/* ------------------- begin IP Block script ------------------- Block IP address script Points to php script on blog.racetotheright.com IP addresses are within the script ---------- */ /* -------------------- end IP Block script ------------------- */

Monday, January 09, 2006

I told you so

--posted by Tony Garcia on 1/09/2006

It is only a matter of time before the slippery slope is embarked upon. If you warp the definition of marriage to include homosexuals because you should not stop people who love each other from being allowed to marry then where does it stop?

I have said for a long time that the talking points from the pro-gay marriage can easily be used for polygamy, incestual relationships and any other type of union that you can think of.

The pro-gay marriage group contends that there is no way. People are not advocating for polygamy, etc. and thus it is stupid to say those would even want to be allowed to marry.

Well, in the trail that gays used to normalize gayhood through Will & Grace, Ellen and other Hollywood vehicles we have this from Newsweek:
Bill Henrickson (Bill Paxton) pops a lot of Viagra. A lot, as in one every day, which he pulls from a bottle he keeps in his pants pocket. That seems like a heap of thrill pills for a happy, healthy, fortysomething married man. The problem isn't his libido—this isn't a supply problem. It's a demand problem. Bill is a polygamist with three wives: Barbara (Jeanne Tripplehorn), Nicki (Chloe Sevigny) and Margene (Ginnifer Goodwin). They live in adjacent houses with a common backyard, so Bill's on a regular rotation—one night Barb, the next night Nicki, the next Margene. He's like the only batter on a baseball team, and he's expected to hit a home run every night.

The Henricksons are the main characters in a show called, appropriately enough, "Big Love," which debuts in March on HBO. The network's biggest dramas have all focused on unorthodox families, from mobsters to undertakers. But polygamy? "In my career, I've pretty much seen it all, but I can honestly say I've never seen anything on a polygamous family," says Tripplehorn. Though she was intrigued by the concept, Tripplehorn wasn't sure she could handle it. "I had a hard time finding a connection as to why a woman would share her husband. I didn't think I was up to the task. I didn't think I could make it real."
And do not try to fool yourself into thinking that this anything beyond an effort to normalize the next assault on marriage.
"It's everything that every family faces, just times three," says co-creator Mark Olsen. "The yuck factor disappears and you just see human faces. We found it to be a mother lode."

And on top of all that, it's taboo. Mormons are extremely sensitive about being associated with polygamy, and HBO is considering a prologue explaining that the Mormon Church disavowed the practice in 1890. Controversy, of course, never hurts in Hollywood. "People really need to see it before they make an opinion," Tripplehorn says of the family in question. "You can't help but be fascinated by how they do this. It's an incredible feat of organization. How does he keep it up?" And on so little sleep!
Now two things here.

First, the next step in the assualt on family AND on marriage has begun. Why? Because the pro-gay supporters realized they need to add more people to their militant ranks in their attack on marriage. Who best to do this? Hollywood. They have advanced the gay troops far enough in attacking marriage that the exposure of polygamists (and the inclusion of them) is acceptable now.

Second, the gay marriage crowd has been highly disingenuous in the whole debate. They should have acknowledged the fact that their talking points could be applied to polygamists, intra-familial couples, animal lovers, etc and dealt with that. Instead they tried to get their assault on marriage completed hoping to keep secret the truth. The truth that pro-gay marriage talking points are the exact same that can be used by every other combination. They have always known that, they just would not admit it because they know the mainstream would not tolerate that reality to occur.

Liars.

And I told you so.

********** UPDATE **********
Welcome to the readers of Digital Warfighter. Enjoy, observe and learn. Debate and be respectful...or at least hold me to the same standards that you hold to yourselves. :)

6 Comments:

Blogger Tony Garcia said...

It is still in the article. I would also like to direct you to this post which addresses gay marriage by itself and why it is a bad idea.

January 09, 2006  
Blogger lloydletta said...

And Craig Westover cleans Chuck Darrell's clock over on Craig's blog.

January 14, 2006  
Blogger Tony Garcia said...

First, I should point out that I do not have any conclusions based on religion.

I would advise you to rethink your attack and try again.

January 17, 2006  
Blogger Tony Garcia said...

Hollywood has an incredible influence on culture. Take Geena Davis for example. By the time an election roles around with a woman candidate the country will already be used to the concept of a woman President.

Sometimes this influence is good. Sometimes it is not. The overwhelming amount of violence in the media has made people more numb to violence. The number of movies that justify adultery also makes the culture numb to the act and thus more frequent. Likewise with divorce.

Why is it that for years Hollywood has been railing against smoking? To influcene society. Why do you think Hollywood tries to make politically charged movies or movies with messages like Schindler's List, Munich, Syriana and Runaway Jury?

Because of all of the CSI types of shows there are now juries that expect THAT kind of evidence or they vote not guilty.

With that I restate that the gay was advanced through Hollywood. Knowing that, understanding that, lets people who are of a different belief system (basically not of moral relativists) can fight back.

The logic of "use it to teach your kids one way or the other" is a bit dangerous. Would you say the same about sex? Drug usage? What is the definitive bright line that you present to say "yes" to gay marriage being a teaching moment on television while saying "no" to hard core sex being a teaching moment on television during prime time?

Finally, I would like to understand your claim that my opposition is "disturbing". Please explain this one...or was it simply a chance to engage in labeling?

January 18, 2006  
Blogger Tony Garcia said...

By far, you are the most engaging debater I have seen here. Most importantly you address the questions head on. I love that. Keep it coming.

Now, we agree on the influence of Hollywood on society. You bring out of my discussion a very interesting distinction that I was not considering...the rights to see or not see. As I read your response I realized something: the movie you saw was 100% voluntary. Television, despite how we like to think so, is not 100% voluntary. Once you turn on the television you become a captive audience. Even while watching the "safe" program you will still have the advertisements for "unsafe" programming, the "unsafe" advertisemensts from sponsors, etc. There is more of a reason for the FCC to err on the side of caution rather than on the side of popular opinion here.

Regardless, my initial point is that because of the way Hollywood does influence, or as we agree, because of the nature of "art" to push the envelope there is no reason to seriously believe any type of societal change is not possible.

So, to hold up "societal barriers" as a prevention of the slippery slope of any kind is simply not holding to reality. Do we agree on that? I think we do.

Around the time of the earlier post (that you read and quoted) I heard from many pro-gay marriage people that it was ridiculous for me to mention similarities between gay marriage and polygamy, intra-familial marriages and a whole host of other combinations.

Is it really that ridiculous? You mention the societal change from decades ago to today with relation to gay acceptance.

To me the debate comes down to two levels...the first has yet to be addressed adequately and thus I find it irrelevant to consider the second.

The first is this: What rationale is there to change the definition of marriage to basically "any two people"? Why can this rationale NOT be applied to "any two people including family members" and "any group of people" and "any species of beings"?

Once this is resolved then I believe it makes sense to engage in the "should gay marriage be allowed" debate.

January 18, 2006  
Blogger Charley Foster said...

In Utah the polygamy debate rages with or without gays and talk of marriage. From here, Big Love is the new Will and Grace, polygamists are the new gays, and gays are the new polygaphobes.

January 30, 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home