, the former is actually one of the most touching scenes of the play!

    Please actually read about the play instead of this stupidly skewed propaganda video. It DOES NOT condone destructive behavior. It shows the reality of the times – this sexual revolution caused men to do crazy stuff like abandon their wives and have them contract diseases. And we SEE the agony of what’s going on and how the family situation shreds apart during the play (“I’m Breaking Down”), where even Marvin and his lover Whizzer are in agony – just ’cause Marvin narrow-mindedly says he’d do it again at the end doesn’t suggest that the audience takes away that message. It really doesn’t.

    The article proposing to condemn the faculty for this production will fail handily. Hundreds of people on a facebook group we’ve created realize how asinine and baseless the claims are.

    We also have the bureaucracy the wrong way around. It’s not the school committee saying “lol let’s put on a gay play for fun heeheehee”. It’s the theater department branching out into interesting plays that tell, really, honest and true stories. Sorry if you well and truly take the satire the wrong way, but I have to inform you that it is just satire that the taxpayers of Concord who went to this play, Jewish or otherwise, applauded as well.

    Basically, MR is lying through their teeth if they genuinely believe this to be an anti-Semitic and sexually perverse play. They’re just fabricating everything, and I’m stunned that Lee Ann is still destined to come on and try to present this rubbish article to us come April. Win at the Meeting, and you should have a go at the lottery.

  95. Chairm
    March 21st, 2011 at 18:15 | #95

    The play has no place in public schools.

    It is not an honest play. Its content is not a true story. Hiding behind a wordly sigh – it is ‘satire’ — is not persuasive even if it is drama. Applauding it does not excuse its appalling content and its inappropriate use in public schools. Take it someplace else for the applause.

    That the political cards might be stacked in favor of this nonsense does not surprise given the force of gay identity politics there.

  96. Chairm
    March 21st, 2011 at 18:17 | #96

    Greg said: “Chairm is trying to screw this up into a ridiculously complex issue.” Nope. I responded to the accusatory deflections of others. At least you discussed the play (even as you peppered your remarks with the same sort of accusatory deflections).

  97. Greg
    March 22nd, 2011 at 17:31 | #97

    Not satire? How about the fact that none of the Jews who had seen this play, at least up until this point where an extremely non-representative interpretation of Judaism saw quotes from the play out of context, thought it was insulting?

    I dunno. Again, has the nation had it wrong all these years?

    “Its content is not a true story.”

    Baseless. Although the situations came in many different forms, this could have plausibly come from the times when the culture was becoming more sexualized.

    That’s the gigundo debate – by clearly showing a man who abandons his wiffe and who has his wife and male partner come down with an STD, is it actually saying that we are actually celebrating disease and death (if a play has ever done this), or is it just a dramatic reenactment of the times. Supporting or just showing? Do we necessarily empathize with Marvin when he says “he’d do it again?”, or do the thoughts of “I’m Breaking Down” and just the general disorientation the son and everyone in this tangled mess resonate more in someone’s mind? I’d even go so far as to say the latter, one could say neither, but if we were truly to believe there were no consequences of being promiscuous, we wouldn’t see the emotional strain in such vivid detail.

    You don’t see the scenes where main character Marvin is upset at anything in MR’s video. But he is.

    In the end, the play does work out somewhat, with everyone reconvening for Jason’s bar mitzvah, although Whizzer dies later, a sad event.

    “That the political cards might be stacked in favor of this nonsense does not surprise given the force of gay identity politics there.”

    The article doesn’t discuss condemning the homosexual things. Of course it would fail in Concord, they had to swap to something else so that it might actually sound like a real issue. ;)

    Come on. Concord’s the one full of shenanigans? This convenient swap to a completely new issue, getting an organization who by name sounds definitively the overseers of all things Jewish to back up the claim, and omitting the very thing they reflexively snapped at in 2009 to try to swindle voters into supporting the article is really off.

  98. Greg
    March 23rd, 2011 at 13:06 | #98

    Ack. Apparently anti-Semitism was one of the outright claims from Lee Ann.

    It’s still a matter of the fact that the play just isn’t offensive. Nobody else but Lee Ann feels that way. Have we done the Google search yet? Have we found one person BEFORE this sudden squabbling and ensuing TM article in Concord who finds the play anti-Semitic and depraved?

    Being inappropriate for a public school is NOT a separate issue. If this was depraved and anti-Semitic, again the not-really-that-ironclad case for condemning the faculty, you’d have heard of it from *someone*.

  99. Chairm
    March 24th, 2011 at 13:01 | #99

    Hiding behind a wordly sigh – it is ‘satire’ — is not persuasive even if the sigh is dramatic.

  100. Chairm
    March 24th, 2011 at 13:03 | #100

    If you are going to argue artistic merit, fine, but the content of the play is not suitable for plublic schools. Nothing you have said shows otherwise.

  101. Chairm
    March 24th, 2011 at 13:05 | #101

    Stacking the cards in Concord is about pre-empting dissent and opposition to gay identity politics. Effectiveness of oppression is not justification of that oppression, Greg.

  102. Greg
    March 24th, 2011 at 17:48 | #102

    chairm: “Hiding behind a wordly sigh – it is ‘satire’ — is not persuasive even if the sigh is dramatic.”

    Okay. So how does the video seriously try to demean Jews? The video is way, way wrong calling the Exodus and Bar Mitzvah scenes mockeries, let’s get that straight. As for calling Jews “loose screws” among the other stuff, the reason it’s called satire is that the characters pretend to show something as true even though it’s not.

    This is satire, I’m sure you’ll agree: http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/267560/march-17-2010/united-states-census-2010 . Here, Colbert mocks the Census by essentially taking the vantage of the people who say that there is a conspiracy, yet showing how ridiculous they are all at the same time. He claims that Beck is his ally when in fact the opposite is true, the quote from Beck discredits him more than anything.

    Ignore your opinions of Colbert/Beck. All that matters is that you agree that what satire does is to blatantly present yourself as supporting an unpopular opinion in theory, that the Census is a conspiracy, that Jews are loose screws who bitch in a room all day, etc. The satire usually is involved by being blatantly wrong for comedic effect. If you think people actually take this seriously and will formulate the opinion that Jews are bitching idiots, then you’ve missed the satire. The opinion is presented so comedically that nobody accepts it as fact, and hence nobody other than the Rabbinical Alliance of America takes it seriously. I don’t know, maybe you don’t have the sense of humor for satire, what a pity. Let those of us who know better assure you that “satire” is not a word that sets a smokescreen to push agendas, it’s just the content of the play.

    chairm: “the content of the play is not suitable for plublic schools. Nothing you have said shows otherwise.”

    Hang on, I thought you were the baseless one. /:|

    Again, the play is allegedly not suitable because it’s anti-Semitic (no) and is depraved (no). If you think we, a free-thinking mature group of late teenage students, are still not mature enough to be viewing a dramatic reenactment of these events, then minus points to you for trying to condone censorship.

    I’ve got the logic. You prove me otherwise.

    “Stacking the cards in Concord is about pre-empting dissent and opposition to gay identity politics. Effectiveness of oppression is not justification of that oppression, Greg.”

    Homosexuality isn’t in the article.

  103. Chairm
    March 25th, 2011 at 13:48 | #103

    Greg you said the following and removed the mask:

    “I don’t know, maybe you don’t have the sense of humor for satire, what a pity. Let those of us who know better assure you that ‘satire’ is not a word that sets a smokescreen to push agendas, it’s just the content of the play.”

    The content of the play is not excused by your sigh, “it’s satire”, nor by your self-referential remark that you know better and offer your assurances.

  104. Chairm
    March 25th, 2011 at 13:56 | #104

    Greg said:

    “If you think we, a free-thinking mature group of late teenage students, are still not mature enough to be viewing a dramatic reenactment of these events, then minus points to you for trying to condone censorship.”

    Re-enactment? You hid behind satire and claimed that “nobody accepts it as fact”. It is not a re-enactment nor is it a true story.

    Nor is the anti-Semetic and sexually depraived content appropriate for public schools. If you wish to make the case for recruiting particular “free-thinking” teenagers to participate in and to view the content of this play outside of plublic schools, go ahead.

    But remember to return to the actual disagreement.

    Gay identity politics is in the content of the play.

  105. Greg
    April 25th, 2011 at 19:51 | #105

    Update:

    Article 31 was proposed by Lee Ann at Town Meeting just a few hours ago. It not only failed as written, but an amendment was passed stating that our town should “applaud” Falsettos and encourage it to continue with plays that create critical thought and do not simply entertain. The article passed as amended nearly unanimously, hence we have officially supported our play, not just simply denounced the false claims flung at it, followed by blanket insults which transpired from MassResistance when we fought back.

    The sad reality is that some will still think that our town is this epicenter of hostility, anti-Semitism, and hatred for proudly turning the article over and turning it into a massive support mechanism. What they fail to realize is that the logic that suggests the play is fine, no matter what anyone such as Ari or chairm suggested to the contary, is ultimately superior. The fact is, no matter how confident the video or any MR materials may suggest, it was logically baseless and out of context.

Comments are closed.