I support Phil of Duck Dynasty

[wizards8507]

The LGBT advocates wants a society where kids aren't afraid to acknowledge that they're gay. Social conservatives want a society where their discomfort with homosexuality, or their belief that it is a sin, can be seen as valid and respected.

Those things aren't mutually exclusive. I think homosexual acts, pornography, and premarital sex are all sinful, but that doesn't mean I'm incapable of having relationships, friendships, and societal interactions with folks who participate in those acts. I myself am a sinner. Believing something is a sin does not mean I hate sinners, because I myself am a sinner.

In truth, my guess is that a lot of social conservatives are ok with the fact that there are so many gay men who remain in the closet.

You were doing okay until you started "guessing" what people think. Not to mention, many of the folks defending Phil Robertson's words are not "social conservatives" in the modern sense of the term. Sure, you have the Rick Santorum crowd who want constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage, but that is becoming a smaller and smaller part of the conservative / liberty movement. The "new" libertarian conservatism of Rand Paul and others would rather see a society in which the government got out of these issues entirely. Rather than endorse anyone's particular brand of morality and worrying about endorsing them all equally, let's just get the endorsement of morality out of government all together.

Minimal government intervention and liberty are the only way to solve these problems. Once either side decides they want to legislate morality (whether by endorsing gay marriage or denying it), everyone has to deal with the consequences of WHOSE morality we're endorsing. It's better if no one has that power.

 

[DillonHall]

I guess my issue with the LGBT movement is that a small percentage of the population tries to move the moral compass of the majority who doesn't condone that lifestyle. When that occurs, conflict will inevitably follow.

This is spot on. Apparently if you don't support gay rights, you're ignorant and a bigot.

 

[RDU Irish]

Nailed it.

You mean nailed his wife, mom and bacon. Right?

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Those things aren't mutually exclusive. I think homosexual acts, pornography, and premarital sex are all sinful, but that doesn't mean I'm incapable of having relationships, friendships, and societal interactions with folks who participate in those acts. I myself am a sinner. Believing something is a sin does not mean I hate sinners, because I myself am a sinner.


You were doing okay until you started "guessing" what people think. Not to mention, many of the folks defending Phil Robertson's words are not "social conservatives" in the modern sense of the term. Sure, you have the Rick Santorum crowd who want constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage, but that is becoming a smaller and smaller part of the conservative / liberty movement. The "new" libertarian conservatism of Rand Paul and others would rather see a society in which the government got out of these issues entirely. Rather than endorse anyone's particular brand of morality and worrying about endorsing them all equally, let's just get the endorsement of morality out of government all together.

Minimal government intervention and liberty are the only way to solve these problems. Once either side decides they want to legislate morality (whether by endorsing gay marriage or denying it), everyone has to deal with the consequences of WHOSE morality we're endorsing. It's better if no one has that power.

Actually, Rand Paul opposes gay marriage. He just frames it as a states rights issue.

I am totally in favor if civil unions and getting government out of the "marriage" game altogether.

 

[wizards8507]

They just shouldn't be free dictate the choices of two other consenting adults.

Who has ever tried to dictate the choices of two consenting adults?

 

[T Town Tommy]

(a) Who is this majority that you speak of?
Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(b) The constitution is there to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. We're not a majority rules society when it infringes on someone else's rights. People are entirely free to not get have a same-sex partner. They just shouldn't be free dictate the choices of two other consenting adults.

Never said the rights of the minority weren't protected. And I agree that the majority doesn't have the right to oppress the voice of the minority. But for every poll indicating that the our society is in favor of same sex marriage, etc there are just as many that state otherwise.

My value and belief system is opposed to same sex marriage. And nobody will change that. If you ask me my opinion, I will tell you. I will respect your opinion as well, even if I do disagree. But for too long in our wonderful country, those who call themselves the minority on this issue don't respect my values and beliefs and try to force it down my throat. Compassion for those who believe differently... yes. Compromise my values and beliefs for them.... no.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

This is spot on. Apparently if you don't support gay rights, you're ignorant and a bigot.

See my previous post. People who oppose gay marriage are a minority. And no one is infringing on your right to believe what you believe. There are repercussions, sure. But gay people are actively having rights denied. You are not the oppressed one here.

 

[RDU Irish]

So it is ok to screw around on your wife?

Just because you find something amoral does not mean it is illegal.

 

[Pachuco]

I can honestly say I haven't seen a single show or commercial involving Duck Dynasty, so this guy's opinions mean zip to me, as in I don't care what he has to say, positive or negative. I think the bigger concern is the evolution of reality TV as a significant aspect of the epicenter of culture and national debate. I'd put about as much intellectual merit in what any of these TV personas have to say as I would an I Love Lucy comedy sketch, with the only exception being that the later has actual humor and creativity.

 

[T Town Tommy]

See my previous post. People who oppose gay marriage are a minority. And no one is infringing on your right to believe what you believe. There are repercussions, sure. But gay people are actively having rights denied. You are not the oppressed one here.

Gays do not fall in to what has been defined by the courts as a protected class. Should they? That is the argument I guess.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Never said the rights of the minority weren't protected. And I agree that the majority doesn't have the right to oppress the voice of the minority. But for every poll indicating that the our society is in favor of same sex marriage, etc there are just as many that state otherwise.

My value and belief system is opposed to same sex marriage. And nobody will change that. If you ask me my opinion, I will tell you. I will respect your opinion as well, even if I do disagree. But for too long in our wonderful country, those who call themselves the minority on this issue don't respect my values and beliefs and try to force it down my throat. Compassion for those who believe differently... yes. Compromise my values and beliefs for them.... no.

That's not true anymore. The tide has completely turned. But, even so, it doesn't matter.

You are free to believe what you want to believe. That's fine. This isn't a thought experiment about oppressing someone's voice. All voices are being heard here...and both sides are vehement about their beliefs. As I said to Dillon, there aren't laws that prevent you from doing anything. That's not the case for same sex couples.

 

[wizards8507]

Actually, Rand Paul opposes gay marriage. He just frames it as a states rights issue.

I was speaking on a federal level. Constitutionally, it's a states' rights issue because the federal government has no power over the issue whatsoever.

I am totally in favor if civil unions and getting government out of the "marriage" game altogether.

Right. It should make everyone happy. The hardcore religious should shut up because, to them, marriage is in their church so as long as no gay people are getting married in their church, what difference does it make? The gay rights community would be satisfied because everyone is on an equal playing field. Whatever an individual thinks "marriage" is, they can go do that thing with whomever they want.

No one has brought it up, but people often support gay marriage based on "equal protection" laws. I'm not a legal schollar, but what about single people? Even if gay couples got the same preferred tax rates and whatnot as heterosexual couples, couldn't single people raise the same issue?

 

[RDU Irish]

See my previous post. People who oppose gay marriage are a minority. And no one is infringing on your right to believe what you believe. There are repercussions, sure. But gay people are actively having rights denied. You are not the oppressed one here.

I missed the part where we throw gay couples in jail and/or fire them from any position because they are gay? Contractually, A&E is OK to fire a guy for calling an act sinful (a number of acts actually) but fire someone for being gay, or supporting gay rights and you are looking at big problems.

I think A&E just shot their golden goose. If the amount of DD gear in the stores is any indication, they probably were close to jumping the shark anyway.

 

[NDohio]

Those things aren't mutually exclusive. I think homosexual acts, pornography, and premarital sex are all sinful, but that doesn't mean I'm incapable of having relationships, friendships, and societal interactions with folks who participate in those acts. I myself am a sinner. Believing something is a sin does not mean I hate sinners, because I myself am a sinner.


You were doing okay until you started "guessing" what people think. Not to mention, many of the folks defending Phil Robertson's words are not "social conservatives" in the modern sense of the term. Sure, you have the Rick Santorum crowd who want constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage, but that is becoming a smaller and smaller part of the conservative / liberty movement. The "new" libertarian conservatism of Rand Paul and others would rather see a society in which the government got out of these issues entirely. Rather than endorse anyone's particular brand of morality and worrying about endorsing them all equally, let's just get the endorsement of morality out of government all together.

Minimal government intervention and liberty are the only way to solve these problems. Once either side decides they want to legislate morality (whether by endorsing gay marriage or denying it), everyone has to deal with the consequences of WHOSE morality we're endorsing. It's better if no one has that power.

IMO more and more Christians are coming to the realization that if we attempt to vote the Bible into law, we have essentially become the Pharisees and everything Christ stood for is thrown out. As Christians we should WANT people to not live a life of sin but not FORCE them into that life.

FYI - I have agreed with a lot of what you have said in this thread. Now if you could only agree that field turf is the way to go, we could be friends.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I was speaking on a federal level. Constitutionally, it's a states' rights issue because the federal government has no power over the issue whatsoever.


Right. It should make everyone happy. The hardcore religious should shut up because, to them, marriage is in their church so as long as no gay people are getting married in their church, what difference does it make? The gay rights community would be satisfied because everyone is on an equal playing field. Whatever an individual thinks "marriage" is, they can go do that thing with whomever they want.

No one has brought it up, but people often support gay marriage based on "equal protection" laws. I'm not a legal schollar, but what about single people? Even if gay couples got the same preferred tax rates and whatnot as heterosexual couples, couldn't single people raise the same issue?

I agree that it should make everyone happy, but the republican party platform still opposes it.
GOP platform committee rejects civil unions - James Hohmann - POLITICO.com

Also not a legal scholar. I just can't wrap my brain around why my gay friends don't have the same rights as a couple that my wife and I have.

 

[autry_denson]

Minimal government intervention and liberty are the only way to solve these problems. Once either side decides they want to legislate morality (whether by endorsing gay marriage or denying it), everyone has to deal with the consequences of WHOSE morality we're endorsing. It's better if no one has that power.

The argument is a tangent from the point that was made, is inaccurate, and is illogical. The discussion was about the role of public discourse and the consequences - the gov't's role is important, but not relevant to the point that was made. As Jayhawk pointed out, you're wrong about Rand Paul's views (wouldn't you look it up first, just quickly?). Last, to assume that gov't can simply get out of the way is silly. Marriage is an institution that gov't regulates, everywhere. The default decision to not change the way it regulates marriage is effectively making a decision about whose morality is being endorsed. If you want to argue that marriage should not be regulated at all, fine - but that's an argument for a different world that is unrelated to the one we are living in.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I missed the part where we throw gay couples in jail and/or fire them from any position because they are gay? Contractually, A&E is OK to fire a guy for calling an act sinful (a number of acts actually) but fire someone for being gay, or supporting gay rights and you are looking at big problems.

I think A&E just shot their golden goose. If the amount of DD gear in the stores is any indication, they probably were close to jumping the shark anyway.

First, they don't get thrown in jail, but they are denied rights. That's just factually accurate. A gay couple doesn't have the same rights as a straight couple.

Second, there are gay people who get fired from jobs because of it.

 

[RDU Irish]

That's not true anymore. The tide has completely turned. But, even so, it doesn't matter.

You are free to believe what you want to believe. That's fine. This isn't a thought experiment about oppressing someone's voice. All voices are being heard here...and both sides are vehement about their beliefs. As I said to Dillon, there aren't laws that prevent you from doing anything. That's not the case for same sex couples.

Please educate me on these laws preventing same sex couples from doing anything they want. Contractually they can accomplish pretty much anything to obligate themselves to each other in the same fashion a marriage license does.

I would give more weight to the discussion if we removed all spousal benefits through government and made government agnostic to whether someone is married or not. My marriage is important in the context of the religious ceremony, not the "approval" of government.

 

[pkt77242]

I guess my issue with the LGBT movement is that a small percentage of the population tries to move the moral compass of the majority who doesn't condone that lifestyle. When that occurs, conflict will inevitably follow.

I think you are slightly missing the boat. You don't have to condone it but you can't take their rights away. There is a big difference between having to like it and having to allow it. While the actual amount of people who are LGBT are low, the percent of the population that supports them on the national level is well past the 50% mark.

 

[DillonHall]

See my previous post. People who oppose gay marriage are a minority. And no one is infringing on your right to believe what you believe. There are repercussions, sure. But gay people are actively having rights denied. You are not the oppressed one here.

Why the hell does it matter who's in the majority/minority? My opinion isn't ignorant simply because it's held by a (large) minority of the population.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I think you are slightly missing the boat. You don't have to condone it but you can't take their rights away. There is a big difference between having to like it and having to allow it. While the actual amount of people who are LGBT are low, the percent of the population that supports them on the national level is well past the 50% mark.

Exactly

 

[DillonHall]

I think you are slightly missing the boat. You don't have to condone it but you can't take their rights away. There is a big difference between having to like it and having to allow it. While the actual amount of people who are LGBT are low, the percent of the population that supports them on the national level is well past the 50% mark.

What exactly am I (or Phil Robertson) doing to actively deny gay people certain rights?

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Please educate me on these laws preventing same sex couples from doing anything they want. Contractually they can accomplish pretty much anything to obligate themselves to each other in the same fashion a marriage license does.

I would give more weight to the discussion if we removed all spousal benefits through government and made government agnostic to whether someone is married or not. My marriage is important in the context of the religious ceremony, not the "approval" of government.

Well...there are 33 states where the constitution has been amended or laws have been passed to ban gay marriage. I don't know about the minutiae about procuring all other legal rights that married couples would have, so I'd just be making stuff up.

 

[wizards8507]

IMO more and more Christians are coming to the realization that if we attempt to vote the Bible into law, we have essentially become the Pharisees and everything Christ stood for is thrown out. As Christians we should WANT people to not live a life of sin but not FORCE them into that life.

Amen. A lot of my conservative friends loved the Patriot Act but get outraged about the NSA spying. You can't have it both ways. People love big government when they're the ones controlling it, but then when "the other guy" is in charge, suddenly the government is out of control and needs to be stopped. I just pray that sooner or later we figure out that it's best to not give ANYONE that kind of power, because eventually a guy you don't like is going to be the one weilding it.

FYI - I have agreed with a lot of what you have said in this thread. Now if you could only agree that field turf is the way to go, we could be friends.

I'll never like field turf, but it seems I've been outvoted by the people whose opinions actually matter.

Also not a legal scholar. I just can't wrap my brain around why my gay friends don't have the same rights as a couple that my wife and I have.

This boils down to how you define "rights". Rights come from nature and from God and can't be taken away. Any "right" that comes from government is not, in fact, a right. If government grants it to you, government can take it away.

 

[kmoose]

There's a reason why gay kids have a suicide rate that is twice as high as the straight kids for something they have no control over.

Without wading into the Phil Robertson debate...

I sometimes wonder if the reason isn't the big deal that "we" make out of situations like this, moreso than being hurt by the original words. Kids generally look to adults, for guidance on how to feel about certain situations. Those of you who are parents; you can probably name more than one time that something happened to your toddler child, and they just looked at you for a few minutes, before bursting into tears. Maybe if more people took the attitude of "That's wrong of him to say, but let him be an idiot. No one really cares what he thinks.", then maybe these kids would feel less stigmatized all of the time?

 

[pkt77242]

Please educate me on these laws preventing same sex couples from doing anything they want. Contractually they can accomplish pretty much anything to obligate themselves to each other in the same fashion a marriage license does.

I would give more weight to the discussion if we removed all spousal benefits through government and made government agnostic to whether someone is married or not. My marriage is important in the context of the religious ceremony, not the "approval" of government.

This works but currently our system is not that way.


As far as laws go, if you live in a state that doesn't allow gay marriage then you can't file a joint tax return as a married couple which means you could lose out on those benefits. Also how money gets passed on after the death of one person is different as it gets taxed while it would not work that way for a married couple. There are numerous other ways as well such as social security benefits, etc.

 

[RDU Irish]

I always come back to one thing. If two sisters live together for their entire lives, committing their entire lives to each other. Just not sexually, why are they not afforded these same "rights"? Even if they are sexually involved, does that change the discussion?

And what is wrong with polygamy? Can gay cousins, or siblings get married? I don't see why not.

The same reason gay rights groups completely ignore the comment on adultery, they know they can do what they want legally as consenting adults and are not nearly as oppressed as they make out.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Amen. A lot of my conservative friends loved the Patriot Act but get outraged about the NSA spying. You can't have it both ways. People love big government when they're the ones controlling it, but then when "the other guy" is in charge, suddenly the government is out of control and needs to be stopped. I just pray that sooner or later we figure out that it's best to not give ANYONE that kind of power, because eventually a guy you don't like is going to be the one weilding it.


I'll never like field turf, but it seems I've been outvoted by the people whose opinions actually matter.


This boils down to how you define "rights". Rights come from nature and from God and can't be taken away. Any "right" that comes from government is not, in fact, a right. If government grants it to you, government can take it away.

Good post. Everyone is a libertarian about the rights that they think people should have.

To your first point (and the previous poster), people think that not being able to create religiously-based laws limits their freedom. On the contrary, it protects them. It means that no one can do it and that all religions can continue practicing freely.

 

[wizards8507]

Well...there are 33 states where the constitution has been amended or laws have been passed to ban gay marriage. I don't know about the minutiae about procuring all other legal rights that married couples would have, so I'd just be making stuff up.

But that "ban" on gay marriage doesn't mean anything. If a gay couple's church endorses gay marriage, they can say vows in a hall full of family and friends, put rings on each others' fingers, and call themselves married. The things they miss out on are not rights, but benefits. Your right to liberty means you can do whatever you want. Gay couples can. Their fight is for benefits, which require other people to do something for you (lower tax rates, insurance benefits, etc.) There's a big gap between "rights" and "benefits" in the legal world.

Again, all this is just devil's advocate because (like I said) NOBODY should be getting special benefits from the government for being married.

 

[autry_denson]

I guess my issue with the LGBT movement is that a small percentage of the population tries to move the moral compass of the majority who doesn't condone that lifestyle. When that occurs, conflict will inevitably follow.

This is spot on. Apparently if you don't support gay rights, you're ignorant and a bigot.

Why the hell does it matter who's in the majority/minority? My opinion isn't ignorant simply because it's held by a (large) minority of the population.

Something's off, you two should discuss.