Duck Dynasty star indefinitely suspended for anti-gay remarks - right move or PC run amok?

[Reverend Rick]

Derp. I never claimed I did. But my lack of a right to "not be offended' is comletely irrelevant here- the point is that getting kicked off a TV show for slandering homosexuals, even if its based on your religious views, is not a violation of your freedom of speech. My rights have nothing to do with it. If you work on a popular TV show and bash an entire segment of the population, you should pretty much expect to get fired. Seems like common sense, not "political correctness run amok".

On "MY" religious views? I support gay rights. I remind Christians that we are not to judge and to love our neighbors.

I also have said that I support A&E to run their network as they please.

I also champion free speech, but that does not mean A&E or RF has to tollerate anti-gay rethoric.

My position is any hate speech or insulting ANY group of people should not be tollerated.

Nothing good can come from it. :no:

 

[Sunstone]

...sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman...

Gerp? May I sign up for the "homosexual lifestyle" now, please? :yes:

 

[Reverend Rick]

Gerp? May I sign up for the "homosexual lifestyle" now, please? :yes:

It does sound tempting Phil, but I don't think Mr. Robertson meant that gay folks are doing all this. I think he was condeming more than homosexuals, not accusing them of all the things he railed against.

For instance, I hate homosexuality to be used in the same sentance with beastiality, but he did not say homosexuals do this. The only similarity is was inferring to was he believes all these things are a sin.

He was attacking hetrosexuals who run around, hillbillies who have sex with animals, as well.

I cringe when people do this, but Mr. Robinson was talking about many people not just homosexuals.

 

[Sunstone]

It does sound tempting Phil, but I don't think Mr. Robertson meant that gay folks are doing all this. I think he was condeming more than homosexuals, not accusing them of all the things he railed against.

For instance, I hate homosexuality to be used in the same sentance with beastiality, but he did not say homosexuals do this. The only similarity is was inferring to was he believes all these things are a sin.

He was attacking hetrosexuals who run around, hillbillies who have sex with animals, as well.

I cringe when people do this, but Mr. Robinson was talking about many people not just homosexuals.

You draw an interesting distinction, Rick! I might add, though, that even if he does not believe homosexuals are more likely than other people to engage in, say, bestiality, he does seem to me to think that accepting homosexuality as a valid orientation might "morph into" [his phrase] bestiality. So, it would seem to me that he does think there's some causal relationship between homosexuality and those other things. But I agree with you that he most likely isn't saying that homosexuals are more inclined to those other things than anyone else.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I futher believe Mr. Robinson knows more people that have sex with animals than he does homosexuals.

 

[Awoon]

I futher believe Mr. Robinson knows more people that have sex with animals than he does homosexuals.

Terrible.

 

[BSM1]

Male on Male sexual acts in the Bible was about Rape, not loving relationships between same sex people. Phil is ignorant to his own Biblical teachings.

Interesting. Could you elaborate (verse, interpretation, etc..)?

 

[Awoon]

Interesting. Could you elaborate (verse, interpretation, etc..)?

Basic NT teaching is Love. Any verse interpretation from me is from years of study, listening to other linguistic interpretations and my own revelation of cultural meanings. Sex is humanities favorite subject (but only if people are doing it my way), get it?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Well, to that I answer with this:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dw_mRaIHb-M&desktop_uri=/watch?v=dw_mRaIHb-M

Being racist or sexist or homophobic or transphobic isn't against the law, but it also doesn't make people immune from being ******** either.

Agreed. There are some people who get way out of hand about it, and others who know how to joke around.

That also depends on how patient people are. If someone is offended by every little thing, then it's best not to tick them off. I have ran into too many people who think that the opposite (heterophobic jokes, and white-skin bashing) is okay but the regular is definitely out of question. Which I find just as annoying as the regular, I personally dislike it being one or the other, it just shows hypocrisy.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

You hear all the time from people in show business, that they're not role models. The problem is, is that they are, even if they don't realize it or want to be. He spoke out on something that, while yes, it's what he believes, and yes, he has every right to believe it and speak about it, but he's going to have to face the consequences of what he said. There's no censorship there. No one is stopping him from speaking his mind. He's just having to face the consequences from the show business end of things.

And let's not pretend that it doesn't happen from the other side. Those on his side of the fence, i.e., conservatives, would really like to shut up liberals on a lot of their ideas, and have been attempting to. It happens from both sides. The problem with trying to please everyone, is that there's a lot of people with different ideas, so someone is going to get butt-hurt. The best thing, as far as I see it, is to use reason in determining what's allowed and what's not allowed, and to use compassion for all people as a guide. Who's being hurt more here? The Christians who believe that homosexuality is a sin, who's right to believe that way is not being taken away, or the homosexual who doesn't believe what he/she is doing is wrong, but is having their rights taken away? To me, the answer is obvious. Which is why, in my opinion, religion and politics should never, ever, mix.

EDIT: and for the record, I would like to state that his statements were ignorant, because it's what conservative Christians are using nowadays to try to scare people into believing the way they do, even though there's nothing rational about it.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Interesting. Could you elaborate (verse, interpretation, etc..)?

This site comes from a conservative Protestant viewpoint that I don't agree with, but it is a good resource for what the Bible really says on the subject of homosexuality (as well as transgenderism, transsexualism and cross-dressing): Gay Christian 101 - Affirming God's good news and Bible truth for all GLBTs.

So even if you don't share their denomination's viewpoint, it's great for learning about the cultural context of those verses.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Duck Dynasty star indefinitely suspended for anti-gay remarks - right move or PC run amok?

Right move for A&E

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Well, you know, they say the blessing at meals, they shoot guns. This really rubs folks the wrong way.

No it doesn't.....

He was asked a question and he gave an honest answer. GQ knew the answer, they just wanted to set him up.

He set himself up. Where's that conservative "personal responsibility" you guys go on and on about. He was asked a legit question and he gave his opinion. It just so happens that his employer disagrees with him and suspended him. He had an opportunity to answer differently but he chose to answer how he feels.

Now it is A&E's decision to make.

Hopefully they'll stick with the one they made...but then again...money talks...

 

[Ouroboros]

It's a show with fake characters. It's entertainment. And as such, the owners of the show would have to adjust their product to fit the market. The show isn't a news show, so free speech isn't in danger. It's a product. Nothing more.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

He set himself up. Where's that conservative "personal responsibility" you guys go on and on about. He was asked a legit question and he gave his opinion. It just so happens that his employer disagrees with him and suspended him. He had an opportunity to answer differently but he chose to answer how he feels.

"And the gays that are kicked out of the military had an opportunity to not reveal their sexuality..." Same ignorance.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

On "MY" religious views? I support gay rights. I remind Christians that we are not to judge and to love our neighbors.

I also have said that I support A&E to run their network as they please.

I also champion free speech, but that does not mean A&E or RF has to tollerate anti-gay rethoric.

My position is any hate speech or insulting ANY group of people should not be tollerated.

Nothing good can come from it. :no:

Oh for Pete's sake, take 2 seconds to read the post. By "your" I meant whoever we happen to be talking about- in this case Phil Robertson. Not you.

 

[Me Myself]

On "MY" religious views? I support gay rights. I remind Christians that we are not to judge and to love our neighbors.

I also have said that I support A&E to run their network as they please.

I also champion free speech, but that does not mean A&E or RF has to tollerate anti-gay rethoric.

My position is any hate speech or insulting ANY group of people should not be tollerated.

Nothing good can come from it. :no:

Indeed it read as if he wasnt talking about you specifically.

 

[Awoon]

This site comes from a conservative Protestant viewpoint that I don't agree with, but it is a good resource for what the Bible really says on the subject of homosexuality (as well as transgenderism, transsexualism and cross-dressing): Gay Christian 101 - Affirming God's good news and Bible truth for all GLBTs.

So even if you don't share their denomination's viewpoint, it's great for learning about the cultural context of those verses.

Interesting. I haven't seen this before.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Interesting. I haven't seen this before.

You're welcome. You can easily Google more resources like that. There's many LGBT Christian blogs and sites that discuss these issues.

Here's a Catholic one: Queering the Church

 

[Astravalon]

Apparently it's okay to have female prostitutes but not male ones. Sorry, but if you're going to call prostitution a sin at all - which is dubious in the first place - sexist double standards are total BS. I'd be wiling to overlook that one given prostitution is illegal in my country if it weren't for the blatant sexism attached to it. That there isn't an outcry over this flagrant sexism is disturbing.

But more disturbing is that there is not an outcry over the inclusion of "idolators" on that list. You know what that group represents? It's a pejorative term used by Abrahamics against anyone who is worshiping the "wrong" gods - polytheists in particular. So apparently it's unacceptable to hate on gays, but it's totally okay be a religiously intolerant bigot who hates on Pagans or anybody else who doesn't worship the one-god. Gee, thanks for the support, America.

Again, patently unsurprising, but still disturbing.

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]I've never watched Duck Dynasty, and I have no intention of ever[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]doing so, but if my understanding of “reality” shows is correct – that[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]they're anything but reality and are merely passed off as such – then he's[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]a hypocrite for attempting to present himself as morally superior while[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]simultaneously being involved in a show that passes itself off as honest-to-[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]god “reality”. [/FONT]







[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]-[/FONT]