Here again you manage to put words in my mouth. I never said Robertson doesn’t hate anyone because of his religious beliefs. I said his statements do not indicate he hates gay people. They indicate he thinks vaginas are made for penises and anuses are not. He thinks it’s a sinful/immoral act. I also said that by way of his own religion, HE would be sinning if he hated. His own religion would damn him for it.
IMO you hate Robertson and that’s your prerogative. I could be wrong. I’ve never met him but I seriously doubt he would appreciate a discussion of religion with me. I suspect he’d still treat me with the social courtesies that are expected in society. He’s probably too old to have children now but maybe karma will grace his family tree with a gay nephew or niece as Dick Cheney was. Then we’ll see who loves who.
“Since we can’t agree on the first one” might be the best time to bring in other statements made by Robertson on the subject as they would hopefully offer clarification on his views. Therefore, introducing additional comments made by him is perfectly fine and within reasonable standards of expectations.
So now I have two questions…
Now that Robertson himself has clarified his thoughts on homosexuality, does that change your stance in this thread?
Also…
Let’s grant people “took out of context” what Robertson said. Has the fact that earlier statements proved them correct in their “out of context” interpretations modified your stance in this thread?
There’s some truth in what you’re saying. But as to this:
I’d much rather live in a country populated by 300 million Phil and Kay Robertsons than 300 million Manhattan dwelling Liberal offenderatti like what I imagine the producers of A&E to be like.
I’d probably have to pretend to believe in God, but It’d be worth it.
I disagree with Phil on some things, but I think it goes much to far to say he has no place in modern society. I don’t want to be a part of a society that doesn’t have room for Phil Robertson any more than I would want to be part of a society that doesn’t have room for gays.
No. Here’s the whole 50 minute video. Start listening at about 18 min and he says what was quoted. He may have started talking about non-believers, but he was clearly talking about homosexuals when he made those latter comments.
Most news sources are clipping it off because they don’t want to print this raving lunatic’s 50 minute diatribe.
I’m not sure where you’re getting this from. Just as there are gradations of bigotry, so to should our reactions to bigotry have gradations. But we shouldn’t act like “God hates fags” and “Homosexuality is a sin,” rise from two different wellsprings, nor should we excuse the latter simply because it’s not as vile a formulation as the former.
Actually, they seem to be dying off at fairly rapid clip.
There’s honestly nothing I love more than hearing a straight person give advice on how the gay rights movement ought to work. Tell me, exactly what are your experiences working in the gay rights movement? How many marches have you been in? How many doors have you knocked on, canvassing for some piece of gay rights legislation? How many phone banks have you worked, trying to fight some anti-gay legislation? How many people have you, personally, directly engaged in an attempt to correct their misconceptions about homosexuality? Have you done any of that? Have you engaged in the gay rights struggle on any level other than sitting back and telling people out there actually working to fix things that they’re doing it wrong?
Right. Because it’s not like the gay rights movement hasn’t already been one of the most phenomenally successful and rapid civil rights movements in history. If only we queers hadn’t been so darned uppity, it would have happened even faster.
Do I need to put the rolleyes smiley here to demonstrate how contemptuously stupid this idea is?
Clarify this if you would. do you think he’s saying gays are the source of all sin or do you think he’s lumping them in with all sinners such as adulterers and murderers. Do you think he’s listing them as if all the sins are the same or listing all the sins?
I think he’s lumping gay people in with adulterers and other sinners and not as the cause of adultery and other sins.
And for the record, again, he would not appreciate my view of his view of religion.
I’m listening to this now and Atheists are clearly the focus of the entire speech.
It’s actually kind of funny when he gets to the health care stuff. He’s got the crowd laughing. It puts his later often quoted comment in context when he talks about “we’re all going to die”. His point is basically life is short and don’t waste time not believing in God.
Then he equates gays with atheists, or says they are a subset. I’m not seeing any difference. The part about being murderers come immediately after he talks about gays.
Why does it matter how many people get worked up about it, or how many people don’t? Is the measure of how offended you are how offended other people are?
If only one person is offended, are they not offended because there’s only one of them?
I’m really confused by using the numbers offended as a standard for anything. A&E was either offended or they thought other people were going to be offended. Is that impermissible?
Is it better to be offensive toward a small group without a lot of friends who will also take offense on their behalf? Does that make it okay?
And I am offended by what I consider anti-gay sentiment. I am not gay, but it offends me. Am I permitted to be offended by the anti-gay sentiment?
But they shouldn’t be treated the same, right? Like the difference between a shoplifter and an armed robber, there should be a different response. Right? Because with the reaction to Phil Robertson it seems like we’re treating his shoplifting like armed robbery.
So no need to change their minds, then, right? Let’s just wait for them to die? That’s not exactly an efficient way to change the mood of the country. I stand by my recommendation that talking to them would be quicker.
Honest question: When you man those phone banks and go door to door canvassing for your cause: What do you do when someone disagrees with you?
Maybe you handle it perfectly. Maybe you listen to them, engage with them and attempt to change minds. But you’re not coming across that way here.
The gay movement doesn’t come across that way at all. Not to me.
Look at this situation with Phil Robertson. Do you think this has been good for the gay movement? It hasn’t.
Why don’t you spend your time talking to bigots, instead of defending them and attacking victims? Just a thought.
In the future, I am sure all oppressed minorities will allow Tone Policing Debaser to tell them how they should act, in exchange for not receiving a tut-tut while they’re being called vile things.
Maybe you should debate some of the blatant bigots on this thread, yourself?
Oh wait, that’s right. You’re just looking for an excuse to yell at gay people while acting like you’re a high and mighty outsider observer who knows the real, objective truth.
Well, I tried to watch the 50-minute video, and will try again in future, but his opening about what year it was turned me off, what with its “I’m really really and I mean totally stupid so I’m going to talk about things in really simple ways and build my argument out of common-sense reasoning based on my limited understanding because, and I reiterate, I’m really really stupid.”
Update on the video: I’m 30 minutes in and it actually is genuinely funny. He gets into duck calling which is informative too. He also notes that he’s never owned a computer or a cell phone, which surprises me given how successful the company is and that Willie as CEO sits in front of a computer all day I bet.
