I thought this was very telling. What it shows is that he believes that gay men are gay solely because they prefer sex with other men. He can’t comprehend that it has nothing to do with how one orifice or the other feels.
It’s indicative of the camp that feels homosexuality is nothing more than a chosen set of behaviors. A view which makes it much easier to pass off as ‘sin’.
No shit. And I’ve had to explain to people older than myself how this isn’t a Constitutional Crisis. :rolleyes:
yep give them all the latitude they want, put Phil on the campaign trail already!
He has every right to speak his mind.
Everyone else has every right to have their own opinion of his words, or take whatever action they believe is appropriate in response (short of violence or injury).
A&E has every right to take whatever action they determine is appropriate to the situation.
None of this is about denying people their rights to free speech. What it tends to turn into is people using that as a cover to whine about other people’s exercising their rights of free association.
I can honestly say my opinion of him now is no lower than it was last week.
Maybe so, but he couched it in terms of preference actually. Sexuality is a complex topic and “sexual preference” is a pretty good term for it, probably even more appropriate than “sexual orientation.” Lots of men that prefer to have sex with women and exclusively have sex with women in most of their life have engaged in homosexual acts in special circumstances. This goes back far into history too. Prisons, ships at sea etc. The idea that there is no choice at all in sexual activity is also false, I believe a man who prefers women or who prefers other men can choose to sleep with a man or woman against those preferences. Some people don’t cross that street ever, it’s probably a lot more common for gay men to sleep with women than it is for straight men to sleep with men, but both certainly happen. I don’t think you can choose your preferences but you can actually choose who you’re having sex with and what orifice you’re using.
Also,
Replace “homosexual males” with “heterosexual males” lest this passage make no sense.
Say that now, but wait until the duck call boycott in the Castro, West Hollywood, Hallstead, etc. takes effect.
Oops. Look like he didn’t think enough egg was on his face:
:rolleyes:
I find it amazing that anyone is surprised at this guy’s viewpoint. He is an older, bible believing Christian who self describes as a “Redneck.”
His viewpoint, as stated, is just what one could expect from him. My “redneck” relatives feel the same way about those issues.
True, and it’s not surprising. What is surprising is that they don’t have enough sense to shut up for fear that the money train will end.
I don’t think the money train will end, if the Chick-Fil-A fiasco is any indication he’ll probably end up with 3x the money he has now.
Maybe. There is a difference though: Chick-Fil-A was an established brand with a popular product that was unaffected by the controversy.
The DD personalities, on the other hand, are the brand, and all that controversy does is limit the number of people who find them appealing.
If this guy damages the brand so much that A&E decides to drop the show after the current contract runs out, they will no longer have their platform and their sales will be greatly limited. He’ll just be another ex-famous guy with a web presence, like Will Wheaton.
I don’t know how much it will hurt the show, but I’m guessing there will be some viewers who will stop watching. You’ll see the staunch defenders of him and the staunch opponents ranting on Facebook, but there will be some people who are more vaguely uncomfortable with what he said, but not enough to post about it, and who might stop watching, or stop watching as much. I wouldn’t be able to guess how big the percentages are though.
Also of course, there will probably be some people who become bigger fans and watch the show more and buy more of the merchandise to really show those liberals something, but I don’t know how many those would be.
This might be a topic for a whole different thread, but I agree with you that in and of itself, the idea of “hate the sin, love the sinner” isn’t super objectionable. The problem is that a lot of people have said that statement in the past, and done terrible things to gay people. If people truly meant that statement, then they’d treat gay people just the same as they treat straight people, and not vote or campaign against gay rights.
To copy from what I posted on facebook;
I could overlook Phil Robertsons (of Duck Dynasty) crude comments about gays, but looking over the totality of his comments I see nothing but lunacy. From bizarre comments about blacks in the pre-civil rights era (they were happy!), to essentially denouncing religions that are without jesus (oh, there have been killings from people of those faiths…lets ignore things starting as far back as Joshua chapter 6 where a city of people were exterminated, the city burned to the ground and ransacked for valuables at their gods direction). But the worst is admitting that he badly beat a bar owner and his wife, paid them off not to pursue legal action, fled the state and even NOW says he hasn’t and won’t apologize because that was the pre-christian him and he’s ‘put it behind him’. For someone that says we’d be better off if people loved each other, he seems to have a lot of serious problems with most of the human race.
I’d heard what he said about blacks and religions with Jesus, and I agree, what he said was crazy. I hadn’t heard that about beating a bar owner and putting it behind him. That does bother me. I don’t recall anything in the Bible about you never having to face judgement on earth as long as you’re cool with God. I"ve heard other people say similar things, and it just seems like a way of trying to avoid consequences. If they were truly sorry for things they’d done, they’d ask God for forgiveness, and ask the person they’ve wronged for forgiveness as well, and face the consequences from the person or from the state.
I’ve never heard anyone else use it before, but I have to imagine someone else has coined it before myself. It’s too easy.
This whole debacle has brought out a whole mass of constitutional and bibilcal scholars.
Ones that are simply not open to debate.
You forgot the historical ones that are now “correcting the record” on how slaves truly felt about the Old South.
Well…yes and no. The show isn’t an established brand, and the personalities are the brand for it. But my understanding is that their duck call business was well-established and highly successful before the show. I’m sure sales are inflated the last couple years because of the show, but even if sales go down to what they were pre-show, ain’t none of them toddling off to the poorhouse anytime soon.
Same here. My grandparents used to say a lot worse stuff.
A&E cast an Evangelical rural family. Why are they surprised Phil has traditional views about the Bible and sin? The guy is nearly 70. He grew up in a time when gays could be arrested for sodomy. A old guy like that isn’t going to change his values over night.