Duck Dynasty Dis

[NotreDame]

Mmmm.  The vapidness is yummy

 

you are going to have to spoon-feed me bro... still not following...

 

Semantics? He was incredibly insensitive. It's like they put 14 year old me up there and started firing away the questions.

 

Phil's lines you called out above are almost verbatim from Andrew Dice Clay's old routine (which I won't repeat here), btw.

 

I'd tend to agree with ADD that it's not just the vulgarity that GLAAD/A&E are offended with... A&E wouldn't put out an official statement and I believe this is the official statement from glaad:

 

http://www.glaad.org/blog/duck-dynastys-phil-robertson-uses-vile-stereotypes-tell-gq-his-thoughts-lgbt-people

 

GQ Magazine’s profile of Phil Robertson included some of the vilest and most extreme statements uttered against LGBT people in a mainstream publication. His quote was littered with outdated stereotypes and blatant misinformation.

    “It seems like, to me, a vagina—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.

And later in the article:

    Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “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. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

The statement is far outside of the mainstream understanding of LGBT people. In Louisiana, which passed a constitutional amendment banning marriage equality, 56% of the population support some sort of legal recognition, marriage or civil unions, for gay and lesbian couples according to Public Policy Polling released in August 2013.

"Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil's lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe," said GLAAD spokesperson Wilson Cruz. "He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans – and Americans - who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples. Phil's decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors who now need to reexamine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families."

 

So you have GLAAD complaining about "lies", "stereotypes", and "extreme statements", but they don't go into details.  "Extreme statements"?  I can see why a group like GLAAD would call those quotes extreme.  "Stereotypes", "Lies"?  I'm not sure what they are referring to and I guess they figured they didn't need to explain themselves, that the press would pick it up and run with it regardless.

[PhuturePriest]

Your only 14 years old?

 

"14 year old me" = past tense. I'm 17.

 

Edited December 22, 2013 by FuturePriest387

[add]

Your just a baby
When you grow up you will understand

[southern california guy]

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.

 

You're right a Priest has to dance around issues like homosexuality.  In fact Priests have to dance around any issues of morality.  Divorce? Adultery?  Half of the congregation is divorced and remarried!  Homosexuality? Forty percent of the Catholic priests are homosexuals!  Abortion? Don't even touch that one!!!!!! Living together before marriage?  I've never heard that one mentioned from the pulpit.

 

Don't worry I'm not sinless.  But it's like lying -- just because we've all done it doesn't make it right.  And it would be ridiculous to worry about being "sensitive" when you criticize lying.

 

It cracks me up.  He went right to the heart of the issue.  Nobody dares to do that -- unless they are in a bar and have had few drinks, and are not worrying about what they're saying.  Everybody thinks it -- but nobody ever says it!!!  You're not supposed to be that candid.  You're probably supposed to say something like "Look at the lovely men... ohhh! And look at the lovely flowers outside.  Isn't it a lovely day!"

 

Jesus was a hell of a lot more candid, and look what happened to him.  I'm not careful enough myself when it comes to watching what I say.  Fortunately for me I was innocent enough that I didn't know what was going on half the time when I was in college.  For instance my wife is pregnant now and she is going through terrible morning sickness.  And I was recently horrified to realize that it reminds me of a girl that I knew back in college... who had a similar "problem"....which she suddenly got over... and which she later explained was "bulimia".   It was rumored that she had gotten an abortion, but I absolutely knew it wasn't true because she was one of the sweetest, most moral, "conservative", girls that I knew.

 

How much candor do we dare to use in discussing any issue that has to do with human sexuality, reproduction, and morality?  Is it the name that you use for a certain body part?  Is it the detail in which you discuss it?  Can it be openly discussed at all?  Maybe there are certain things that you just never talk about at all -- unless you are in a bar and drunk..  Fortunately for me I was innocent enough -- back in college -- that I didn't think twice about my friends "bulimia problem" -- and I never mentioned it even once.

Edited December 22, 2013 by southern california guy

[HisChildForever]

Your just a baby
When you grow up you will understand

 

His age doesn't invalidate his opinion.

 

I agree with him. Not to mention women are more than their vaginas. He said nothing about being drawn to the feminine form, intellect, mystery, maternal nature. Nope, his first thought was about vaginas and what they do for him. Obviously he's learned now to think before he speaks, because I highly doubt Robertson has such a crude view of women. I think that's what really set the gay community off. Gay men are not "anus crazy." They want romantic connections and unconditional love. They want trust, loyalty, honesty, and friendship. Physical intimacy is obviously important to them, as it is for many couples, but it's only one part of who they are. The acceptance that the gay community is looking for is acceptance as human beings despite their lifestyle choices, and when you chip away at their humanity and define them solely by their sexual activity it's a problem. As a woman, I don't like when a man looks at me like a piece of meat. There's more to me than my physical appearance. Likewise, gay men (and women) don't like it when people only see "anus sex." There's more to them than that.

[PhuturePriest]

You're right a Priest has to dance around issues like homosexuality.  In fact Priests have to dance around any issues of morality.  Divorce? Adultery?  Half of the congregation is divorced and remarried!  Homosexuality? Forty percent of the Catholic priests are homosexuals!  Abortion? Don't even touch that one!!!!!! Living together before marriage?  I've never heard that one mentioned from the pulpit.

 

Don't worry I'm not sinless.  But it's like lying -- just because we've all done it doesn't make it right.  And it would be ridiculous to worry about being "sensitive" when you criticize lying.

 

It cracks me up.  He went right to the heart of the issue.  Nobody dares to do that -- unless they are in a bar and have had few drinks, and are not worrying about what they're saying.  Everybody thinks it -- but nobody ever says it!!!  You're not supposed to be that candid.  You're probably supposed to say something like "Look at the lovely men... ohhh! And look at the lovely flowers outside.  Isn't it a lovely day!"

 

Jesus was a hell of a lot more candid, and look what happened to him.  I'm not careful enough myself when it comes to watching what I say.  Fortunately for me I was innocent enough that I didn't know what was going on half the time when I was in college.  For instance my wife is pregnant now and she is going through terrible morning sickness.  And I was recently horrified to realize that it reminds me of a girl that I knew back in college... who had a similar "problem"....which she suddenly got over... and which she later explained was "bulimia".   It was rumored that she had gotten an abortion, but I absolutely knew it wasn't true because she was one of the sweetest, most moral, "conservative", girls that I knew.

 

How much candor do we dare to use in discussing any issue that has to do with human sexuality, reproduction, and morality?  Is it the name that you use for a certain body part?  Is it the detail in which you discuss it?  Can it be openly discussed at all?  Maybe there are certain things that you just never talk about at all -- unless you are in a bar and drunk..  Fortunately for me I was innocent enough -- back in college -- that I didn't think twice about my friends "bulimia problem" -- and I never mentioned it even once.

 

But here's the thing: He could have even been as graphic as he was while still being respectful. When I think of profound and respectful statements, "I mean, come on, dudes!" is generally not in them.

 

This also goes into the issue that HisChildForever mentions about how he's just focusing on body parts and not treating people with homosexual tendencies like human beings.

[dUSt]

Please stop with the vagina vs vulva thing. Everyone calls it a vagina. It has linguistically evolved to mean all the lady parts. Calling it a vulva is pretentious.

[PhuturePriest]

His age doesn't invalidate his opinion.

 

I agree with him. Not to mention women are more than their vaginas. He said nothing about being drawn to the feminine form, intellect, mystery, maternal nature. Nope, his first thought was about vaginas and what they do for him. Obviously he's learned now to think before he speaks, because I highly doubt Robertson has such a crude view of women. I think that's what really set the gay community off. Gay men are not "anus crazy." They want romantic connections and unconditional love. They want trust, loyalty, honesty, and friendship. Physical intimacy is obviously important to them, as it is for many couples, but it's only one part of who they are. The acceptance that the gay community is looking for is acceptance as human beings despite their lifestyle choices, and when you chip away at their humanity and define them solely by their sexual activity it's a problem. As a woman, I don't like when a man looks at me like a piece of meat. There's more to me than my physical appearance. Likewise, gay men (and women) don't like it when people only see "anus sex." There's more to them than that.

 

We really should flip out about the adorableness of kittens on Facebook more often.

[PhuturePriest]

Please stop with the vagina vs vulva thing. Everyone calls it a vagina. It has linguistically evolved to mean all the lady parts. Calling it a vulva is pretentious.

 

My legs are officially to be known as knee caps.

[NotreDame]

But here's the thing: He could have even been as graphic as he was while still being respectful. When I think of profound and respectful statements, "I mean, come on, dudes!" is generally not in them.

 

This also goes into the issue that HisChildForever mentions about how he's just focusing on body parts and not treating people with homosexual tendencies like human beings.

 

FP, go read the actual statement from GLAAD.  They don't mention "disrespect" as a motive for their complaint.  So you might find his statement disrespectful - it's easy to argue that it is disrespectful and vulgar - but there's no reason to believe, based on their statements, that this disrespect or vulgarity played any role in GLAAD's protest or A&E's suspension.

 

Your interpretation of phil's remarks are relevant to this general discussion, but if they are different than those of A&E/GLAAD then they aren't useful in discussing the actions of GLAAD/A&E. 

 

To the question, 'are your views of phil's interview different than GLAAD's?'  It's really hard to say, because their statement never actually connects their complaints ("stereotypes" and "lies") to phil's actual words.  Was Phil "lying" about his bible quote?  Was he "lying" about what he thought was "illogical"?  Was is idea of preferring X to Y a "stereotype"? (It was something, but stereotype?)

 

Neither do the words of A&E (which didn't issue a statement, but a quote) actually say what was wrong with Phil's words, only saying they were disappointed with Phil's words and that they are "strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community."

 

Of course, the lack of clarity in their statements/motives give further reason not to support the suspension.  Cable TV personalities say horrible stuff all the time (Bill Maher anyone?) without getting fired or suspended.  If they want to suspend robertson they should do a better job explaining themselves than issuing a statement with more non-sequiturs than a 3rd grader's book report.

[HisChildForever]

We really should flip out about the adorableness of kittens on Facebook more often.

 

:kitten:

[HisChildForever]

To the question, 'are your views of phil's interview different than GLAAD's?'  It's really hard to say, because their statement never actually connects their complaints [b]("stereotypes" and "lies")[/b] to phil's actual words.  Was Phil "lying" about his bible quote?  Was he "lying" about what he thought was "illogical"?  Was is idea of preferring X to Y a "stereotype"? (It was something, but stereotype?)

 

Pretty sure they were referring to this quote:

 

"Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men."

 

As if homosexuals are suddenly going to decide to molest animals. As for the "sleeping around" part, I'm not sure how that applies either. Adultery, orgies, and all forms of sexual promiscuity occurs with straights and gays alike.

[southern california guy]

His age doesn't invalidate his opinion.

 

I agree with him. Not to mention women are more than their vaginas. He said nothing about being drawn to the feminine form, intellect, mystery, maternal nature. Nope, his first thought was about vaginas and what they do for him. Obviously he's learned now to think before he speaks, because I highly doubt Robertson has such a crude view of women. I think that's what really set the gay community off. Gay men are not "anus crazy." They want romantic connections and unconditional love. They want trust, loyalty, honesty, and friendship. Physical intimacy is obviously important to them, as it is for many couples, but it's only one part of who they are. The acceptance that the gay community is looking for is acceptance as human beings despite their lifestyle choices, and when you chip away at their humanity and define them solely by their sexual activity it's a problem. As a woman, I don't like when a man looks at me like a piece of meat. There's more to me than my physical appearance. Likewise, gay men (and women) don't like it when people only see "anus sex." There's more to them than that.

 

I think that he got to the heart of the matter.  As a man you can have male friends -- but what sets you aside as a homosexual is that you sodomize your homosexual friends.  Homosexuals get "turned on"  by other men and sodomize them.  I don't know that I would go so far as to call it "romance" or "love" any more than I would call it love when a pedophile sodomizes a young boy.  

 

The few homosexuals I've known seemed to be extremely sexually frustrated.  One guy in college told me that he had attempted suicide in High School after a girl -- that he had a huge crush on -- rejected him.  But now he had found something "better" (A "relationship" with less emotion and feelings?).  He had joined the Gay and Lesbian club.  I doubt he would have done that if the girl had accepted him.  

 

The basketball coach at my High School (Redmond Washington) had molested some of the guys in my grade when they were younger and in a "Little Dribblers" program.  He would have them over for "parties" and he would put on a gorilla suit and molest various boys.  I heard about it, and then he was prosecuted after my senior year -- and went to jail.  Guess what.. a number of the boys he molested became homosexuals as adults.  Love? Romance??  What drove them to make this "lifestyle choice"?

 

The sister of friend in Seattle "came out" as a lesbian when she was in High School.  Her family were Presbyterian but also very accepting and supportive of her choice (Remember this was Seattle).  After High School she got more involved in the Gay and Lesbian culture -- and committed suicide.... I'm guessing that it had more to do with bad experiences she had with the lesbians -- and the drug use that the Gay and Lesbians tend to be heavily into -- than general "acceptance" of her "lifestyle choice".

 

I personally don't want to see men kissing other men in public.  Or even women "romantically" kissing other women.  Sorry I am just not into that.  The bible does not support sodomy.  The word sodomy came from the bible -- "Sodom".  I suppose that you can cherry pick from the bible and argue that God is wrong and should be more sensitive and accepting of people and the way that they chose to live.  Why is God so dam judgmental?  We've even got our idiot Pope saying "Who am I to judge to the homosexuals?"   The Pope doesn't "judge" anybody!  He is not God.  Really what he is saying is "Who am I to criticize homosexuality?  I want homosexuals to join our religion and contribute MONEY!  I want them to feel "accepted" (Not criticized) as Catholics.  If it weren't for the homosexuals we wouldn't have any priests...."

Edited December 22, 2013 by southern california guy

[NotreDame]

Pretty sure they were referring to this quote:

 

"Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men."

 

As if homosexuals are suddenly going to decide to molest animals. As for the "sleeping around" part, I'm not sure how that applies either. Adultery, orgies, and all forms of sexual promiscuity occurs with straights and gays alike.

 

>>> Pretty sure they were referring to this quote:
 

No need to guess, go read the full statement from GLAAD I posted above.

 

>>> As if homosexuals are suddenly going to decide to molest animals.

 

He's not saying they are.  He's saying that acceptance of one immorality will lead to the acceptance of others. 

Edited December 22, 2013 by NotreDame

[NotreDame]

>>> As if homosexuals are suddenly going to decide to molest animals.

 

He's not saying they are.  He's saying that acceptance of one immorality will lead to the acceptance of others. 

 

Here is some context of his remarks from the full interview:

 

“We’re Bible-thumpers who just happened to end up on television,” he tells me. “You put in your article that the Robertson family really believes strongly that if the human race loved each other and they loved God, we would just be better off. We ought to just be repentant, turn to God, and let’s get on with it, and everything will turn around.”

 

What does repentance entail? Well, in Robertson’s worldview, America was a country founded upon Christian values (Thou shalt not kill, etc.), and he believes that the gradual removal of Christian symbolism from public spaces has diluted those founding principles. (He and Si take turns going on about why the Ten Commandments ought to be displayed outside courthouses.) He sees the popularity of Duck Dynasty as a small corrective to all that we have lost.

 

“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong,” he says. “Sin becomes fine.”

What, in your mind, is sinful?

 

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “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. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”