I support Phil of Duck Dynasty

[Bluto]

Can we change this threads name to "I support the homophobic millionaire"?

 

[pkt77242]

Clay Aiken weighing in on the controversy!
“I think the thing that frustrates me the most is that there have been people who’ve come out today and said, ‘It’s free speech, it’s free speech,’” Aiken continued. “And I would ask them … if the person had said something about interracial marriage, or said that we should put all children with disabilities in institutions, would we still say, ‘Well, that’s free speech, we’re okay with that opinion?’ And I think the answer is no.”

Aiken did, however, say that society has made progress in its acceptance of gays — though total acceptance isn’t likely to happen anytime soon.

Please hold off on the, you're a homophobe, baby pusher, unreasonable bigot BS until you've thought fully of your answer. I've had a lot of hateful replies when engaging in these types of conversation, but I'm honestly looking for good answers. It could change my perspective.

Before I continue I don't believe people are born gay, but I do believe certain things in their childhood caused these thoughts in there mind to unfold. I believe that people have the right to be Gay and live a peaceful life. Unfortunately gay supporters are pushing to the point where my opinions are somehow radical and hateful. Therefore keeping me from speaking my mind out of fear I could be fired or exiled (A&E's opinion>Phil's opinion).

First off I have several homosexual friends and are wonderful people I wouldn't trade them for the world so I don't discuss this with them. I'm for accepting to the point that all men/women are created equally. Even with that statement you run into problems. Naturally the majority of men/women are attracted to the opposite sex.

My most important question is what is the definition for "Total Acceptance" to the gay community?

First bold comments-
This stuff bugs me the most about Homosexual supporters views. The color of someone's skin is not the same as sexual preference. A black straight man in a stall next to me is not the same as a gay man, unless that black man finds me sexually attractive.

On that subject, restrooms IMO are a serious talking point for the total acceptance of Homosexuality. I know there's other things to deal with, but I think for total acceptance this would have to be looked at. It never adds up. I've heard the following comments from this.
"Oh you dummy it's not like they're trying to mate with the first person they see."
"You being uncomfortable about it is your problem."
"Where do you expect them to use the restrooms."
"Gay people don't find straight people attractive." (Gaydar?)
"It's separate to begin with because they share different private parts."

First off there are a lot of lesbians that I find attractive. Is this not the same as a Gay man
and a straight one? Should we cancel the whole restroom separating all together? Should we have just one big public bathroom for all to use? Do we segregate and have separate bathrooms for Gay's? I know I know it sounds horrible, but not as horrible as trying to figure out how that would work for Gay society. Gay women's/Gay men's (women are attracted to women, men to men). The whole where does my partner go that's different from me thought process. Do I want my gay son going to a restroom with a bunch of people he's sexually attracted to?

Remember this was a just one tiny subject on the matter (restrooms).

I'm thinking total acceptance will happen around the same time Jesus is totally accepted.

Lastly does anybody find what I've said to be offensive? If so please let me know so I don't get banned for my belief on making since out of something that doesn't make since.

I really didn't want to respond to this but I just couldn't resist.
To the bolded. When you go to the bathroom do you strip naked at the urinal? I don't see how this has anything to do with gay or straight. I am struggling to wrap my mind around your issue with it.

There is a lot more that I would like to see but I will leave it at this for the moment.

 

[connor_in]

Can we change this threads name to "I support the homophobic millionaire"?

Some people are supporting the man...but many more seem to be supporting his ability to say it

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

Voltaire

 

[Voltaire]

Some people are supporting the man...but many more seem to be supporting his ability to say it

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

Voltaire

This is actually a common misattribution. The quote above is a paraphrase written by a different author, not a direct quote, of Voltaire's words in the Essay on Tolerance — "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too."

 

[Rack Em]

Can we change this threads name to "I support the homophobic millionaire"?

That's twisted hyperbole!

Homophobia means someone is afraid of gay people. And it's a blanket term that's thrown around entirely too much. Robertson never said he was afraid of gay people or that he disliked them at all.

He stated that homosexuality was a sin. It was his personal opinion derived from his religious beliefs. Because you don't feel the same way doesn't mean it's okay to throw around pejorative terms in order to fit Robertson into this neat little box of his being a gay-bashing redneck.

When in the hell did it become unacceptable to develop one's conscience based on religious beliefs or a fundamentalist approach to the Bible? Someone give me a good reason why Robertson is "so far in the wrong" or why he's being framed so poorly because he doesn't hold progressive views? Just one freaking reason.

Wooly has pointed this out several times and it continues to fall on deaf ears, so I'll do it again. Robertson answered a question about what HE felt was sinful. He gave a response. He followed that response up with a "hate the sin, love the sinner" line that is getting little coverage in the media and in this thread.

Bluto, I'm not meaning to take this out on you bro. I'm just sick and tired of holding similar views to Robertson and being a social pariah in law school and in Chicago for not being a lockstep, Huff Post reading progressive and for being a person of faith!

He wasn't acting like a "Jesus Freak" (another pejorative term that pisses me off to no end) and throwing his faith in the reporter's face to belittle him. There was no hate speech, no aggressiveness, no ill will, no unsolicited vitriol, no mockery, no dismissal of alternative lifestyles. He stated a religious view that is becoming increasingly unpopular in America and is unnecessarily taking heat over it.

I stand with Robertson and other people of faith who believe so strongly in their faith that they refuse to shy away from tough questions. Good for him for taking a stand.

 

[irishog77]

That's twisted hyperbole!

Homophobia means someone is afraid of gay people. And it's a blanket term that's thrown around entirely too much. Robertson never said he was afraid of gay people or that he disliked them at all.

He stated that homosexuality was a sin. It was his personal opinion derived from his religious beliefs. Because you don't feel the same way doesn't mean it's okay to throw around pejorative terms in order to fit Robertson into this neat little box of his being a gay-bashing redneck.

When in the hell did it become unacceptable to develop one's conscience based on religious beliefs or a fundamentalist approach to the Bible? Someone give me a good reason why Robertson is "so far in the wrong" or why he's being framed so poorly because he doesn't hold progressive views? Just one freaking reason.

Wooly has pointed this out several times and it continues to fall on deaf ears, so I'll do it again. Robertson answered a question about what HE felt was sinful. He gave a response. He followed that response up with a "hate the sin, love the sinner" line that is getting little coverage in the media and in this thread.

Bluto, I'm not meaning to take this out on you bro. I'm just sick and tired of holding similar views to Robertson and being a social pariah in law school and in Chicago for not being a lockstep, Huff Post reading progressive and for being a person of faith!

He wasn't acting like a "Jesus Freak" (another pejorative term that pisses me off to no end) and throwing his faith in the reporter's face to belittle him. There was no hate speech, no aggressiveness, no ill will, no unsolicited vitriol, no mockery, no dismissal of alternative lifestyles. He stated a religious view that is becoming increasingly unpopular in America and is unnecessarily taking heat over it.

I stand with Robertson and other people of faith who believe so strongly in their faith that they refuse to shy away from tough questions. Good for him for taking a stand.

I haven't opened this thread until tonight, although I did read the one Wooly started.

Rack Em just said everything that needed to be said. Reps to you. We're of the same mind.

And reps to Wooly, here on IE and in real life, for disagreeing with PR but understanding the actual context of the interview...and the reaction to them.

 

[phgreek]

Dusty was right, DD is fake.

We could make this whole conversation go away if you could show where any of these viewpoints of the Richardson's or the supporters on this site, reflect the words of Jesus, make a difference, or in their many attempts at application have actually made a difference in the world.

I'm not sure what you are asking...but I find this reference containing Jesus' discussion with Pharisees in Matthew 19:3-9 potentially meaningful as relates to homosexuality. It contains his views on marriage and adultery, and IMHO is instructive on homosexuality...in short I think Jesus sees marriage between man and woman...and sex outside marriage a sin(less clear)...so you "do the math" and determine where homosexuality fits.

(Matthew 19:3-9)

3 The Pharisees also came unto him [Jesus], tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

"Sin"...wow has that gotten distorted. The identification of Sin by man or scripture is a "warning", normally given out of concern for another's soul. No one has the right on either side to treat it as equivalent to condemnation or judgement...no one....that job is taken.

Finally...legal standing...never had an issue with civil unions, and believe one can't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation...anything of a rights/legal nature is equally reserved for all. However I do think the word marriage has a biblical context that has been hijacked, and I think it was a trophy for overzealous and spiteful LGBT/progressive folks...hope it was worth it.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I haven't opened this thread until tonight, although I did read the one Wooly started.

Rack Em just said everything that needed to be said. Reps to you. We're of the same mind.

And reps to Wooly, here on IE and in real life, for disagreeing with PR but understanding the actual context of the interview...and the reaction to them.

"Homophobia" is actually somewhat of a misnomer. Definitions include "fear," "aversion," or "discrimination against" gay people.

I agree with much of what Rack Em had to say about the interview. But Phil doesn't like gay people at all. As Folsteam pointed out, here are some of his previous comments:

"They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God-haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are truthless. They invent ways of doing evil."

Doesn't read like "love the sinner" to me.

 

[GoIrish41]

"Homophobia" is actually somewhat of a misnomer. Definitions include "fear," "aversion," or "discrimination against" gay people.

I agree with much of what Rack Em had to say about the interview. But Phil doesn't like gay people at all. As Folsteam pointed out, here are some of his previous comments:

"They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God-haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are truthless. They invent ways of doing evil."

Doesn't read like "love the sinner" to me.

While he has the right to say whatever he wants, he should also live with the consequences of his words. I don't buy the "he was asked a question and answered it" argument either. He didn't have to answer. I couldn't care less what this backward hillbilly's religious beliefs are, and if he doesn't have enough sense to keep his offensive views to himself, he deserves to be chastised. I don't get why so many people are defending him. His comments were ignorant.

 

[Rack Em]

While he has the right to say whatever he wants, he should also live with the consequences of his words. I don't buy the "he was asked a question and answered it" argument either. He didn't have to answer. I couldn't care less what this backward hillbilly's religious beliefs are, and if he doesn't have enough sense to keep his offensive views to himself, he deserves to be chastised. I don't get why so many people are defending him. His comments were ignorant.

Ignorant because you don't like them or because they're not progressive?

Put forth an argument as to why they are offensive, why he deserves to be chastised, why his religious views are backwards, and why his comments are ignorant. There are a lot of heavy handed insinuations there and no substance to back it up.

 

[GoIrish41]

Ignorant because you don't like them or because they're not progressive?

Put forth an arguIment as to why they are offensive, why he deserves to be chastised, why his religious views are backwards, and why his comments are ignorant. There are a lot of heavy handed insinuations there and no substance to back it up.

Ignorant because they single out a group of people and say thier way of life is sinful. At the very least, he should have the sense to understand that saying something like this in a national venue is going to be viewed as an attack on some people. This has absolutely nothing to do with politics. The issue here is just plain civility.

 

[woolybug25]

While he has the right to say whatever he wants, he should also live with the consequences of his words. I don't buy the "he was asked a question and answered it" argument either. He didn't have to answer. I couldn't care less what this backward hillbilly's religious beliefs are, and if he doesn't have enough sense to keep his offensive views to himself, he deserves to be chastised. I don't get why so many people are defending him. His comments were ignorant.

So let me ask, if someone asked you thought was sinful, would you not answer? After all, anything you say will be pointing out a group of people. Is there a way to answer that honestly while maintaining your demanded level of PC?

You also proved my earlier point when you state, "backward hillbilly religious views". You literally just did what you are chastising Phil Robertson for. Do you see that or does that go over your head?

 

[phgreek]

for the most part, the difference is the condemning nature of the comments: "They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God-haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are truthless. They invent ways of doing evil."

for the record...he said this in reference to anyone who ignores God's word...not homosexuals. If you back up and listen to the context of that discussion.

that said, I don't like condemnation because that's not his job...on that point I agree he needed to moderate his approach, and reflect on how he might be a "sinner" by his own approach.

 

[GoIrish41]

So let me ask, if someone asked you thought was sinful, would you not answer? After all, anything you say will be pointing out a group of people. Is there a way to answer that honestly while maintaining your demanded level of PC?

You also proved my earlier point when you state, "backward hillbilly religious views". You literally just did what you are chastising Phil Robertson for. Do you see that or does that go over your head?

This guy is a public figure being interviewed by a national publication and he spouts off about how a group of people are morally inferior. If someone asked me what I thought was sinful, I would measure my response. Maybe I would exercise judgment and not answer at all -- particularly if I my thoughts might offend a group of people. This whole show is based on this family's outrageous behavior. It's why people watch it. This guy's problem is that he is so caught up in his own persona that he doesn't believe the understood laws of civility apply to him.

 

[Rack Em]

Ignorant because they single out a group of people and say thier way of life is sinful. At the very least, he should have the sense to understand that saying something like this in a national venue is going to be viewed as an attack on some people. This has absolutely nothing to do with politics. The issue here is just plain civility.

Maybe he did have the "sense" to realize it would be "viewed" as an attack? But maybe he didn't care because his religious convictions are persuaded by what you, or I, or Wooly, or irishog77 (well nobody cares what he thinks...), the media, President Obama, Billy Graham, or anybody else thinks?

He didn't advocate violence against gays - that's clearly crossing a line and that's clearly not reconcilable with the message of the Bible or any true Christian religion. He said he felt it was sinful. That was it. He also said it in a civil manner.

It seems that you're equating civility to what your beliefs are. That has everything to do with personal politics and little to do with civility.

 

[woolybug25]

This guy is a public figure being interviewed by a national publication and he spouts off about how a group of people are morally inferior. If someone asked me what I thought was sinful, I would measure my response. Maybe I would exercise judgment and not answer at all -- particularly if I my thoughts might offend a group of people. This whole shole is based on this family's outrageous behavior. It's why people watch it. This guy's problem is that he is so caught up in his own persona that he doesn't believe the understood laws of civility apply to him.

So what you're saying is that anyone that doesn't walk lock step with your views of homosexuality is a bigot? That you cannot see it as a sin, otherwise you an awful person?

That's ridiculous.

 

[GoIrish41]

Maybe he did have the "sense" to realize it would be "viewed" as an attack? But maybe he didn't care because his religious convictions are persuaded by what you, or I, or Wooly, or irishog77 (well nobody cares what he thinks...), the media, President Obama, Billy Graham, or anybody else thinks?

He didn't advocate violence against gays - that's clearly crossing a line and that's clearly not reconcilable with the message of the Bible or any true Christian religion. He said he felt it was sinful. That was it. He also said it in a civil manner.

It seems that you're equating civility to what your beliefs are. That has everything to do with personal politics and little to do with civility.

I think that this situation isn't that different from the IE debate over Irish Pat's banning, and it just seems odd to me that many of the people who were happy to see Pat go are the ones who are defending his right to verbalize his provacative opinion no matter how offensive it is to anyone. I could care less what his views are about anything, but he purposefully said something to a national audience that he knew would be seen as offensive. He deserves the fallout that that choice brings, IMO. I was under the impression that the message of Christianity was one of tolerance.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

So what you're saying is that anyone that doesn't walk lock step with your views of homosexuality is a bigot? That you cannot see it as a sin, otherwise you an awful person?

That's ridiculous.

I'm torn about this point of view. There is a substantive difference here. His views on homosexuality seem to be (maybe an assumption) that we shouldn't allow homosexuals the same legal rights (or benefits, as some have argued) as straight people. The side criticizing him is simply expressing their right to rip his belief. They aren't trying to take any legal rights or benefits from him. The two views are not equivalent.

I'm not saying this in an elegant way, but do you see what I'm saying?

 

[woolybug25]

I'm torn about this point of view. There is a substantive difference here. His views on homosexuality seem to be (maybe an assumption) that we shouldn't allow homosexuals the same legal rights (or benefits, as some have argued) as straight people. The side criticizing him is simply expressing their right to rip his belief. They aren't trying to take any legal rights or benefits from him. The two views are not equivalent.

I'm not saying this in an elegant way, but do you see what I'm saying?

I hear you. But none of his statements say anything except the fact that he sees their behavior as immoral/sinful. He never discusses their legal rights (although, most republicans do not agree with legal issues like gay marriage, an aren't vilified for it). He simply expressed a religious opinion that millions of Americans share.

The only difference is that he is on a tv show.

 

[GoIrish41]

So what you're saying is that anyone that doesn't walk lock step with your views of homosexuality is a bigot? That you cannot see it as a sin, otherwise you an awful person?

That's ridiculous.

I'm saying that when people purposely verbalize ideas that they know are going to be offensive to one or more group of people, and they say it anyway, they should accept that there will be pushback. A person who does this is demonstrating a lack of respect for others. They lack civility and deserve to be called out for it.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I hear you. But none of his statements say anything except the fact that he sees their behavior as immoral/sinful. He never discusses their legal rights (although, most republicans do not agree with legal issues like gay marriage, an aren't vilified for it). He simply expressed a religious opinion that millions of Americans share.

The only difference is that he is on a tv show.

If the view is this...I think it's sinful but they should have equal benefits under the law...okay. I disagree with the view of gay people, as do many people of faith. I'm still fine with people expressing disapproval to the perspective and I don't think it's the result of an "overly PC" culture...though the backlash has been out of proportion.

If we're talking about unequal legal benefits, it's easy for me to call the view discriminatory. I'll leave the overly-charged word "bigot" out of the discussion. It has too many connotations and doesn't express accurately what I think.

 

[woolybug25]

If the view is this...I think it's sinful but they should have equal benefits under the law...okay. I disagree with the view of gay people, as do many people of faith. I'm still fine with people expressing disapproval to the perspective and I don't think it's the result of an "overly PC" culture...though the backlash has been out of proportion.

If we're talking about unequal legal benefits, it's easy for me to call the view discriminatory. I'll leave the overly-charged word "bigot" out of the discussion. It has too many connotations and doesn't express accurately what I think.

If it's not a result of "overly pc" culture, then where is your outrage for all of the Republican senators that opposed gay marriage? Where is your outrage for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, who stated "children do best when raised by a mother and father, and that legalizing same-sex marriage is, therefore, contrary to the best interests of children."? Where is your outrage for the 43% of this country (per most recent Galloup poll) that oppose gay marriage?

Those people are actually trying to take action in removing rights of gay americans. All Phil did was express his religious opinion. One you have no problem calling "backwards" and "hillbilly". Seems like if anyone is being self righteous and/or judgmental… its you.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

If it's not a result of "overly pc" culture, then where is your outrage for all of the Republican senators that opposed gay marriage? Where is your outrage for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, who stated "children do best when raised by a mother and father, and that legalizing same-sex marriage is, therefore, contrary to the best interests of children."? Where is your outrage for the 43% of this country (per most recent Galloup poll) that oppose gay marriage?

Those people are actually trying to take action in removing rights of gay americans. All Phil did was express his religious opinion. One you have no problem calling "backwards" and "hillbilly". Seems like if anyone is being self righteous and/or judgmental… its you.

I haven't used the word "backwards" or "hillbilly." I have gone out of my way to not use personal insults. Maybe you thought you were responding to GoIrish?

And I find all of those things you mention in the first paragraph to be unfortunate and discriminatory.

 

[woolybug25]

I haven't used the word "backwards" or "hillbilly." I have gone out of my way to not use personal insults. Maybe you thought you were responding to GoIrish?

And I find all of those things you mention in the first paragraph to be unfortunate and discriminatory.

My bad, that was actually meant for GoIrish41. I used your post for some reason and used your term "overly pc". Kinda mixed up posts there. My apologies for putting words in your mouth.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

My bad, that was actually meant for GoIrish41. I used your post for some reason and used your term "overly pc". Kinda mixed up posts there. My apologies for putting words in your mouth.

No worries. I thought we were cool...

 

[GoIrish41]

My bad, that was actually meant for GoIrish41. I used your post for some reason and used your term "overly pc". Kinda mixed up posts there. My apologies for putting words in your mouth.

I used those words and stand by them. It would be difficult to convince anyone that the reason we even know who this Phil guy is is that the family is a bunch of hillbillys who flaunt that characteristic to get ratings on a television show. I used backward because he is expressing opinions that one would have to reach back into the nation's history (however recent) to find a time when those ideas were a part of mainstream thought.

 

[woolybug25]

I used those words and stand by them. It would be difficult to convince anyone that the reason we even know who this Phil guy is is that the family is a bunch of hillbillys who flaunt that characteristic to get ratings on a television show. I used backward because he is expressing opinions that one would have to reach back into the nation's history (however recent) to find a time when those ideas were a part of mainstream thought.

So you are fine with expressing a view that many people deem offensive (including me), simply because its your opinion and entitled to it.

But are outraged that someone, that you have no problem insulting, shares his views that you deem offensive?

Yeah… that's not hypocritical at all...

 

[GoIrish41]

So you are fine with expressing a view that many people deem offensive (including me), simply because its your opinion and entitled to it.

But are outraged that someone, that you have no problem insulting, shares his views that you deem offensive?

Yeah… that's not hypocritical at all...

If I have said something that offends you, I'm sorry .... even though I have no idea what I said that could have offended you. I said the guy went too far in his statements and it seems that you are reading something into my posts that just isn't there.

 

[ARALOU]

I have no desire to state my opinion on what he said but I will tell you that he could care less about that show. He made a fortune in the hunting industry. Not just duck calls. He was fairly popular in the hunting community before DD. Their hunting videos are very popular (always were) because of the production and filming quality.

I hunt and have several friends that hunt. We watched the show when it first aired and we were not impressed. We commented on how it would probably be huge in prime time reality tv and sort of wondered why they would do it. They certainly don't need the money. Now it appears that they may be using it as a way to "preach".

I know one of the sons routinely travels to various churches to speak (preach).

 

[Bogtrotter07]

If it's not a result of "overly pc" culture, then where is your outrage for all of the Republican senators that opposed gay marriage? Where is your outrage for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, who stated "children do best when raised by a mother and father, and that legalizing same-sex marriage is, therefore, contrary to the best interests of children."? Where is your outrage for the 43% of this country (per most recent Galloup poll) that oppose gay marriage?

Those people are actually trying to take action in removing rights of gay americans. All Phil did was express his religious opinion. One you have no problem calling "backwards" and "hillbilly". Seems like if anyone is being self righteous and/or judgmental… its you.

I personally have no use for the Council of Bishops. (I think Francis has been addressing a lot to them lately, under the guise of softening their hearts.)

There is no conclusive proof that a child does any better with a specific configuration of parent units. A child does better with a loving and well adjusted parent. It can be one, or it can be two. It can be anything from all male to all female. And it all can be proven with studies.

Hypocrisy spoiler : Between 30 and 40 percent of girl children are sexually abused. Between 25 and 30 percent of boy children are sexually abused. Over 60 percent of children in America have suffered some form of neglect, abandonment, or have been routinely ignored by parents or guardians.