add Posted December 21, 2013 Author Share Posted December 21, 2013 (edited) how is preaching about the afterlife bigotry, Julius Edited December 21, 2013 by add Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kateri89 Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 I only read parts of Robertson's interview and have never watched Duck Dynasty...not much of a fan of reality TV. However, it seems that A&E is in disagreement simply over the fact that Robertson doesn't support homosexual relationships. I'm curious why anyone thinks that moral relativism works when they see stories like this in the news. If the creators of A&E didn't support the LGBT community's views and Robertson did, there would likely be major outrage if he were fired for it. The fact that Christians can't speak their minds (without threatening anyone) without risk of retribution is just as "bigoted" and discriminatory as anything. The fact is, people will always have opposing moral views and I strongly encourage people on both sides of the debate to be completely honest about them. Don't sugarcoat it or try to give a watered-down version of your beliefs. Be firm when you make such statements. But the moment one side tries to stifle the other side's right to speak, it is discrimination. Gays have been discriminated against for a long time, there's no doubt about that. I believe that the gay community deserves to be treated with the human dignity God gave them but that doesn't mean I have to support every decision that they make. Now if Robertson said something like "Death to all homosexuals!" then I would fully support A&E's decision and would hope that this man seek some professional help. But the fact that he made a moral statement, albeit in a somewhat crass manner, does not make him a hateful, evil person. It's all propaganda these days. Using words like "hate" or "intolerance" when someone disagrees with your views is ridiculous. If someone likes the color blue and I don't, does that make me a hater? Of course not. I'm so sick of this modern culture (both liberal and conservative) insisting on this "all or nothing" point of view. People usually aren't completely bad or completely good. We will never make any sort of progress if we can't have civil, honest dialogue. Okay, time to get off my soapbox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice_nine Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 Yes, it makes sense, but I never cried persecution. I called the people facists, which is what they are. I don't think it makes me look hyper-reactionary and it's ok with me if you feel differently. (That said, I do believe the elite and the left hate the Church and that this is a form persecution.) I didn't mean you personally was being reactionary. Sometimes when I say "you" I mean it in a general, 2nd-person sense which can be confusing. Just how I talk. Oops. I'm more talking about people who are losing their freaking minds over this. ND, you seem pretty level-headed about this thing and I mostly agree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 (edited) I don't think he should have lost his spot for the show, especially since if he came out in support of gay marriage, he most certainly would have kept his job. That being said, he was quite graphic and insensitive when he spoke about homosexual tendencies. "It just seems to me that a vagina would be more attractive than a dude's anus... I mean, come on, dudes!" That statement was juvenile, insensitive, and most of all, idiotic. It doesn't matter what "seems" to him. People with same-sex attractions don't ask for them, and it's not their fault that they find a "dude's anus" more attractive than a vagina (That wording in itself bothers me, as scientifically speaking he should have said vulva, but whatever). I don't think he would have lost his job if he simply said "I believe in what the Bible says about homosexual acts being a sin." I think he lost it more because of insensitivity than anything else. Edited December 21, 2013 by FuturePriest387 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotreDame Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 Interesting take... A manufactured crisis that backfired? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2527430/Hung-dry-Duck-Dynasty-star-family-lash-A-E-making-controversial-interview-public-suspending-homophobic-comments.html Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson and his family believe they have been ‘hung out to dry’ by TV network A&E after he was suspended for homophobic comments made in a magazine interview, MailOnline can reveal. Sources within the close-knit Louisiana clan say they are convinced A&E are manipulating the controversial situation to bring them – and particularly Robertson – back into line after Television executives grew tired of the family pushing their deeply-held, Christian beliefs. They also think the network could have done something to stop the controversial GQ article being made public, because an A&E representative was present during the interview with patriarch, Roberston, 67. A source close to the family, who asked not to be named, told MailOnline: ‘You have to ask yourself, why this interview happened and why it ever became public. Someone from A&E was there and was aware of the kind of answers Phil was giving. ‘But despite that, they didn’t ever try to stop it or control it. Instead, they let it hit the headlines and then released a statement condemning it. ‘It is our belief that they knew what was going to happen and then used the situation to exercise control over Phil.‘It is our understanding that when the TV executives came up with the concept for the show they wanted it to be a case of people laughing at a bunch of backward rednecks.‘But when it didn’t turn out like that and people actually started identifying with the way the family behaved and were laughing with them, not at them, they became uncomfortable. It did not sit will with the New York TV types. ‘We believe they were also uncomfortable with the family’s insistence that there would be a strong religious presence in the show. They knew Phil was the driving force behind this and we think they have used this situation to bring him in line so they could steer the show back down the path they originally intended for it. ‘But they may have underestimated how united the family are and how committed they are to their beliefs. They also didn’t realize how much support Phil would get from the public, so things have backfired on them.’ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 Hey hey, NoteDame doesn't understand what leftism is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotreDame Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 Hey hey, NoteDame doesn't understand what leftism is. ooohh!!! Tell me more! :popcorn: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
add Posted December 22, 2013 Author Share Posted December 22, 2013 (edited) Robertson told GQ. "Don't be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers-they won't inherit the kingdom of God. ~ why is this statement offensive only to gays? i haven't heard any outrage from anywhere or anybody about the "other" groups he referenced also the hillbilly was speaking about the afterlife I'm sorry but i fail to see what all the hubbub is about. Edited December 22, 2013 by add Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 (edited) Robertson told GQ. "Don't be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers-they won't inherit the kingdom of God. ~ why is this statement offensive only to gays? i haven't heard any outrage from anywhere or anybody about the "other" groups he referenced also the hillbilly was speaking about the afterlife I'm sorry but i fail to see what all the hubbub is about. That wasn't the controversial part. This was the controversial (And idiotic) part: "It seems like, to me, a vagina (I won't live until every being on the planet knows the proper scientific word is vulva) -- as a man -- would be more desirable than a man's anus. That's just me. I'm just thinking: There's more there! She's got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I'm saying? But hey, sin: It's not logical, my man. It's just not logical." That was the insensitive and outrageous part. I'm honestly not surprised he lost his spot on the show with remarks like that. If he had said "I believe that homosexual acts are wrong." that's totally different, but he didn't. He instead chose to go on a long and graphic tangent about why gays are illogical. Everyone on the right seems to be flying behind this guy to support him, but let me ask you this: What if a priest said this? He would rightfully be temporarily suspended from performing any sacraments whatsoever, and he would probably live the rest of his life in a monastery because the public backlash would be so great. Edited December 22, 2013 by FuturePriest387 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4588686 Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 You Mr SC, are a great example of the new moralistic facism of the left... Where saying one personally finds something immoral immediately becomes bigotry and requires "consequences." Mmmm. The vapidness is yummy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 http://gregorianrants.wordpress.com/2013/12/22/the-duck-commander-vs-liberal-tolerance/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
add Posted December 22, 2013 Author Share Posted December 22, 2013 That wasn't the controversial part. This was the controversial (And idiotic) part: "It seems like, to me, a vagina (I won't live until every being on the planet knows the proper scientific word is vulva) -- as a man -- would be more desirable than a man's anus. That's just me. I'm just thinking: There's more there! She's got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I'm saying? But hey, sin: It's not logical, my man. It's just not logical." That was the insensitive and outrageous part. I'm honestly not surprised he lost his spot on the show with remarks like that. If he had said "I believe that homosexual acts are wrong." that's totally different, but he didn't. He instead chose to go on a long and graphic tangent about why gays are illogical. Everyone on the right seems to be flying behind this guy to support him, but let me ask you this: What if a priest said this? He would rightfully be temporarily suspended from performing any sacraments whatsoever, and he would probably live the rest of his life in a monastery because the public backlash would be so great. semantics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
add Posted December 22, 2013 Author Share Posted December 22, 2013 there may be more to the controversy that you think, son Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted December 22, 2013 Share Posted December 22, 2013 semantics Semantics? He was incredibly insensitive. It's like they put 14 year old me up there and started firing away the questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
add Posted December 22, 2013 Author Share Posted December 22, 2013 Semantics? He was incredibly insensitive. It's like they put 14 year old me up there and started firing away the questions. Your only 14 years old? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now