'Duck Dynasty' to resume filming with Phil Robertson

when did we become such a sissy assed country? So what if some hill billy has an opinion? So what if it puts a spot light on some of our behavior? When has it become so bad that someone has a belief system that flies in the face of yours? Hippocrates!! Your just as sick and twisted! America is forcing a "better not offend" policy on me and dammit it offends me! If i own a company and publicly say i don't agree with same sex marriage.. ill have the whole rainbow coalition picketing out side, screaming like sissies (pun intended) preforming lewd acts (i saw it Detroit).. Makes me sick!

You don't have to agree with me but you better not voice an opinion contrary.. I can fly in the face of your beliefs but you better not mine! REALLY?

Deny ignorance ATS.. Hell i don't agree or believe in a fraction (small) of the threads opinions and beliefs on this site..

reply to post by Phage

The point you failed to make is a connection between pedophilia and homosexuality while implying there is one. Do you think it was a bad thing for homosexuality to be "normalized?" To be legalized?

I'm certainly not for sodomy laws, if that's what you mean by legalizing it. As for normalizing it, that would depend. I would have to say my stance is in flux. I know I have argued passionately for gay marriage in the past and in principle I am for it.

That said, I now have a greater understanding of why folks are against it. It's plain that the line of just wanting equal rights (the line I bought and am still for) is a load of bs because it goes far beyond that.

It is about demonizing anyone who is uncomfortable with full on acceptance and/or celebration of everything about being gay. And, sorry, that isn't normal and never has been in any society I am aware of. Prolly a reason for that.

In that case the Christian view (hate the sin, not the sinner) would be as well, would it not? Or do you think it should be illegal to think bad thoughts? To have illicit drives? That would seem to be a real slippery slope. More of a cliff actually.

No. Your gambit with the Christain view was a non-sequitur so it didn't follow from what I said re normalization. I was talking about those who acted on their desires. Please don't pretend that this movement is about it being ok to have desires as long as they are not acted upon.

That would be wholly naive and would actively ignore the planks that are dealing with the consent issue. There would be no need to wrangle about that if it was just all in your head, would it?

I'm not at all about legislating thought. That's closer to the PC wing of things. If someone is a pedo in thought only who is going to know? Who is going to care?

Well, lots of people are going to care, especially as the societal constraints are chipped away and acting upon what was once abhorrent to society no longer is so. This is the real slippery slope.

But is sex with a minor-attracted adult really harmful?

Yes. Children are not equipped to consent or deal with it. It is the equivalent of adult rape but more heinous because it betrays the trust which children place in adults.

I agree. But not everybody does and those who don't have activist leanings and are using the same playbook the gay activists used. They are going to win eventually because those who used the gays for their ends have built the new norm and built it well.

Again, who are you to judge and by what standard?

A rational human being. Based on the standard that nonconsensual sex is by its nature, harmful.

Good luck with that. It's going to go the way of those dinosaurs who thought homosexual sex by its nature was, well, unnatural and therefore harmful. And your arguments are going to sound as quaint as those anti-gay ones do to you now.

This is the problem I spoke of previously. This battle is coming and according to the PC rules and all that postmodern moral relativism, you don't stand a chance with such authoritarian hierarchical patriarchal frogwash. This is what I meant by so many of us being useful idiots. We were tooled and what seemed like common decency and humanity was exploited by those lacking both.

I see. So your talking about the "normalizing" of homosexuality in comparison with the supposed "normalization" of pedophilia does not indicate that you think there is anything particularly wrong with it. That there's nothing wrong with "legalizing" it. Good for you. My apologies for misunderstanding your position on homosexuality.

Given that I never once said word one about gays per se, you were dealing with your own assumptions. Happy you could sort that out. Beyond that, you were just trying to score cheap PC points.

Yes, you were. You can say what ever you wish and so can Phil. Nothing PC about me. Just don't expect me to agree or condone your point of view or to accept any implication that I do.

I'm good with you disagreeing all ya want. But if you truly aren't PC, you might want to reevaluate your seemingly bottomless distaste for folks like Phil because any resistance to the pedo bear parade coming down the pike is going to be from them far more than it is going to be from the glaadiators and the like.

There may not be an equivalence between homo and pedo, but there sure seems to be one for the activists in each camp. Free Kate and all that. If you are fine with that, all good. If not, good luck saying so out loud.

reply to post by HooHaa

Your just as sick and twisted! America is forcing a "better not offend" policy on me and dammit it offends me!

Actually, it's not about offending. It's about spreading ignorance and fear.

If i own a company and publicly say i don't agree with same sex marriage.. ill have the whole rainbow coalition picketing out side, screaming like sissies (pun intended) preforming lewd acts (i saw it Detroit).. Makes me sick!

It might depend on how you worded your statement. But tell me, would it be OK if heterosexuals performed lewd acts in front of you?

You don't have to agree with me but you better not voice an opinion contrary

I don't agree with you. See how easy it was. Phil expressed his opinion too.


BTW, Hippocrates was a Greek. Sort of considered the "father" of medicine.

IraColmillo
Once again -- The sins listed in Romans 1 are indicative of a people who have turned their backs on God. One of the indicators is vile affections.

The Bible requires context. You and Phil Robertson would be better off learning the context.

Let's look at the Epistle to the Romans, presumably composed by the Apostle Paul.

(Setting aside Paul apparently refuting the entire story of the virgin birth in verse 3 for now )

The first few verses are an introduction, to the Romans, of the Gospel. In verse 16 (Paul) writes about the righteousness of God and salvation. Then quickly moves to condemnation of Gentiles and Jews… and gets to this part...

1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

"God gave them up," in two cases, used to describe the punishment handed down to those who created images like "corruptible man" to represent the "Glory of God."

"Gave them up," in Biblical context, means God did it. God created homosexuals and presumably others with sexual perversions.

This is not Paul informing the Romans what God thinks of homosexuals perverts, but instead, how God made people that way as punishment.

The only organization I am aware of in the US that promoted pedophilia and pederasty was called NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association).

At this point, according to everything I find on the internet, NAMBLA has basically been disbanded, although apparently some enthusiasts maintain a website still. YMMV.

Here's a summation of the responses of "Gay Rights" organizations to NAMBLA (Source):

In 1994 NAMBLA was expelled from the International Lesbian and Gay Association.

In 1994 the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) adopted a "Position Statement Regarding NAMBLA" saying GLAAD "deplores the North American Man Boy Love Association's (NAMBLA) goals, which include advocacy for sex between adult men and boys and the removal of legal protections for children. These goals constitute a form of child abuse and are repugnant to GLAAD."

Also in 1994 the Board of Directors of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) adopted a resolution on NAMBLA that said: "NGLTF condemns all abuse of minors, both sexual and any other kind, perpetrated by adults. Accordingly, NGLTF condemns the organizational goals of NAMBLA and any other such organization."

Seems that you and GLAAD may have something in common after all, BlueMoonJoe. (I'm kidding KIDDING!)

reply to post by BlueMoonJoe

It's plain that the line of just wanting equal rights (the line I bought and am still for) is a load of bs because it goes far beyond that.

You mean like not being stigmatized? Or really far beyond? What do exactly do you mean? What's "far beyond" equal rights? Two votes for each?

It is about demonizing anyone who is uncomfortable with full on acceptance and/or celebration of everything about being gay.

I don't get that impression but I do understand the objection to being demonized. If Phil would ignore them they would ignore him. But since he has a right to say whatever he wants about them, they have the right to say whatever they want about him. But you could be right in some sense. Perhaps an over reaction to the suppression and oppression (and worse). Does the name Alan Turing ring a bell? How about Matthew Shepard? Jamey Rodemeyer? Yeah, that's it. Overreaction. I guess the kind of talk we hear from Phil has nothing to do with any of that though.

And, sorry, that isn't normal and never has been in any society I am aware of.

I guess that would depend on how narrowly you define "normal". There's a slippery slope for you. But there are a number of societies in which homosexuality has been and is fully accepted without stigma (probably none Judeo-Christian though). Polynesians, American Indians. Heathens, right?

I was talking about those who acted on their desires. Please don't pretend that this movement is about it being ok to have desires as long as they are not acted upon.

Ok, if you won't pretend that this movement has any relationship, in any form to a "pedophilia movement."

They are going to win eventually because those who used the gays for their ends have built the new norm and built it well.

No. They won't because there is good reason for pedophilia to be prohibited. There is none for homosexuality to be. There is no reason for homosexuals to be treated differently from anyone else and rational people understand that.

Good luck with that. It's going to go the way of those dinosaurs who thought homosexual sex by its nature was, well, unnatural and therefore harmful.

Yes, those dinosaurs were wrong. Homosexuality is not harmful. Pedophilia is. But there you go again, matching them up. Creating some sort of strange equivalence.

But if you truly aren't PC, you might want to reevaluate your seemingly bottomless distaste for folks like Phil because any resistance to the pedo bear parade coming down the pike is going to be from them far more than it is going to be from the glaadiators and the like.

No. I don't think so. But if it does it doesn't make Phil any less of a fool because it has nothing to do with homosexuality and I still would call him one.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


This is very interesting because it is true that western religion, though not in a Buddhist sense, has a Karmic aspect to it that would appear to make God a real terrible dude.

And that something like being Gay would be a direct affliction from God, rather than a sin of choice from the individual.

I think you are pointing this out and maybe referencing the fact that they, Gay people have no choice in the matter, though I may be wrong in that interpretation of your intent, but that’s my view.

I know this isn’t a religious discussion but I just want to point out that what we often miss is that when the scripture says God did this or that it is a reference to a Karmic aspect of God, not him doing a direct action.

In other words if you run out into the street in traffic and get hit one could say God ran you over and be accurate to a great degree,

I don't want to imply that I believe God cursed Gay people btw.
I want to, I hope, educate folks on this point about scripture so they can have a more open perspective.

On this topic, I personally think that the idea that gay people choose being gay is not true.

reply to post by antonia


'cmon Duckmen of Louisiana I was made in 1988. I think their lifestyle was well documented before the admittedly over-scripted A&E show came along.

reply to post by BlueMoonJoe

Yeah right. First you say that the gay agenda will be followed by the acceptance of pedophiles which is obvious fear mongering.

Then, after Phage says that Phil is free to say whatever he wants, you accuse him of wacking him with a PC hammer.

Similar tactics if you ask me.

I don’t think GLAAD is being PC, they are a minority that is exposed to persecution so they should band together and protect themselves, just like the JDL, ADL, and AIPAC for the Jews, the NAACP for the AA, and the many other groups who have had historical persecution in their history.

We have had a generation of anti gay thinking being bred into the psychology of the nation therefore for GLADD not to be vigilante in protecting their rights would be negligent.

Though as I said before Robertson has a right to his beliefs and the right to express them.

So this case IMO no one is wrong, both sides are right

Now If Robertson had spoke wrathfully, a fire and brimstone like attack on Gays like a lot of the preachers have done, something he didn’t do since he spoke in a matter of fact way regarding the issue, then they would have a case against him.

SkepticOverlord

IraColmillo
Once again -- The sins listed in Romans 1 are indicative of a people who have turned their backs on God. One of the indicators is vile affections.

"Gave them up," in Biblical context, means God did it. God created homosexuals and presumably others with sexual perversions.

This is not Paul informing the Romans what God thinks of homosexuals perverts, but instead, how God made people that way as punishment.

edit on 28-12-2013 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)

You're close. "Gave them up" means he allowed them to go their own way. The natural consequence of rejecting God (as I said) is sin. It's very nearly the same as punishment. In behavior modification "natural consequences" are used to teach someone the error of their ways when artificial consequences get in the way.

Your child wants to touch a hot stove. As a loving parent you grab his hand and lovingly let him know that it's hot. He wants to keep trying. You could spend the rest of the day watching him, or (when it cools to a non-abusive heat) you "give him up to trying it" by turning your back.
You didn't force his hand on the burner to punish him. But you knew what would happen if he continued to be rebellious while your back was turned.

IraColmillo
You're close. "Gave them up" means he allowed them to go their own way.

You're referencing the common post-King James translations. In this part of the Epistle to the Romans, the Latin Vulgate translation from the Greek is fairly good. "Gave them up unto" is the phrase, not just "Gave them up," or "Gave them up to."

Again, this is why the entire context of the Epistle to the Romans I is so important. As I mentioned, Paul first outlines the transgressions, then the punishment God "gave them up unto" as a result.

reply to post by IraColmillo

IraColmillo
You've never watched one of his speeches, have you?

Actually, I have. I wanted to know more about him and what his message was before I posted here.

It is nothing like what you're saying. He doesn't spend one second bashing gay people. He does quote from the bible where all sexual immorality is listed with other sins.

But he DOESN'T just "hate the sin, not the sinner". He talks about the PEOPLE who sin as he paraphrases First 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.”

Source

The defenders of this man continue to say that he doesn't bash anyone, just the sin... Well, there's a direct quote from his interview in which he does indeed go after the PERSON. A "homosexual offender" is a PERSON, not a sin. A male prostitute is a PERSON, not a sin.

And, as I have said, it doesn't matter if he's paraphrasing from a book. It's clear he believes and agrees with it.

reply to post by Willtell

I hope those who went to all the trouble for this hunter millionaire and his feelings also get in gear to help the more than a million plus American who tomorrow night will be destitute.

I hope ALL THESE CHRISTIANS will make as much noise for those people getting thrown under the bus as they made for this guy.

In the time it took you to post this rant, you could have ladled a couple of bowls of soup down at the the kitchen...

In other words, I believe Phil has done a lot more for poor people than you will ever do in your entire lifetime.

reply to post by Gryphon66

Some Christians really don't like it when people use Bible verses against them, do they?

Actually, it a hoot when someone tries to work with a tool of which they zero understanding...a lot of this ends up on those funniest home video reality shows if you are lucky enough to have camera nearby...

Many of the laws written in the Bible were health laws, we all know this, in retrospect, it doesn't appear backward at all if you enacting these rules for the benefit of your society.

books.google.com... 4cH8YImxFzy7DUAk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=T0nAUseKDOrJygHO9oGgDA&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=sexually%20transmitted%20disease%20in%20mesopotamia&f=false


Sexual transmitted diseases are recorded back as far a Egypt an Mesopotamia.

Today's antibiotics,

Scientists: We Can’t Do Anything About The Antibiotic-Resistant Superbugs That Will Soon Kill Millions Of Us
endoftheamericandream.com...

We already have a new strain of syphilis that is antibiotic resistant.

Scientists find first superbug strain of gonorrhea
endoftheamericandream.com...
We have AIDS, herpes, and hepatitis, treatable but not curable.

So who is civilized, those whether gay or straight that are promiscuous?

Or those who practice safe sex or abstinence?
Or are faithful to one partner.

reply to post by Stormdancer777

So who is civilized, those whether gay or straight that are promiscuous?

What does promiscuity have to do with it? What does safe sex have to do with Phil's ranting? Do you think he's OK with gay monogamy? I guess he would be in favor of same sex marriage then.

Bit of a red herring it would seem.

reply to post by Willtell

Phil Robertson should look African American and gay people in the eyes and hear about the hurtful impact of praising Jim Crow laws and comparing gay people to terrorists," the organization stated. "If dialogue with Phil is not part of next steps then A+E has chosen profits over African American and gay people - especially its employees and viewers."

Money talks and BS walks

The almighty dollar again rides off into the sunset
Yeeha!

I'm just GLAAD its over

Do you hear the fat lady singing? No, you do not hear the fat lady singing. That's because it ain't over. That was just round one. Now comes the second round, the racial round.

MICHAEL ERIC DYSON: The mythology is that all interested parties should come to the table, but let’s not pretend that African-American people have had control of the law, where that they have indicated that Jim Crow was against poor white people. There’s not an equality of means of representing your interests or means of asserting oppression. So when we have this mythology of all come to the table, let’s at least be honest about who has been provided opportunity to get their viewpoint broadcast more broadly. And Phil Robertson and the Duck Dynasty is part of a majority white supremacist culture that either consciously or unconsciously incubates hatred toward those who are different.

www.prisonplanet.com...

reply to post by BlueMoonJoe


I guess you really didn't read the article and actually I did hear the fat lady sing. I was in Chicago again last night at the theater. If you meant the fat man as in Jesse he got his Christmas vacation paid for so he's happy too.