• Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here

Phil Robertson's Comments

Jack-Hammer

YOU WILL RESPECT MY AUTHORITAH!!!!
Whether or not you're a fan of the A&E's reality show Duck Dynasty, it can't be denied that the show's become a pop culture phenomenon. That's especially true over the course of the past year or so. The 4th season premiere episode drew 11.8 million viewers, making it the biggest non-sports nonfiction telecast in the history of cable television. Throughout the 4th season, new episodes of the show regularly drew well over 8 million viewers. As one might expect with such success, a menagerie of Duck Dynasty merchandise is on the market. Everything from t-shirts, posters, bumper stickers, bobble heads, cookbooks, bed sheets, towels and just about anything else are flying off the shelves. Robertson family patriarch, Phil, and his brother, fan favorite Uncle Si, have both put out best selling books about their early lives. Within the past 5 or 6 weeks, a novelty Christmas album called Duck the Halls: A Robertson Family Christmas has been one of the best selling albums out there. It's already sold nearly 600,000 copies without the benefit of any singles released to radio. With the way the music industry is set up now, having an entire album reach sales of 500,000 or more is a huge indicator of popularity.

However, Phil Robertson very recently gave an interview to GQ and some of his comments have caused quit a stir. Robertson is outspoken about her Christian beliefs and, as expected, the topic turned to his feelings on certain controversial subjects such as homosexuality. Some of Robertson's comments were:

"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."

Robertson would incite further controversy with by not just going off about homosexuality, but also about other people in general:

"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. 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."

Because of these comments, A&E has suspended Phil from the show indefinitely. He'll be taped just like every other member of the family & cast, but footage containing him will be edited out.

To further stir things up, Robertson also made comments regarding race while growing up in Louisiana:

"I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I'm with the blacks, because we're white trash. We're going across the field. ... They're singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, 'I tell you what: These doggone white people' -- not a word! Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues."

As one would imagine, this has stirred up even more heat on Robertson because some have construed this as being racist. A joint letter was written by the NAACP and the Human Rights Campaign, and it was sent to the President of A&E expressing "outrage and deep concern about the recent racist, homophobic, and ill-informed remarks made by Phil Robertson." One statement in the letter was printed at CNN.com saying:

"Mr. Robertson claims that, from what he saw, African Americans were happier under Jim Crow. What he didn't see were lynching and beatings of black men and women for attempting to vote or simply walking down the street. And his offensive claims about gay people fly in the face of science. In fact, it's important to note that every single leading medical organization in the country has said that there is absolutely nothing wrong with being LGBT -- it's not a choice, and to suggest otherwise is dangerous."

However, as of very early this morning, the article at CNN.com states that there's a petition to bring Robertson back has already been signed by 19,000people. A Facebook page has also been created that already has 35,000 likes. The organizer of the petition wrote a statement:

"Homosexuals have their convictions and Christians respect them. There is a difference between respecting someone rights to exercise free will and imposing on others what we believe. Phil has done nothing more than state what he believes in. Just because homosexuals do not agree, does not mean Mr. Robertson needs to be suspended."

Sometime late last night, Robertson responded to the whole thing with another statement:

"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."

As I was reading over the various quotes by Robertson contained in the article, I didn't exactly see anything particularly malicious. I think some of his comments were extremely naïve, maybe even downright foolish, but not intentionally malicious. His comments about comparing homosexuality to beastiality as abhorrent behavior and going off on adulterers & idolaters, etc. certainly sound like statements you'd hear from older Christians.

At the same time, however, Robertson was commenting on his religious beliefs. According to the Bible, or really any sort of holy book from any major religion, aspects such as homosexuality, adultery, idolatry, greed, etc. are all classified as sins. Some Christians believe that the Bible, word for word, was inspired directly from God. It's not something that he made up out of his own head, but rather it's something that's taught in his faith. Now that doesn't mean that Robertson looks down on gays or people who're promiscuous or whatever. It doesn't mean that he treats them with disdain or disrespect, only they're aspects of life that he doesn't personally like. Everyone is like that when you get right down to it. There are some aspects of life that you're not going to particularly like or agree with, such as the KKK spouting hate speech or convicted serial killers like Richard Ramirez being allowed to legally marry, but that's part of living in a free society. You can disagree with certain lifestyles and beliefs while still respecting the choices of those who do agree.

As for his comments about growing up around African Americans back in the day, it does come off as naïve. At the same time, it sounds like Robertson is only speaking of his own experiences growing up. They say that the only real way to judge something is based on your own experiences with it. Robertson grew up dirt poor in very rural Louisiana during the Great Depression. For quite a long while, like a great deal of southern states, Louisiana wasn't exactly prosperous economically when the Depression ended. The black people that he associated with were people like him: just dirt poor people trying to get by in life the best way they knew how. The naivety comes from the fact that he obviously missed a MASSIVE part of the story because the violations of basic human rights to African Americans, especially in the south during this time period, can't be denied. It had nothing to with people being less godly than in the past, it had to do with the fact that a race of people were subjugated as property based on their skin color. Hell, people would use religion to justify that belief.

As I said, I don't think that Robertson was trying to be malicious or even controversial. He was merely stating his own beliefs and views as he knew them based on his own experiences with them. I wish I could say that this was all something new but, sadly, it isn't. Using homosexuality and equal rights as examples, you were in the minority if you supported those beliefs 50 years ago. Even if you did so in peaceful means with only good intentions, you were still villainized by conservatives. Here we are now in the closing days of 2013 when liberal views on some social issues such as equality for everyone are very much in control, but someone who expresses a different opinion through peaceful, eloquent means is crucified by liberals. If Robertson had come out and said something like, and I'm just using this as an example so no offense is intended, "Kill all those ******s and put the darkies back out in the fields where they belong", then I could understand accusations of bigotry and racism, but that's not the sense I get from Robertson based on his comments.
 
Today, anything a person might say that even remotely touches on a controversial subject is going to outrage someone.......and yes, today the word is "outrage".....no one gets mad or upset anymore; instead, they're outraged.

I agree that Robertson was speaking his own opinion and not looking to condemn anyone else. Yes, much of what he espouses is narrow and naive, yet I didn't detect "hate" in anything quoted. Sure, the "they won't inherit the kingdom of God" comments he made about a variety of "sinners" is an uninformed opinion, since he has no way of knowing who, if anyone, will inherit it, but that doesn't offend me any more than the rest of what he said.

Today, many, many people look to condemn others for what they say and do that delves into controversial matter, not necessarily because they're outraged, but because they figure that by showing their disapproval, they're coming off as caring, fair-minded people who want to show everyone else that they don't tolerate racism, homosexuality, etc.

Some years ago, in the voting for NBA most valuable player, the clear favorites were John Stockton and Shaquille O'Neal, both of whom had had great seasons. When the writers selected Stockton, a newspaper columnist opined that the reason for this was that the voters were racist.

Okay, you figure those voters were scared to death because a black man had accused them of being racist, which is something that absolutely terrifies white people. The thing is......the newspaper columnist was white. I figure he wanted to let the public know that he totally adores all black people and that the very idea of voting for a white person over a black is racist in itself. (as hard as it is to define Shaquille O'Neal as victim of racial prejudice, btw).

That time, the columnist was castigated for bringing racism into a subject that didn't seem to have any bearing on the issue at hand. Often, though, we see the treatment received by Phil Robertson. Folks get so excited about showing their own politically correct tendencies that we don't look closely enough at what the person actually said.
 
I'm more offended that people are shocked & making such a big fuss over his comments, as my 85 yr. old grandmother said when she saw this on the news, "they're southern hillbilly rednecks, what the hell did everybody expect?". I hate the fact that nobody can say shit anymore without offending somebody, nobody can voice their own opinions, no matter how stupid and/or misguided they may be anymore without suffering a massive backlash. That's the shit that bothers me more than some stupid ignorant opinion voiced by a redneck who lives in a cabin & makes a living selling duck calls. People just needs to stop being a bunch of over-sensitive fucking *****es, & not take everything everyone says so fucking serious, occasionally people say stupid shit & you just need to roll your eyes & move on with your life.
 
When I first read the headline, I thought it was the evangelist Pat Robertson that had made controversial comments, which seems to happen every six months or so. It wasn't until I read further that I realized it was the guy from Duck Dynasty, a show I've personally watched maybe once. No different then the Jersey Shore or Keeping Up With The Kardashians, I'm not much of a fan of reality TV, so with no offense to them, I didn't like it whatsoever. I did know that Robertson was a Christian, mostly because I've read about his philanthropic efforts in supporting poor Christian churches, and his travels to speak on his personal "testimony" and share the Bible with others.

To me, there was little there that was offensive or homophobic, but the comment about men sleeping with men leading to beasteality struck me as off. Science has shown to a pretty clear extent that homosexuality is not a choice, but rather, a sexual orientation that people are born with. Personally, as someone who's done therapy with homosexuals, I know plenty of them who would change orientation in a second, if they could, and have spent plenty of money in attempting to do so(hypnosis, "cleansing retreats", etc.). So to suggest that homosexuality is on par with beastiality, regardless of religious belief, comes across as homophobic in a sense, but still, it's obvious he said it with no ill intent. And sure, a vagina, to him, is going to have more to offer, because he prefers sex with woman as a straight man. Again, his "not logical" comments were coming from the position of a straight man, not one who's actually experienced a man's anus, I'd imagine, so they are slightly ignorant. That being said, it's apparent no malice was intended, and he was speaking for himself and his beliefs, and for the most part, not chastising others for theirs.

Are there a few questionable things there that understandably him labeled as homophobic? Sure. But at the same time, there was nothing malicious there, and there's a pretty big statement he included that was important:
"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."
Further, while I have no doubt Robertson enjoys doing his show, it doesn't seem like the end-all, be-all for him. He didn't fire back angrily about it at A&E, or at anger shown towards him by homosexuals. He responded with a statement of love. Seeing how Jesus' #1 commandment was to "Love Thy Neighbor", I'd say he's a better representative of the Christian faith then most "celebrity" Christians. (Here's looking at you, Mel Gibson.)

I can understand why A&E did what they did, as I'm sure the backlash was tremendous against by people looking to be offended. We, as a society, sit on the words of celebrities, and look for the slightest hint of controversy, to create a story. I mentioned this yesterday in the Paul Walker thread, and his dating of a 16 year old woman when he was 33. Why is it the first we're hearing about it now? Because it's another way, while completely unrelated, mind you, to bring a celebrity down, the press will do it. Do I condone everything Robertson said, or Walker did? Of course not.

Doesn't mean either needs to be torched at the stake for it, either.

Sure, the "they won't inherit the kingdom of God" comments he made about a variety of "sinners" is an uninformed opinion, since he has no way of knowing who, if anyone, will inherit it, but that doesn't offend me any more than the rest of what he said.
It all depends on what you consider uninformed, I suppose, as that particular paragraph wasn't Robertson's words, technically. They were from the Bible, specifically, those of the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10:
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Odd that is says nothing about women, as it seems to me a double standard, to be honest.
 
I always find it amusing when 1st Amendment rights are brought into the conversation directly following reprehensible remarks made by a public figure. As long as he isn't arrested by the US gov, Phil has been awarded his 1st Amendment rights. The 1st Amendment protects against government interaction, not against backlash from the public or discipline from your employer. People have a right to be upset and A&E has a right to protect their brand. Saying completely ignorant and hateful shit while hiding behind bronze age mythology is your right, being a television star is not. I'm glad the tide is finally turning against anyone who voices bigoted opinions. People who don't think this is a big deal are apparently ok with a segment of society constantly being vilified by common folks and public figures alike.
 
I always find it amusing when 1st Amendment rights are brought into the conversation directly following reprehensible remarks made by a public figure. As long as he isn't arrested by the US gov, Phil has been awarded his 1st Amendment rights. The 1st Amendment protects against government interaction, not against backlash from the public or discipline from your employer. People have a right to be upset and A&E has a right to protect their brand. Saying completely ignorant and hateful shit while hiding behind bronze age mythology is your right, being a television star is not. I'm glad the tide is finally turning against anyone who voices bigoted opinions. People who don't think this is a big deal are apparently ok with a segment of society constantly being vilified by common folks and public figures alike.

I'm quoting you not to single you out or anything but because you brought up a point that I was going to mention.

1st Amendment rights.

Phil said what he had to say and he's legally protected under that. The same thing goes for the people who are upset with what he had to say. You can't have one without the other.

He touched on some controversial topics and there is no way he didn't expect backlash from that. Even though that probably wasn't his intent it was still going to happen.

I think his comments were different than hate speech. He wasn't using hurtful terms and slurs. He pretty much just stated that he doesn't see the appeal and it goes against his religion. With the exception of the morphing to bestiality and the part where he says "it's not right" in regards to homosexuality. Because I don't really think he's the judge of what's right or wrong.

As far as the black people comments he made I'm not entirely sure he was trying to generalize all blacks in those time periods. If he was though then that would be pretty ridiculous because anyone who lived in the time period that he lived in would know about the struggles of blacks and other minorities.

If he is just trying to state his own personal experiences then that's fine. I could state my own personal experiences on homosexuals and people of other races and different people would take away different opinions from what I have to say about it.

In all I don't really think he needed to be punished for what he said. If he came out and said "I hate ******s and they're all going to hell" or "******s need to get over the past because it wasn't as bad as they make it out to be" then yeah I'd say take action against him. I could see comments like that looking bad and a television company not wanting to associate with him.

On a personal note in this. A homosexual friend of mine said on Facebook that she is in no way offended by his comments and respects his right to say what he said. So there's at least one homosexual out there on his side. I'm sure she isn't the only one.
 
I'm quoting you not to single you out or anything but because you brought up a point that I was going to mention.

1st Amendment rights.

Phil said what he had to say and he's legally protected under that. The same thing goes for the people who are upset with what he had to say. You can't have one without the other.

He touched on some controversial topics and there is no way he didn't expect backlash from that. Even though that probably wasn't his intent it was still going to happen.

I think his comments were different than hate speech. He wasn't using hurtful terms and slurs. He pretty much just stated that he doesn't see the appeal and it goes against his religion. With the exception of the morphing to bestiality and the part where he says "it's not right" in regards to homosexuality. Because I don't really think he's the judge of what's right or wrong.

As far as the black people comments he made I'm not entirely sure he was trying to generalize all blacks in those time periods. If he was though then that would be pretty ridiculous because anyone who lived in the time period that he lived in would know about the struggles of blacks and other minorities.

If he is just trying to state his own personal experiences then that's fine. I could state my own personal experiences on homosexuals and people of other races and different people would take away different opinions from what I have to say about it.

In all I don't really think he needed to be punished for what he said. If he came out and said "I hate ******s and they're all going to hell" or "******s need to get over the past because it wasn't as bad as they make it out to be" then yeah I'd say take action against him. I could see comments like that looking bad and a television company not wanting to associate with him.

On a personal note in this. A homosexual friend of mine said on Facebook that she is in no way offended by his comments and respects his right to say what he said. So there's at least one homosexual out there on his side. I'm sure she isn't the only one.
I guarantee you that your friend is in the minority group of homosexuals who have no problem with Phil's comments. If you don't think so I'd gladly invite you to visit the myriad of gay blogs on the internet. Now you state that Phil did not use hateful language, which directly contradicts with the fact that Phil compared homosexuality to bestiality and later to terrorism (look it up). Previous statements Robertson made in a sermon he gave show he goes way beyond theological rhetoric and glides right into hate speech when speaking about gays. He is protected by the 1st Amendment, which is why he hasn't been arrested yet. A&E is a private company and it can take whatever measures it pleases. Phil knew this was a possibility when he agreed to do his show.

In short, to say that Phil's comments were not hateful is to have a complete lack of empathy for a section of society, one that continues to suffers from the most atrocious of persecutions. The fact that those are his personal or religious views is irrelevant. The world no longer allows religion as an excuse for reprehensible acts or views.
 
As I stated in a previous post about this, this gif fairly well sums up the situation and why it's rather dumb that people are so overworked about this:

If you ask a conservative Christian about a topic that includes teaches/beliefs of said conservative Christianity... what do you expect to hear?

10n830x.gif
 
I guarantee you that your friend is in the minority group of homosexuals who have no problem with Phil's comments. If you don't think so I'd gladly invite you to visit the myriad of gay blogs on the internet. Now you state that Phil did not use hateful language, which directly contradicts with the fact that Phil compared homosexuality to bestiality and later to terrorism (look it up). Previous statements Robertson made in a sermon he gave show he goes way beyond theological rhetoric and glides right into hate speech when speaking about gays. He is protected by the 1st Amendment, which is why he hasn't been arrested yet. A&E is a private company and it can take whatever measures it pleases. Phil knew this was a possibility when he agreed to do his show.

In short, to say that Phil's comments were not hateful is to have a complete lack of empathy for a section of society, one that continues to suffers from the most atrocious of persecutions. The fact that those are his personal or religious views is irrelevant. The world no longer allows religion as an excuse for reprehensible acts or views.

I'm well aware that she's in the minority. That's why I said he has at least one that wasn't offended. I don't really see where that turned into an argument on minority vs. majority.

I said they weren't hateful outside of the beastiality comment and the comment where he says homosexuality is wrong. So I don't know why you're bringing that up as an argument when I already stated that part was hateful.

“We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?”

Is this quote what you're referring to as him comparing homosexuals to terrorists? Where he was stating no matter what type of sin people commit it's not up to us to judge if they're going to heaven or hell? By your logic he also compared drunks to terrorists so every drunk out there should be equally offended.

I haven't seen his sermons and this thread isn't about his sermons. This thread is about one specific article and that's what I responded to.

His opinions are no more or less irrelevant just because you disagree with him. He was asked a question, he answered it and he was asked to expand on it which he did.

There's also a section of society that happens to agree with his viewpoints. Because you don't like it they need to remain silent? They aren't allowed to express their opinions?

Your argument is very one sided and extremely biased.

As I said in my original post I support both sides.

I don't feel he crossed any lines with what he said in that particular article again with the two points that I have already stated. That being said I'm not surprised or bothered that people disagree with it.
 
There is no way a millionaire like Phil Robertson would not have known his answer would be met with opposition and sensationalism. Regardless of being "a southern boy". He is a grown ass businessman that should have been more responsible with his choice of words, or when asked the question from the interviewer, responded with "no comment".

But with that said, I think it's interesting that reality television has pretty much put a magnifying lens on these different families and it's only a matter of time until something controversial comes from it. We can't expect to look at these families week after week without expecting something shitty, which in my opinion is what reality television really is.
 
I'm more offended that people are shocked & making such a big fuss over his comments, as my 85 yr. old grandmother said when she saw this on the news, "they're southern hillbilly rednecks, what the hell did everybody expect?". I hate the fact that nobody can say shit anymore without offending somebody, nobody can voice their own opinions, no matter how stupid and/or misguided they may be anymore without suffering a massive backlash. That's the shit that bothers me more than some stupid ignorant opinion voiced by a redneck who lives in a cabin & makes a living selling duck calls. People just needs to stop being a bunch of over-sensitive fucking *****es, & not take everything everyone says so fucking serious, occasionally people say stupid shit & you just need to roll your eyes & move on with your life.

Oh, fuck me.

(Editor's note; no, that was not an invitation to gay sex. What, can't you see more in a woman's vagina than a man's anus?)

If you can't see why his comments wouldn't be offensive to gay people, I don't know what to tell you. But when you compare homosexuality to bestiality, you're doing something wrong. That's exactly what he did; and if you can't see why that would be offensive, I don't know what to tell you, other than you're kind of insensitive yourself. Would you say that watching two people have sex is like beastiality?

No, I would hope not.

(Editor's more; I regret offending any bestiality supporters here.)

The right really wants to turn this into an issue of free speech, but the truth is, it's the farthest thing from a freedom of speech issue. Phil Robinson said something; he already said it, and had the right to say it. If this were a freedoms of speech issue, Phil Robinson would be in jail, right now. No, Phil Robinson is a free man, as he should be. What did happen, though, is that A&E decided that Phil's words could hurt their potential to do business. Instead of supporting a bigot's words, they decided that their best interest is to exercise their right (which I'm assuming is written somewhere in that contract Phil Robinson willingly signed), to suspend him.

I think that's a constitutional right, yes? I'm not being facetious, I'm actually curious.

So just so we all understand, here's what you think you're saying, if you support Phil Robinson.

"Phil Robinson has the right to say what he wants."

And here's what you're actually saying.

"Phil Robinson has the right to say what he wants, without response."

The former is true, the latter couldn't be farther from it.
 
I'm well aware that she's in the minority. That's why I said he has at least one that wasn't offended. I don't really see where that turned into an argument on minority vs. majority.
Your were the one who decided to mention your friend. The argument that at least one gay person agrees with you is inherently flawed since there are many others who dont. I'm giving you some perspective on the amount of people Phil hurt.

I said they weren't hateful outside of the beastiality comment and the comment where he says homosexuality is wrong. So I don't know why you're bringing that up as an argument when I already stated that part was hateful
.
The outrage against Phil is in regards to his comparison of homosexuality to bestiality. Theres nothing outside of those comments that people are using to call him hateful. Saying that he said nothing hateful other than the bestiality comments is a non sequitor because once again, people are only complaining about his bestiality comments.

“We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?”

Is this quote what you're referring to as him comparing homosexuals to terrorists? Where he was stating no matter what type of sin people commit it's not up to us to judge if they're going to heaven or hell? By your logic he also compared drunks to terrorists so every drunk out there should be equally offended.
No, this is it:
http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity...s-gays-with-terrorists-and-drunkards-20131812


I haven't seen his sermons and this thread isn't about his sermons. This thread is about one specific article and that's what I responded to.
Theres no rule that we can't expand on a certain topic. The thread is about homophobic comments Phil made. The sermons he gave serve as background info that reinforce the views he shared with GQ.

His opinions are no more or less irrelevant just because you disagree with him. He was asked a question, he answered it and he was asked to expand on it which he did.
I said that its irrelevant that he personally believes these views. In other words, the fact that this is what he believes in doesn't make it any less bigoted.

There's also a section of society that happens to agree with his viewpoints. Because you don't like it they need to remain silent? They aren't allowed to express their opinions?
Yeah, they aren't allowed to express their opinions. Thats why GQ censored him. Thats why the government jailed him for saying what he did. Oh wait, that never happened. Phil is a grown man, he's capable of speaking his mind and accepting the consequences for his actions. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would love it if bigots kept their opinions to themselves, but I'm not going to ask for a law to be brought into effect to silence people who disagree with me. Phil's allowed to talk, and A&E is allowed to take whatever actions they want. Phil works for them, not the other way around. Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequence. Society does not have to tolerate vile hatred.

Your argument is very one sided and extremely biased.

As I said in my original post I support both sides.

I don't feel he crossed any lines with what he said in that particular article again with the two points that I have already stated. That being said I'm not surprised or bothered that people disagree with it.

Of course my argument is one sided, I never claimed that it wasn't. My argument would be one sided if Phil said something offensive about blacks as well. Oh wait, he already did that. Objectivity isn't inherently good and subjectivity isn't inherently bad.
 
Your were the one who decided to mention your friend. The argument that at least one gay person agrees with you is inherently flawed since there are many others who dont. I'm giving you some perspective on the amount of people Phil hurt.

I'm well aware that there are a lot of people who were offended. I already said that. My point is given the reaction by people it's every gay person who is mad at him which isn't the case. I'm sure she isn't the only one.

If by "Agrees with you" is directed at me personally then you clearly have misunderstood my posts. I have stated more than once I understand both sides of the situation.

Yes I stated that I personally didn't find his comments as offensive as people are making them out to be with the exception of the two statements that I have mentioned more than once. My friend's feelings aren't meant to vindicate my personal feelings. Because even if she was mad about it I would still feel the same way as I already do.


The outrage against Phil is in regards to his comparison of homosexuality to bestiality. Theres nothing outside of those comments that people are using to call him hateful. Saying that he said nothing hateful other than the bestiality comments is a non sequitor because once again, people are only complaining about his bestiality comments.

This isn't true at all. Maybe that's been your experience but the only reason I knew about the beastiality part was because I read it on here and then decided to go look at some more articles. The first day this came out literally the only quote I was seeing people talk about was the one about how could a man want another man's anus instead of a woman's vagina. That's the one that was plastered all over Facebook and other sites. That was my experience anyway. People were complaining or defending him on talking about not liking homosexuality in general.


No, this is it:
http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity...s-gays-with-terrorists-and-drunkards-20131812


This article contains the exact same quote I posted in my response.

Theres no rule that we can't expand on a certain topic. The thread is about homophobic comments Phil made. The sermons he gave serve as background info that reinforce the views he shared with GQ.

I never said you couldn't expand. I said I was responding to the information provided to me in the OP. As I stated I have never heard one of his sermons. Therefore I cannot comment on something I haven't heard.

Yeah, they aren't allowed to express their opinions. Thats why GQ censored him. Thats why the government jailed him for saying what he did. Oh wait, that never happened. Phil is a grown man, he's capable of speaking his mind and accepting the consequences for his actions. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would love it if bigots kept their opinions to themselves, but I'm not going to ask for a law to be brought into effect to silence people who disagree with me. Phil's allowed to talk, and A&E is allowed to take whatever actions they want. Phil works for them, not the other way around. Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequence. Society does not have to tolerate vile hatred.

You're way too hung up on this jail part of the equation. Again I am fully aware that people don't like what he said. Again I disagree with the beastiality comment and the comment where he said homosexuality is wrong. Those are the only two statements that I would deem bigoted but I have already admitted such.

We don't know what his contract with A&E is/was. We do know that the reason he got in trouble with them is because he made comments on an issue that has a different stance than what they have. They have made it clear that they suspended him because they support the LBGT community.

And if you don't think that's a factor in why he was punished then you're naive. If that wasn't the case then they wouldn't just be talking about the homosexual comments that he made but they would have also mentioned the comments about black people he made which even though it's getting less attention people are also offended by as well.

I do however agree that he is an employee of them and they are in their right to do as they wish if that is in their contract. While I disagree with the action they took I do acknowledge that it's their right to protect their image.
 
Robertson has broken his silence during a Bible study meeting sometime yesterday:

"We are a bunch of rednecks from Louisiana, but I am not uneducated, I have a degree from Louisiana Tech. But this week I have been called an ignoramus."

As one might expect, several questions were asked of him during this group in regards to this whole controversy:

This week I have been asked, 'Is this the first time you have brought up sin? I said, 'Are you kidding? I have been traveling to and fro spreading this message.' 'Well do you invite yourself to go and get your Bible and tell people what you are now sharing with us?' I said, 'No they are inviting me.' "I love all men and women. I am a lover of humanity, not a hater."

Robertson would then lead the group in prayer:

"I will not give or back off from my path because you conquered death, Father, so we are not worried about all the repercussions."

No mention was made of Robertson's suspension from Duck Dynasty, but the family as a whole have released a statement over the course of the past several days in support of him. Basically, A&E has to reinstate him or the show's over.

I don't agree with the beastiality comments and the comments about blacks where he was growing up is ignorant & naïve when you look at the history of racial injustice in the United States. Again, though, it sounded to me as though he was speaking on what he himself knew based simply on his own experiences growing up; what he saw and heard. I don't believe that he was somehow denying any of the atrocities that took place or still do, nor was he defending them; only he had no direct experiences with them.

As for his comments being homophobic, again, I don't agree with the beastiality comments as it's pretty ridiculous. However, not personally agreeing with homosexuality based on your religious faith is NOT the same thing as being hating people who are gay. For instance, there are millions of people who don't agree with unmarried couples living together or having sex because their religious faith tells them it's sinful and that unrepentant sinners will be punished in the afterlife. That doesn't mean that you automatically have a bias against unmarried couples or that you view them as a lower class of person, only that you don't personally agree with some of the choices they've made. You can still be a good and moral person acknowledging the rights of other people even if you don't agree with some of their choices. Robertson has repeatedly stated that he holds no personal bias against anyone, nor does he look down on those who're different than himself. Robertson accepts that homosexuality is a part of society, he doesn't host or speak at anti-gay rights rallies, he doesn't protest at funerals of deceased gay men & women, he doesn't write a blog condemning homosexuals. But Phil Robertson, like countless millions have for the better part of two millenia, believes that the Bible is directly inspired from God. And there are several passages in the Bible that condemn homosexuality as a sin. People are free to agree or disagree that the Bible is directly inspired from God, but what can't be disagreed on is that the Bible does say that homosexuality is a sin. Believing that doesn't make you homophobic no more than believing an unrepentant serial killer, that happens to be of Mexican anscestry, will go to Hell makes you prejudice against Hispanics. Everyone in America has to acknowledge and accept, to one degree or another, that elements exist that we might not agree with or even personally like. That's part of what living in a free society is all about. He was asked to give his opinion on something, rather than spout his opinion and force it down everyone's throat.

I'm sure Robertson would willingly shake hands with gay men & women, would openly talk to them, be friendly or friends with them, welcome them into his home and share a meal with them. However, he can simultaneously believe that their souls are condemned to eternal damnation because of their lifestyle. If it turns out he's wrong, something he won't know until he leaves this world, then he's wrong.
 
Jack Hammer - imagine if someone said something that you said, did, or felt was a sin or would lead you to eternal damnation. If chronicling the exploits of two young, physically fit, strapping, nearly naked men, who were intertwined in a grappling exercise where each man was trying to dominate the other would cause you to basically go to hell. Would you support that person or give them a pulpit?

Under the guise of religious belief or not, threat of sin and eternal damnation are really offensive. It's also seems like it would be really frightening. Not just the fear of eternal damnation, although I'm guessing most homosexuals don't believe what they feel or do is going to send them to hell. But more the fear of what others may do to them if they think and spread the word that they are sinners. One generation may be kind and tolerant and not full of hate but if the next generation learns early that homosexuality is a sin, akin to beastiality , and will lead to eternal damnation you might think of what that would mean for thew future of homosexuals (forced lifestyles, inprisonment, physical punishment, genocide). I know it seems farfetched but history teaches us that we are far from immune from changing our ways very quickly.

Does the Duck Dynasty guy want the worst for a group of people? No. But I think the fear and anger he creates in people is understandable despite his message not coming from a place of hate. In other words you're right and others are wrong in that Robertson doesn't sound like a "hater" and probably isn't one. But how can a group of people ignore the offensiveness of a condemnation to hell?
 
Having beliefs is one thing, A&E puts their logos on all kinds of Duck Dynasty shit with bible quotes. Saying blacks were happy before civil rights alone is grounds for suspension much less comparing homosexual sex to beastiality. He got suspended because advertisers don't want to be a part of that garbage. Had he said "I'm a Christian and I hate ******s because the bible says so" would you still be defending him? That's equally as offensive as what he said. He has a right to say to stupid things. He also has a right to be held accountable (as Saint Reagan would say) for his actions.

Btw, Jesus actually did say "sell all you have and donate to the poor" (never said a word about homosexuality) so I'm guessing he just decided to gloss over that part because he enjoys is 1/2 billion dollar empire.
 
There is no way a millionaire like Phil Robertson would not have known his answer would be met with opposition and sensationalism. Regardless of being "a southern boy". He is a grown ass businessman that should have been more responsible with his choice of words, or when asked the question from the interviewer, responded with "no comment".

But with that said, I think it's interesting that reality television has pretty much put a magnifying lens on these different families and it's only a matter of time until something controversial comes from it. We can't expect to look at these families week after week without expecting something shitty, which in my opinion is what reality television really is.
studies have shown that wealth makes you more apathetic and egotistical. Given that the entire Republican Party is made up of old, rich white men (much like Robertson), this shouldn't surprise you. Some people have the wealth, ego, and apathy to create a bubble around them so dense they don't see out of it. Santorum, Limbaugh, Romney, Palin (not a man), Bauchmann (not a man) and her husbands pray the gay away camp, etc all come to mind.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
174,826
Messages
3,300,735
Members
21,726
Latest member
chrisxenforo
Back
Top