I support Phil of Duck Dynasty

pkt77242

IPA Man
Messages
10,805
Reaction score
719
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.

How old are you? Most kids aren't having sex at 12 but they are attracted to others, and kissing and making out is common. Yes only 2% or so are having sex by 12 but it doesn't mean that they don't know that they are gay. Hell if it is a 14 year old (or a 16 year old) do you think they have perspective on life?
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
How old are you? Most kids aren't having sex at 12 but they are attracted to others, and kissing and making out is common. Yes only 2% or so are having sex by 12 but it doesn't mean that they don't know that they are gay. Hell if it is a 14 year old (or a 16 year old) do you think they have perspective on life?

That all might be true, but where is the evidence of epidemic gay-youth suicide? I need a little more evidence than a post on Irish Envy and an SVU episode.
 

Irish Houstonian

New member
Messages
2,722
Reaction score
301
Had he been working for the government he'd have a slam-dunk 1st Amendment suit right now. And a Due Process one.
 

IrishJayhawk

Rock Chalk
Messages
7,181
Reaction score
464
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.

Not true.

Sarah Palin defends 'Duck Dynasty' star - POLITICO.com

Sarah Palin says the suspension of one of the stars of the show “Duck Dynasty” over recent anti-gay comments he made is an attack on free speech.

“Free speech is an endangered species. Those ‘intolerants’ hatin’ and taking on the Duck Dynasty patriarch for voicing his personal opinion are taking on all of us,” Palin wrote.
 

IrishJayhawk

Rock Chalk
Messages
7,181
Reaction score
464
Maybe she does. Sarah Palin doesn't speak for me.

Absolutely. I was just making the point that some people are still talking about the "free speech issue."

I used her references to "free speech" and "freedom of speech" as an example. :)
 

pkt77242

IPA Man
Messages
10,805
Reaction score
719
That all might be true, but where is the evidence of epidemic gay-youth suicide? I need a little more evidence than a post on Irish Envy and an SVU episode.

LGBTQ Youth Suicide Prevention Program Will Continue At San Francisco Schools Amid Staggering Statistics

CDC - Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Health - Youth


I know that I have heard the statistic that GLBT youths have a suicide rate twice that of their straight counterparts but the numbers are staggering in the huffington post article.
 

Irish Houstonian

New member
Messages
2,722
Reaction score
301
Absolutely. I was just making the point that some people are still talking about the "free speech issue."

I used her references to "free speech" and "freedom of speech" as an example. :)

But free speech is the heart of the controversy. It's a "Businesses-Ought-Not-To-Fire-People-For-Their-Statements-Or-Beliefs" argument.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
LGBTQ Youth Suicide Prevention Program Will Continue At San Francisco Schools Amid Staggering Statistics

CDC - Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Health - Youth

I know that I have heard the statistic that GLBT youths have a suicide rate twice that of their straight counterparts but the numbers are staggering in the huffington post article.

There may be some real facts out there, and if so I'd be happy to educate myself, but this is total BS.

A 2009 survey* of more than 7,000 LGBT middle and high school students aged 13–21 years found that in the past year, because of their sexual orientation—

Eight of ten students had been verbally harassed at school;
Four of ten had been physically harassed at school;
Six of ten felt unsafe at school; and
One of five had been the victim of a physical assault at school [2].

*Survey participants were recruited online and through community-based groups and service organizations serving LGBT youth.


This wasn't a random sample survey. They selected their sample by recruiting kids who were involved in gay activist groups. Now, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with these groups but they absolutely have a political agenda that makes the survey results bunk.

I was verbally and physically harassed at school, and I was definitely unsafe. I'm a straight, white, Christian male. I was one of the only kids in both the band and the football team, and I got crap on that. I was overweight, so I got crap on that. I was smart, more crap. I would have answered "yes" to every question in that survey, so no, I don't think it's a uniquely LGBT issue.

1. Kids are mean to straight kids.
2. Kids are mean to gay kids.
3. Phil Robertson wasn't mean to anyone.
4. Phil Robertson did nothing to encourage #2.
 

Folsteam_Ahead

Active member
Messages
721
Reaction score
65
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."

thanks for clarifying. i had a feeling that's what you meant.

with regard to the second part, i agree that he shouldn't have been fired. there's no animosity or hatred, apparently, so reasonable people (like most of us here) should be able to see that there's a big difference between hating LGBT and thinking it's a sin. the key in determining the difference is found in their actions. do they stop at saying it's sinful and not participating themselves, or do the help perpetuate the restriction of legal rights and social acceptance? based on what i've read, i agree with you and don't think phil was trying to put condemn anyone.

i still think there's room for judging people that are negative toward homosexuals. if there's room for them to judge homosexuals, there's room for the reciprocating judgment. it just needs to be properly tailored. the media is terrible with sensationalizing this stuff. sometimes it's warranted, but not this time. that's my real point.
 
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
You obviously didn't read what he said, so there's no point in arguing with you. There was no "contempt" in what Phil Robertson said.

I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.

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.

Now to exercise my free speech: TV really is the "idiot" box. With the exception of some public services including sporting events, and movies that I have not been able to catch at the theater it has almost no redeeming quality. TV also has toilet like quality. Porcelain and clean around the edges, the shit falls quickly to the bottom, center where the drain is connected. Reality TV is like that area of the bowl just in front of the trap.

For years I have watched all the people that get over-wired into reality TV shows. Sometimes it is funny, sometimes it is scary.

But of all you are the guy right now that has fueled this argument, brought more outside issues in, and misquoted the Bible to your advantage. Using the camouflage of some ultra-Christianity, (the say not do kind), you are throwing more crap out, and have just crossed the line with your suicide statement. You win, you are the guy they nicknamed the TV after.

I have known a number of suicides, and the only thing you can say is that the pain of living got to great for them. All kinds of people and institutions heap bull shit on people that they cannot deal with, churches included. That insurmountable stress can cause otherwise okay people to snap. It is not for any little punk to say otherwise, let alone someone who claims to, "judge not least ye be judged."
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
In a private contract? Doesn't the business have the right to protect their brand?

Please elaborate?

I must have said this 10 times.

It's not about what A&E has the right to do. (CAN they fire him? Yes.)
It's about what we believe A&E should have done. (SHOULD they fire him? No.)

Yes, they can protect their brand, but I believe this was a poor way to do so an actually damages their brand in my eyes.
 

IrishJayhawk

Rock Chalk
Messages
7,181
Reaction score
464
I must have said this 10 times.

It's not about what A&E has the right to do. (CAN they fire him? Yes.)
It's about what we believe A&E should have done. (SHOULD they fire him? No.)

Yes, they can protect their brand, but I believe this was a poor way to do so an actually damages their brand in my eyes.

Right, but Irish Houstonian appears to be disagreeing with you/us. Unless I'm reading it wrong. He's a lawyer, I believe, so I'm trying to determine if I'm missing something.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Right, but Irish Houstonian appears to be disagreeing with you/us. Unless I'm reading it wrong. He's a lawyer, I believe, so I'm trying to determine if I'm missing something.

He used the term "ought-not," suggesting his disagreement was with the decision A&E made, not their right to make it.
 

IrishJayhawk

Rock Chalk
Messages
7,181
Reaction score
464
He used the term "ought-not," suggesting his disagreement was with the decision A&E made, not their right to make it.

Okay. If that was what he meant, my mistake. I don't view that as a "free speech issue" though. I think by invoking the term "free speech," you automatically imply the constitution.
 

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,545
Reaction score
28,993
If we're resorting to quoting how one did on standardized tests, that's awesome. I'd suggest you not write the LSATs, you'd do very poorly on logical reasoning.

It's funny, because that couldn't be further from the truth and just further illustrates the giant fatal flaw in your whole BS argument. You jump to the conclusions you want despite not having a shred of logic or evidence to support it.

If you pick five things from a list if fifty, the five you pick is making a commentary. It's not like he chose the only sins occurring in society, or the only sexual sins. He picked three sins, lumped them together and talked about a moral decline. If you don't get that I can't help you.

Have you ever had a conversation in your life? You know, talked to another person? When speaking off the top of your head -- or simply truncating a list for brevity -- you are not putting painstaking thought into exactly which ones you include and which you don't. This is common sense. This isn't a team of speech writers crafting an address from the President... then your inference would have some merit. If you don't get that, I can't help you.

He lumped beastiality and homosexuality together (no matter what the connection you think there is between them, he could have included a different example). And let's be clear here, beastiality is not a common occurrence leading to the moral decay of society. It's vastly less common than his other examples. It's impossible to read that sentence without drawing an implication unless you're willfully blind.

Did you actually read the interview? He also included heterosexual promiscuity. So you inference is what exactly... that he thinks heterosexual promiscuity == bestiality == homosexuality? That's a moronic conclusion. They all fall under the umbrella of sexual indiscretion... that's it.

He put beastiality and homosexuality on the same list of three things, he's going to get in trouble for that - period.

I don't see promiscuous sorority girls up in arms that they were part of some off-the-cuff list of things considered sin. Why is that? Oh, because in no way, shape, or form does he compare, contrast, or liken any of those things to each other in any facet except to say that they are all sins.

If you are actually this dense, then there is no hope in talking with you. And it explains your red bar. Please stay north of the border.
 

connor_in

Oh Yeeaah!!!
Messages
11,433
Reaction score
1,006
Saw this in the comments section of an online article about the controversy:


So I'm waiting on this headline:
"Reality show producers dump star of reality show after learning he believes what he says on their reality show".
 

amgarvey

New member
Messages
255
Reaction score
19
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.

If I could I'd rep you for every post you've made in this thread. I'm embarrassed for most everyone else.
 

Irish Houstonian

New member
Messages
2,722
Reaction score
301
Okay. If that was what he meant, my mistake. I don't view that as a "free speech issue" though. I think by invoking the term "free speech," you automatically imply the constitution.

Right -- what A&E did is certainly not illegal, and more than likely their contract can terminate/suspend him for just about anything anyway. And Louisiana is (I think) an at-will state on top of that.

So it's a "free speech issue" the same way an employer requiring your Facebook login is a "privacy issue". It's totally legal, but nonetheless controversial and disliked by a lot of folks.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
Oh what a society of victims we've all become

Right -- what A&E did is certainly not illegal, and more than likely their contract can terminate/suspend him for just about anything anyway. And Louisiana is (I think) an at-will state on top of that.

So it's a "free speech issue" the same way an employer requiring your Facebook login is a "privacy issue". It's totally legal, but nonetheless controversial and disliked by a lot of folks.

Sadley, gentlemen, I've used my supply of reps for 24 hours. This thread has gobbled them up.
 

IrishJayhawk

Rock Chalk
Messages
7,181
Reaction score
464
Right -- what A&E did is certainly not illegal, and more than likely their contract can terminate/suspend him for just about anything anyway. And Louisiana is (I think) an at-will state on top of that.

So it's a "free speech issue" the same way an employer requiring your Facebook login is a "privacy issue". It's totally legal, but nonetheless controversial and disliked by a lot of folks.

All of that makes sense.
 

connor_in

Oh Yeeaah!!!
Messages
11,433
Reaction score
1,006
My only question is...has any of the A&E executives seen the show? I don't watch it myself, but have seen it on at family gatherings and caught parts of it then. These guys are obviously outspoken and obviously religious. It shocks them that he spouted an opinion hewing very close to the church doctrine's view?
 

NDohio

Well-known member
Messages
5,869
Reaction score
3,060
Elaborate on specific Christian figureheads who's beliefs and preachings don't truly represent the individuals. I can't think of an example although I'm not well versed in many Protestant faiths.

Also, I wouldn't consider someone a "true Christian" if they merely self-identify with a religion. There are millions of terrible people that are supposedly religious but neither practice any of the teachings of their church nor even attend mass. Those people and their actions are a reflection on themselves, not a specific religious faith.

Rick Warren, Jim Daly, James Dobson, Joel Olsteen, .... They are often asked to "speak" for Christians in this country and their words are taken as the belief of all. I do not always agree with them, but I fall in their category.

2nd paragraph - This is a very difficult one to tackle in this thread but I will do my best(without sounding like a total wacko) while also trying to work:

A: A true Christian is anyone who follows the teachings of Christ and believes in the Trinity. One does not have to be involved in a religion to be a Christian. Also, simply because an individual is not part of an establishment, doesn't mean that they only keep their faith to themselves.

B: Exactly. Just as there are millions of people that attend religious services that focus on that religion more than they focus on the words of Christ. There are religious figures whose lives revolve around the church that do not live the life of a Christian - Priests, Ministers, elders, lay leaders, etc who all attend church or mass on a regular basis and are deplorable people.

C: Our churches today are so far away from what the church was in the New Testament. If you read Paul's letters closely and pay attention to the way the church was structured, there are no grand buildings, there are no rituals, there is no Priest/Pastor, churches were communities. They were people that came together in homes or public places to read the Word, discuss the teachings of Christ as a group, and Worship God. Church was not spectator sport where one person spoke and everyone else listened or gave a pre-planned response. Church was organic, it was truly the body of Christ, it was alive, and every person had equal opportunity to contribute.

Also, there were not separate religions with-in one faith. People were Christians.
Religion has caused Christians to be divided. Catholic, Southern Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Church of God, Church of Christ, Nazarene, Independent Baptist, the list goes on and on. When the church was formed there was no such thing as denomination - they were Christians.

Unfortunately, I feel like today we are nations of religions and not a nation of Christians.

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.

Great - As do I. Your use of the word establishment is what through me.



Sorry if this has totally derailed the thread ..........
 

Irish Houstonian

New member
Messages
2,722
Reaction score
301
My only question is...has any of the A&E executives seen the show? I don't watch it myself, but have seen it on at family gatherings and caught parts of it then. These guys are obviously outspoken and obviously religious. It shocks them that he spouted an opinion hewing very close to the church doctrine's view?

That's what makes this a little more odd. A+E Networks's CEO was promoted from the History channel because of the way she turned around their ratings -- Pawn Stars, Swamp People, The Bible, etc. She's all about boosting ratings, and presumably knows what she's getting into with these reality types people.

It'd be like firing Chum-Lee for thinking Stonewall Jackson was the actor in Pulp Fiction.
 

nlroma1o

Well-known member
Messages
2,077
Reaction score
95
Rick Warren, Jim Daly, James Dobson, Joel Olsteen, .... They are often asked to "speak" for Christians in this country and their words are taken as the belief of all. I do not always agree with them, but I fall in their category.

2nd paragraph - This is a very difficult one to tackle in this thread but I will do my best(without sounding like a total wacko) while also trying to work:

A: A true Christian is anyone who follows the teachings of Christ and believes in the Trinity. One does not have to be involved in a religion to be a Christian. Also, simply because an individual is not part of an establishment, doesn't mean that they only keep their faith to themselves.

B: Exactly. Just as there are millions of people that attend religious services that focus on that religion more than they focus on the words of Christ. There are religious figures whose lives revolve around the church that do not live the life of a Christian - Priests, Ministers, elders, lay leaders, etc who all attend church or mass on a regular basis and are deplorable people.

C: Our churches today are so far away from what the church was in the New Testament. If you read Paul's letters closely and pay attention to the way the church was structured, there are no grand buildings, there are no rituals, there is no Priest/Pastor, churches were communities. They were people that came together in homes or public places to read the Word, discuss the teachings of Christ as a group, and Worship God. Church was not spectator sport where one person spoke and everyone else listened or gave a pre-planned response. Church was organic, it was truly the body of Christ, it was alive, and every person had equal opportunity to contribute.

Also, there were not separate religions with-in one faith. People were Christians.
Religion has caused Christians to be divided. Catholic, Southern Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Church of God, Church of Christ, Nazarene, Independent Baptist, the list goes on and on. When the church was formed there was no such thing as denomination - they were Christians.

Unfortunately, I feel like today we are nations of religions and not a nation of Christians.



Great - As do I. Your use of the word establishment is what through me.



Sorry if this has totally derailed the thread ..........

Please note the bolded text. This is a predominantly Protestant viewpoint. Catholics don't think we are supposed to worship exactly how the bibles mentions it.

I am absolutely not an expert, but from what I remember from highschool religion classes, Catholic's believe that we are to use both Tradition and the Bible to guide our faith. The Tradition branch is led by the church leaders. All the way back to the 12 aposltes up to the current Pope. They use the bible simply as an instrument to improve the ability to spread the truth. This is one of the differences between Catholics and Fundamentalist Christians. We don't take the bible literally to be black and white. Catholic tradition is what gives us the ceremony we attend each sunday. Tradition is why Catholics have been building cathedrals for centuries.
 
Top