I support Phil of Duck Dynasty

[Bluto]

Yeah, he also equates homosexuality with being "illogical". This implies it could be fixed vis a vis applying the proper "logic" to the situation. Also, I found his perception if pre civil rights era Louisiana eyebrow raising. Of course none of the blacks he knew were criticizing whites openly. That type of thing could have easily gotten one lynched.

 

[T Town Tommy]

See, I disagree with this. The religious establishment is part of the problem. You have figure heads for those establishments that speak in a way that doesn't truly represent the Christian individuals. Christians, as individuals are more to blame for not stepping up and living a life in a way that reflects Christ. If more individuals did this it would entice those that do not have Christ in their life to search for that.

Anytime someone fusses at me about this country no longer being a Christian country(different debate), my response is always for them to look in the mirror and decide what is it they are doing to live their life in a way that makes people want what they have.

I don't subscribe to what figure heads have to say. I believe the Bible is the infallable Word of God. I believe we all fall short and are only saved by His grace. I believe what the Apostle Paul wrote when he talked about sexual immorality in Corinthians. I also believe all sin is sin - not just sexual sins. I also believe it is my command under God to love the sinner and hate the sin. And as a Christian, I am commanded to tell others about God and his Word. It is up to the individual through free will to decide what they believe. Bottom line for me is this - if we look at the Bible as a set of rules or a rule book then we have religion. If we look at the Bible as a set of love letters from our creator we have that spiritual relationship God desires to have with us. I won't compromise what God says - and if people label me a bigot then so be it. They can answer for it when they meet their maker.

 

[woolybug25]

"“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong… Sin becomes fine. Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there."

Wooly, if I suggested that what you do is sinful and one of the big things that's wrong with this country, would you think I was treating you with respect?

If you actually read the article, you will find that the response above was a direct answer to "what do you specifically consider sins?". So he wasn't referring to "gay people being the root cause of whats wrong in this world". Those are your words and he never once said or referred to "what's wrong with this country". Not once.

That's what is wrong with this story. There are people like you twisting his words and intent to fit whatever narrative you want.

I'm not sure what you are trying to get at with your second point. What? Is every person in the world suppose to accept every other person's actions as ok? Otherwise they aren't treating them with respect? That makes zero sense. I don't agree with Phil's opinions, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't have to right to have his religious beliefs.

 

[tussin]

"“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong… Sin becomes fine. Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there."

Wooly, if I suggested that what you do is sinful and one of the big things that's wrong with this country, would you think I was treating you with respect?

This is such a stupid argument. That's his belief and he's entitled to it. What is wrong with stating what you believe to be right? Everyone today has such a thin skin and can't take it when someone disagrees with their beliefs or faith. It's pathetic.

I hit on it earlier in the topic, but I believe our society is plagued by relativism. Everything is gray, and nobody is allowed to make a black / white statement on what they believe in. What was Phil supposed to say to that question?

 

[Folsteam_Ahead]

I don't think he was talking about their legal rights at all.

His point is true in regards to the moral compass. People are generally attacked publicly and in the media when they express that they don't support gay rights. Nowadays you are perceived as a bigot for simply having a different set of values and beliefs. I don't think that's right.

there's a lot going on in your comments here. you're connecting morals to the decision to support gay rights. it seems like you want to separate issues of morals and rights, but you ended up making a direct connection between the two. whether or not you agree with homosexuality, in my opinion, we should still support the legal rights of the LGBT community.

also, i agree that the media can go over the top when responding to some anti-gay comments. as you can tell, i tend to be liberal when it comes to social policy, but i don't think phil's comments were as bad as their made out to be. be careful, though, when saying it's unfair to be judged so harshly for having an opinion that views LGBT negatively. keep in mind that while you say it "isn't right" to be judged for having the opinion, you're judging anyone LGBT and they think it "isn't right" for you to judge them in that way. it's a two way street.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I don't subscribe to what figure heads have to say. I believe the Bible is the infallable Word of God. I believe we all fall short and are only saved by His grace. I believe what the Apostle Paul wrote when he talked about sexual immorality in Corinthians. I also believe all sin is sin - not just sexual sins. I also believe it is my command under God to love the sinner and hate the sin. And as a Christian, I am commanded to tell others about God and his Word. It is up to the individual through free will to decide what they believe. Bottom line for me is this - if we look at the Bible as a set of rules or a rule book then we have religion. If we look at the Bible as a set of love letters from our creator we have that spiritual relationship God desires to have with us. I won't compromise what God says - and if people label me a bigot then so be it. They can answer for it when they meet their maker.

That's where the conversation gets tricky. That's actually not even the Catholic view of the Bible (don't know if you are Catholic or not).

 

[phgreek]

Yeah, he also equates homosexuality with being "illogical". This implies it could be fixed vis a vis applying the proper "logic" to the situation.

...or, that he doesn't understand it...he likes the vagina, and when comparison shopping doesn't get the draw to the pooper...so on a personal level he doesn't get it...logic in a "makes no sense to me" kinda way?

Also, I found his perception if pre civil rights era Lousinanna eyebrow raising. Of course non of the blacks he knew were criticizing whites openly. That type of thing could have easily gotten one lynched.

maybe so...but I don't think that's the kind of relationship dirt poor white folks had with black folks...I wasn't there...and I won't say that lynching wasn't a possibility either...

 

[tussin]

there's a lot going on in your comments here. you're connecting morals to the decision to support gay rights. it seems like you want to separate issues of morals and rights, but you ended up making a direct connection between the two. whether or not you agree with homosexuality, in my opinion, we should still support the legal rights of the LGBT community.

also, i agree that the media can go over the top when responding to some anti-gay comments. as you can tell, i tend to be liberal when it comes to social policy, but i don't think phil's comments were as bad as their made out to be. be careful, though, when saying it's unfair to be judged so harshly for having an opinion that views LGBT negatively. keep in mind that while you say it "isn't right" to be judged for having the opinion, you're judging anyone LGBT and they think it "isn't right" for you to judge them in that way. it's a two way street.

My bad, I actually misspoke. I meant to say you are attacked publicly in the media for not supporting homosexuality in general (not specifically gay rights). I think it's natural for any side of an issue to take the offensive when it comes to legal rights.

I somewhat disagree with the bolded. Phil from DD was stating a belief of an act being right or wrong and didn't say anything about specific individuals. In fact, he stated that he loves all individuals and believes everyone should be treated with respect. The response was a judgement and attack on him personally. No one said, "I disagree with Phil's beliefs," it was more, "This man should be fired from his job for his beliefs."

 

[woolybug25]

Yeah, he also equates homosexuality with being "illogical". This implies it could be fixed vis a vis applying the proper "logic" to the situation. Also, I found his perception if pre civil rights era Lousinanna eyebrow raising. Of course non of the blacks he knew were criticizing whites openly. That type of thing could have easily gotten one lynched.

This is something I talked about earlier as well. In the article, he was specifically asked "what was it like in the deep south during Jim Crow". So he answered the question and talked about how they were all poor and working the fields. He wasn't trying to connect welfare to blacks, say that Jim Crow laws should still be in place or discredit the hardships of pre civil rights african americans.

He was simply answering the question and trying to make the point that everyone was poor and worked together without animosity. That he felt everyone seemed happy.

So when we hear this message from the media outlets and regurgitations from posters on here (not you Bluto), his comments are being twisted to fit a bigot/rascist narrative that makes those people feel like they are standing for the moral authority.

 

[GoldenToTheGrave]

Yes. I believe pornography is sinful but I will respect you regardless of whether you watch it.

Also, there's a HUGE leap you're making from "respect" to "encouraging bullies to kick the shit out of a gay kid behind the dumpster."

This is my final thought on this line of reasoning but if you don't think you're disrespecting someone by saying that what they do is one of the root problems with this country and is sinful, then I don't know what to say.

Bullying based on sexual orientation/race/religion is a symptom of a society that says that it's OK to look down on them because of who they are (over something they have no control over). I don't support people who perpetuate that.

I hope one day we live in a place where teenage kids aren't blowing their brains out because people can't accept that they're gay.

 

[woolybug25]

This is my final thought on this line of reasoning but if you don't think you're disrespecting someone by saying that what they do is one of the root problems with this country and is sinful, then I don't know what to say.
.

Except that, like I said before, he never actually said it. You're words, not his.

 

[T Town Tommy]

That's where the conversation gets tricky. That's actually not even the Catholic view of the Bible (don't know if you are Catholic or not).

Don't disagree and sure not going to judge others for beliefs that are different than mine. We all need to show humility. I have always found that instead of arguing religions it is always more beneficial to ask people what their God is doing in their lives.

 

[wizards8507]

I hope one day we live in a place where teenage kids aren't blowing their brains out because people can't accept that they're gay.

If a kid blows his brains out, it's because HE couldn't accept that he was gay, not because Phil Robertson said homosexuality is sinful.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Don't disagree and sure not going to judge others for beliefs that are different than mine. We all need to show humility. I have always found that instead of arguing religions it is always more beneficial to ask people what their God is doing in their lives.

Fair enough.

The way people view the Bible is just often the fundamental (no pun intended) sticking point in many arguments.

 

[pkt77242]

This is such a stupid argument. That's his belief and he's entitled to it. What is wrong with stating what you believe to be right? Everyone today has such a thin skin and can't take it when someone disagrees with their beliefs or faith. It's pathetic.
I hit on it earlier in the topic, but I believe our society is plagued by relativism. Everything is gray, and nobody is allowed to make a black / white statement on what they believe in. What was Phil supposed to say to that question?

If he can express his beliefs and it is pathetic to rip him for it? Then why are you ripping the people who are ripping him? Isn't that pathetic? Sorry it is true, you are being the exact same as the people you are calling pathetic.

How about a little tact when he answers the question? He can answer the question anyway he wants as it is his right, and it is everyone else's right to rip him to shreds for it.

 

[wizards8507]

If he can express his beliefs and it is pathetic to rip him for it? Then why are you ripping the people who are ripping him? Isn't that pathetic? Sorry it is true, you are being the exact same as the people you are calling pathetic.

Arguing what he said is fair game. Twisting his words into things he DIDN'T say is the pathetic part.

 

[pkt77242]

If a kid blows his brains out, it's because HE couldn't accept that he was gay, not because Phil Robertson said homosexuality is sinful.

Please to God tell me that you aren't a psychologist? That is one of the most unbelievable statements I have read in this thread. The rest of your arguments have been fine, and I am not agreeing with the person that you argued with because I think they are wrong (and their statement was right up there with yours) but this is mind blowing in a bad way.

 

[tussin]

This is my final thought on this line of reasoning but if you don't think you're disrespecting someone by saying that what they do is one of the root problems with this country and is sinful, then I don't know what to say.

Bullying based on sexual orientation/race/religion is a symptom of a society that says that it's OK to look down on them because of who they are (over something they have no control over). I don't support people who perpetuate that.

I hope one day we live in a place where teenage kids aren't blowing their brains out because people can't accept that they're gay.

Again, I fundamentally disagree with all of this. This isn't a country where you should be discouraged for publicly stating what you believe in. This wasn't a case of bullying, it was a simple declaration of beliefs.

Any gay person offended by this needs to come to terms with the fact that there is a group of people in this country that fundamentally believe the gay lifestyle is wrong. I'm Catholic, I've come to terms with the fact that there are millions of atheists who believe I'm silly for living my lifestyle. Accept it and move on. No need to attack individuals personally.

 

[wizards8507]

Please to God tell me that you aren't a psychologist? That is one of the most unbelievable statements I have read in this thread. The rest of your arguments have been fine, and I am not agreeing with the person that you argued with because I think they are wrong (and their statement was right up there with yours) but this is mind blowing in a bad way.

I don't care if it's a gay kid, a fat kid, a guy who got fired from his job, or a fallen starlet. I place suicide squarely on the lap of the person who pulled the trigger or swallowed the pills. It's a horrible tragedy, absolutely, but the rush to assign blame gets carried away. If there was bullying or whatever else, then pin "bullying" on the bully, not the death.

 

[pkt77242]

Arguing what he said is fair game. Twisting his words into things he DIDN'T say is the pathetic part.

This goes for both sides of the arguments, those twisting his words and those who are turning this into a free speech debate.

 

[woolybug25]

How about a little tact when he answers the question? He can answer the question anyway he wants as it is his right, and it is everyone else's right to rip him to shreds for it.

True… but I feel that the media has now taken his comments out of context and turned his statements into narratives outside of his intent. Ask yourself, in all of the comments on tv that you have seen… have you once seen the exact question he answered quoted verbatim? I haven't… I had to read the article.

But these same outlets have no problem insinuating his intent and using his words to make points without context. It's the same old TMZ-paparrazzi spin that we have been numbed to believe is actual journalism.

 

[wizards8507]

This goes for both sides of the arguments, those twisting his words and those who are turning this into a free speech debate.

The "free speech" debate was resolved on page 1 or 2.

 

[tussin]

If he can express his beliefs and it is pathetic to rip him for it? Then why are you ripping the people who are ripping him? Isn't that pathetic? Sorry it is true, you are being the exact same as the people you are calling pathetic.

How about a little tact when he answers the question? He can answer the question anyway he wants as it is his right, and it is everyone else's right to rip him to shreds for it.

Except the attacks on his character are lazy and twist his words to make him seem like he said something else. It's not like there's an intelligent dialogue countering his belief set; it's an attack on personal character.

Also, there's a fundamental difference between what I'm doing (disagreeing with a group of people for their actions) and Phil getting publicly destroyed because of his beliefs.

 

[pkt77242]

I don't care if it's a gay kid, a fat kid, a guy who got fired from his job, or a fallen starlet. I place suicide squarely on the lap of the person who pulled the trigger or swallowed the pills. It's a horrible tragedy, absolutely, but the rush to assign blame gets carried away. If there was bullying or whatever else, then pin "bullying" on the bully, not the death.

You say that as an adult. Children are different. They don't have an adults perspective of the world and life. If we were talking about a 25 year old I would agree, but when talking about a 12 year old, then I would say that is fucked up. Honestly I can't even say anymore on this because I am going to get angry and say terrible things.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Sure glad next semester on IE is Contract Law.

 

[pkt77242]

True… but I feel that the media has now taken his comments out of context and turned his statements into narratives outside of his intent. Ask yourself, in all of the comments on tv that you have seen… have you once seen the exact question he answered quoted verbatim? I haven't… I had to read the article.

But these same outlets have no problem insinuating his intent and using his words to make points without context. It's the same old TMZ-paparrazzi spin that we have been numbed to believe is actual journalism.

Honestly I haven't seen it on the TV at all. Only on Facebook and here. Maybe social media is making it a bigger deal than the actual media?

 

[wizards8507]

You say that as an adult. Children are different. They don't have an adults perspective of the world and life. If we were talking about a 25 year old I would agree, but when talking about a 12 year old, then I would say that is fucked up. Honestly I can't even say anymore on this because I am going to get angry and say terrible things.

Pre-puberty, *children* are more or less asexual. I don't know about you, but I didn't have any sexual experiences when I was 12 years old. If anyone is killing themselves at age 12, it's not because they're beeing bullied for all the gay sex they have.

 

[pkt77242]

The "free speech" debate was resolved on page 1 or 2.

On here yes but not in the national media, plenty of people (Palin, Cruz, etc) are still riding that horse.

 

[woolybug25]

Honestly I haven't seen it on the TV at all. Only on Facebook and here. Maybe social media is making it a bigger deal than the actual media?

You must not watch much tv. lol. (good for you, we should all probably watch less!)

It was a main story on every national news program, took up the majority of the TMZ show last night (wife watches), a major topic on all "morning shows", is currently still front page news on CNN.com/foxnews.com/msnbc.com, and in every paper in the country.

It's a pretty massive story in mainstream media.

 

[wizards8507]

On here yes but not in the national media, plenty of people (Palin, Cruz, etc) are still riding that horse.

I haven't read their comments, but my guess is that they're saying a person shouldn't be fired for expressing their beliefs, not that A&E somehow violated their constitutional rights.