'Duck Dynasty' to resume filming with Phil Robertson

reply to post by BlueMoonJoe



Of course I know it’s not over, the post was tongue in cheek and a pun:
“ I’m Glaad its over”

Sometimes through humor there is insight

reply to post by Phage

Seems the APA never did classify pedophilia as a sexual orientation. Seems it was never in the DSM as such. Seems that it was classified as a disorder, not an orientation.

Seems you overlooked the next paragraph in the article. Did you notice that the "whopping error" in the headline morphed into a "seemingly small mistake" in the body of the article?

In a text discussion of changes it made to the way it refers to sexually deviant behaviors in its updated Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM, for short), the APA accidentally called pedophilia a "sexual orientation." Conservative media outlets and pundits pounced on the statement and disseminated it on blogs and social networks.

The APA issued a statement to the press on Thursday, saying it had acted in "error," and clarifying that the only difference in how pedophilia is referred to from the last DSM is that "the disorder name was changed from 'pedophilia' to 'pedophilic disorder'" in order to "maintain consistency with the chapter’s other disorder listings."

Just a little oopsie. And not even in the body of the text, just in the discussion of changes. An honest mistake.

Seems Christians really didn't do much of anything but scream without looking.

Right. And the only reason the APA issued their statement of oopsie was because the Christians who weren't looking found the "error" that the APA missed.

Sort of what you are accusing A&E of.

Non-sequitur much? Why, yes, yes you do. This happy hs doesn't even follow. The only thing I have accused AE of doing is bending over for the glaadiators.

Seems this statement of yours is bullcrap: It already made it into the DSM as such, but the protest from those hateful pedophobe Christians and such got it taken back out.

Seems the APA's oopsie statment disagrees with your assessment. Why make such a statement if nothing had made it into the DSM?

Nothing but spreading fear and ignorance. Not that hey don't have a right to try.

Yup. Nothing but speading fear and ignorance. Ya gotta wonder where they get such crazy ideas. I mean really. How could they even know to look for something so crazy and obviously not happening? Could something have tipped them off?

Pedophilia, Minor-Attracted Persons, and the DSM:
Issues and Controversies

This day-long symposium will facilitate the exchange of ideas among researchers, scholars, mental health practitioners, and minor-attracted persons who have an interest in critical issues surrounding the entry for pedophilia in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) of the American Psychiatric Association. The symposium will address critical issues in the following areas:

Scientific and philosophical issues related to the DSM entry on pedophilia and/or hebephilia

Effects of the DSM entry on stigma, availability of mental health services, and research

Ways in which minor-attracted persons can be involved in the DSM 5 revision process

It is crucial that the DSM be based on the most accurate and complete scientific information available, and on careful consideration of effects on the welfare of patients and society. This is especially true for the DSM entry on pedophilia; it has an enormous impact on the beliefs and practices of mental health professionals, the criminal justice system, the media, and the public.

The revision of DSM currently underway provides both the opportunity and the necessity to address fundamental issues surrounding the DSM entry for pedophilia. Numerous unresolved issues have been raised by scholars, researchers, and minor-attracted people. www.b4uact.org...

You can keep arguing against this shifting landscape, keep chanting your "spreading fear and ignorance" mantra, and keeping your head in the sand, but this is only the tip of an ugly iceberg.

Willtell
reply to post by BlueMoonJoe

 

Of course I know it’s not over, the post was tongue in cheek and a pun:
“ I’m Glaad its over”

Sometimes through humor there is insight

Sure, like that'd ever happen. Look nobody's got time for funny with all this butt hurt going on. Ain't no insight in sight when outrage is all the rage.

reply to post by BlueMoonJoe

Just a little oopsie. And not even in the body of the text, just in the discussion of changes. An honest mistake.

That's right. Pedophilia was never classified as a sexual orientation in the DSM.

Why make such a statement if nothing had made it into the DSM?

Because someone made a mistake in a discussion about the DSM. Pedophilia was never classified as a sexual orientation in the DSM.

Could something have tipped them off?

Not sure what your point is there. Pedophilia is classified as a disorder, not an orientation, in DSM V.

In the upcoming fifth edition of the book, DSM-5, the Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders Work Group sought to draw a line between atypical human behavior and behavior that causes mental distress to a person or makes the person a serious threat to the psychological and physical well-being of other individuals.

In the case of pedophilic disorder, the notable detail is what wasn’t revised in the new manual. Although proposals were discussed throughout the DSM-5 development process, diagnostic criteria ultimately remained the same as in DSM-IV TR. Only the disorder name will be changed from pedophilia to pedophilic disorder to maintain consistency with the chapter’s other listings.

www.dsm5.org...

You can keep arguing against this shifting landscape, keep chanting your "spreading fear and ignorance" mantra, and keeping your head in the sand, but this is only the tip of an ugly iceberg.

And you can keep attempting to direct the topic from homosexuality to pedophilia. Your right to say whatever you wish.

daskakik
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.

Right. In the sense that Paul Revere was obviously fear mongering when he warned of the British coming. Folks have been warning of this development for far longer than I have been aware of the issue and they have been systematically silenced using all the usual pc tricks, denial, ridicule, castigation, accusations of fear mongering and such. And while that has gone on, bit by bit things are shifting.

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

This is your third whiff in a row in the reading comprehension dept., so either you are too dim or too devious for useful engagement. I don't mind getting called on what I did, but repeatedly getting called on what I didn't do is noxious.

I didn’t accuse phage of whacking Phil; I accused him of whacking butcherguy by accusing him of being a homophobe.

Similar tactics if you ask me.

Let's just say that, given your track record, I've lost faith in your ability to discern such

reply to post by Phage


Although even he may not see the connection, it has everything to do with it.

He is teaching morals and morals can save us a lot of heartache.

reply to post by Stormdancer777

And he is "teaching" that homosexuals are immoral.
Or would he be ok with a nice stable same sex marriage?

Phage
reply to post by Stormdancer777

 

And he is "teaching" that homosexuals are immoral.
Or would he be ok with a nice stable same sex marriage?

Most likely not.
At the same time he also is not ok with other immoral behavior, do I like the way he approaches the subject, no.

But in today's society somethings we don't want to hear needs to be said, for everyone's sake.

Phil Robertson started dating his wife when she was 14 years old. His advice is "marry these girls when they're about 15 or 16." (Source - This is a video on Youtube in which Phil is dispensing his marriage wisdom.)

(Age of consent in LA: 17 years old)

Please tell us more about his "moral authority."

reply to post by Stormdancer777

But in today's society somethings we don't want to hear need to be said, for everyone's sake.

There are ways to say some things and there are other ways to say some things.
Demonizing a group of people, turning them into scapegoats, directing hate (in the name of love) toward them is not the way to say it.

reply to post by Gryphon66


At the time he got married he was not a Christian, he was into drugs and alcohol, he talks about his bad behavior.

I can't judge anyone cause I could tell a similar life story.

reply to post by Phage



That's what I said.

Everyone has faults and people sometimes say thing that are hurtful, I never want to hurt anyone.

I don't have an issue with homosexuals and it was never something that was brought up in any church I attended, it just wasn't an issue back then.

I have had wonderful conversation with gays on this forum, I ask questions they were polite when answering those questions.

I would never want my words on the forum to cause discord in someones life outside of ATS.

I don't want to be that person that might unknowingly be the voice that instills hate..

Even many in the gay community don't want apposing views silenced, but want a open and honest, sensible, non threatening debate on these issues.

The tables can be turned just as easily against them, and one day it will be their voice silenced, they know this,

reply to post by Gryphon66


Do the math and figure out if it was legal back then. Times have changes the legal age could have been 12 back then maybe 13. Look it up. Yes times have changed people live longer and you don't need 10 kids to run a farm.

Stormdancer777
reply to post by Gryphon66

 

At the time he got married he was not a Christian, he was into drugs and alcohol, he talks about his bad behavior.

I can't judge anyone cause I could tell a similar life story.

Was he also not a Christian when he gave advice to marry "these girls at 15 or 16" in the video? Could swear it looks like he's doing more of his preaching.

__________________________________

There are a multitude of Christians who do not condemn gay and Lesbian people as sinful and accept them as members (Source):

Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Reformed Church in America
Church of Scotland
Episcopal Church
Community of Christ
Church of Denmark
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Lutheran Church (Germany)
New Apostolic Church
Church of Norway
Presbyterian Church (USA)
United Church of Canada
Unity School of Christianity
Etc.

Many Christians do not condemn homosexuals.

reply to post by Stormdancer777


Tell me, how does suspending Phil from a TV show "silence" him?
He doesn't really need the money (though he seems to revel in the celebrity). He can keep spouting his foolish stuff as much as he wants. And guess what? He undoubtedly will. Probably even more so.

mikell
reply to post by Gryphon66

 

Do the math and figure out if it was legal back then. Times have changes the legal age could have been 12 back then maybe 13. Look it up. Yes times have changed people live longer and you don't need 10 kids to run a farm.

So, you're good with adult men having sex with 12 year olds then as long as it's technically legal? Okay.

ADDED IN EDIT: Surely, that's not what you're saying is it? You seem to be implying that if the age-of-consent was 12, then marrying and copulating would be okay. Care to restate?

Of note, as of 1920 the age of consent in Louisiana was 18 years old. It changed to 17 in 1977. (Source)

reply to post by BlueMoonJoe

Try to justify them anyway you like it doesn't change what those tactics are.

Right, I have no intention of engaging in anything useful with you. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of blaming others of using tactics that you are using yourself (even if I did get a member's name wrong).

I'm not from the US, and have only seen blogs on the issue, and two of the Duck Dynasty episodes.

Although the statements weren't made on the show, they are a pretty well-known view, and not the most homophobic thing I've heard on reality TV.

There were shows on the Amish and the British Gypsies (Irish travelers) that showed a serious dislike of gay people at times.

Recently I saw an episode of Wife Swap Australia, in which a lesbian was placed with a fundamentalist Christian family, and some of the views were also pretty extreme, although in that case they were opposed by people from a gay-friendly church.

What I saw so far of Duck Dynasty was one program where the freezer lost power and they had to get rid of the rotting meat.
They first wanted to chuck it in the church's dumpster (!), but decided against this at the last moment.
In the other episode the one brother (who is quite hot) had to move in with the other brother, but after butchering a beaver in the kitchen, cooking steak in the wee hours of the morning, and filling the bathtub with prawns, he was predictably evicted.
It was all quite juvenile and silly.
It's actually hard to believe that there is a massive debate about these people.

Why don't they have an episode where they meet gay people, theologians and so forth?
I'm sure it would be fantastic TV.

OK, to me it seems that GLAAD over-reacted, but they also have a right to protest.
The American right wasn't particularly pro-freedom of speech when it came to the Dixie Chicks.

One thing astounds me however, and that is the long hair.
When I first saw them I thought they look like hippies, and the kind of people who got clubbed over the head by the American right in the 1960s and 70s.
What is the exact meaning or attraction regarding the hair for the Christian right?

When I had long hair I had Bible verses quoted at me about how shameful this is for a man.

OK, I get the "Taliban"-like beards (very Old Testament) and the paramilitary fashion taste.
Cleanliness isn't exactly Godliness in this family (poor women), but that adage isn't actually in the Bible.
Some of it mirrors South Africa's Angus Buchan and his Mighty Men ministry, and how it reworks a mythical patriarchy through symbolic, masculine garments.
I also hear that their position on gambling and alcohol (I think they had a wine labelled after them, although I wonder if it's served in Michelin rated restaurants) has long alienated some Christians.

But the hair?
Oh boy, how times have changed.

reply to post by halfoldman


One finds a lot of cognitive dissonance and self-contradiction in some Christians application of the Bible to themselves i.e. it applies to others not to them.

For example:

Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. (1 Corinthians 11:14)

I think people need to realize, again, that the Robertsons are just playing FAKE roles on a TV show.

Here's the four brothers after a day of golf at the club...



Korie and Willie in a nice family portrait at the beach a few years ago. Nice "frosted tips" on Willie...



Family portraits in nice clean-whites/lights at the beach are apparently a Robertson "thing." Jep and Jessica, also…



And, Jase and Missy…



The "characters" you see on the show are just playing a scripted part, and are not genuine. And if their parts are scripted, is the religion also?