'Duck Dynasty' to resume filming with Phil Robertson

reply to post by Phage

And implying the granting of equal rights to homosexuals will lead to the legalization of sex with children.

No, first step is normalizing it. Get some tender renderings in movies and such, get some pedo characters and show how they are oh so human and just like everybody else . . . when they are not abusing children.

Besides, why are you against legalizing sex with children, anyway? Who are you to judge and on what grounds?

reply to post by BlueMoonJoe

No, first step is normalizing it. Get some tender renderings in movies and such, get some pedo characters and show how they are oh so human and just like everybody else . . . when they are not abusing children.

Do all pedophiles act on their drives? If they don't should they be reviled or loved (in the Christian sense)?

Besides, why are you against legalizing sex with children, anyway? Who are you to judge and on what grounds?

I have a child. Anyone who harms her (in any way) will suffer for it.
I don't care what homosexuals do with each other. Why do you?

reply to post by BlueMoonJoe


So that must mean a heterosexual rape can't be helped because of biology? Sex with children is the same. Pedophiles are predators like serial killers. It is about the power over another human being, not love.

reply to post by IraColmillo

IraColmillo
Phil, in his own words, admitted that he was as much of a sinner as anyone else.

It doesn't matter!

Giving a speech on how bad gay people are and then tacking on, "Oh, yeah, I have sinned, too" does not absolve him from his judgments and homophobic statements. If he REALLY felt that way, he'd be talking about HIS sins and not pointing the finger at gay people.

In that speech he's offering forgiveness. The same that he received from God.

He's offering forgiveness? Who is he to offer forgiveness? Who is he but an ignorant asshat? He CANNOT offer forgiveness. He's nobody.

However, this has no bearing on you saying Phil should mind his own business. Because (in the quote that started the controversy) Phil was asked his opinion on what sin was -- ie he was asked his personal business. And that other person wrote an article sharing it with the public.

I know. I'm not speaking about the interview. He was asked and he answered. I don't think he should have been fired. These other "sermons" he gives, trashing homosexuals (oh - and others, too) are what I'm talking about. He's obsessed with gay people. And with painting them as "sinners". He's totally judgmental. He should look in the mirror.

reply to post by Phage

Since you used the same argument frequently seen by those who are adamantly opposed to homosexuals being granted domestic rights equal to those of heterosexuals it seemed you were in that same camp, using stereotypes, ignorance and fear.

Whack him with that PC hammer. Bam, bam, bam.

Toss around the stereotypes, ignorance and fear tag. Bam, bam, bam.

Doesn't matter if he did any of that, just bam, bam, bam.

When all you have is a PC hammer, nail everyone and anyone with it. Bam. bam. bam.

It's the glaadiator tool of the trade.

reply to post by BlueMoonJoe

Nope. No hammer.

He has a perfect right to spout his homophobic idiocy. And I have a perfect right to call him on it.

Don't give a damn about GLAAD. Don't care what homosexuals do. But I do think they should be treated like human beings not demons.

reply to post by BlueMoonJoe

It's the glaadiator tool of the trade.

Seems to be yours as well.

As someone pointed out in another thread, both sides would love to silence the other and they use similar tactics.

Hey, BlueMoonJoe, may I ask what your personal belief is in regard to the matter?

Do you believe that homosexuality is equivalent to pedophilia and/or child abuse? Yes, no, maybe?

Forget the "PC police" the "cultural marxists" and the rest, would you share with us what you believe?

Thanks in advance.

GLAAD Warns A and E After Phil Robertson's Suspension Is Lifted

Read more: www.aceshowbiz.com...

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." Read more: www.aceshowbiz.com...

Money talks and BS walks

The almighty dollar again rides off into the sunset
Yeeha!

I'm just GLAAD its over

reply to post by Phage

Right. Christians did it.
Got it.

Yes, they did.

A mainstream Christian news site and a number of smaller, right-wing blogs published stories this week alleging that the American Psychiatric Association, or APA, had classified pedophilia as a sexual orientation. "Just as the APA declared homosexuality an ‘orientation’ under tremendous pressure from homosexual activists in the mid-'70s, now, under pressure from pedophile activists, they have declared the desire for sex with children an ‘orientation,’ too. It's not hard to see where this will lead. More children will become sexual prey," said an article in Charisma News, a Christian media organization, quoting "cultural expert" Sandy Rios, a Fox News contributor and talking head for the anti-gay American Family Association's radio station.

The article quickly went viral, garnering over 100,000 Facebook shares within 24 hours of being published and lighting up the right-wing blogosphere. Among many bloggers and commenters, the shared sentiment was that this was a logical progression from the normalization of homosexuality that began in the 1960's.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

See, it's about the playbook.

But you seem to have missed the point. Allowing consenting adults to have sex with each other is not the same as allowing adults to have sex with children.

To bring up pedophilia in the same context as homosexuality is nothing but homophobia.

Bam. Bam. Bam.

Heh. Put down your hammer, dude. That isn't the point and hasn't been the point no matter how many times you or anyone else brings it up. The PC playbook is the point and if you don't like the connection, take it up with the pedos.

reply to post by daskakik

Complains about the "PC playbook" then proceeds to single out a group of people and reminds us that we have to save the children from them, by stopping some other group.

What?

Exactly. What? I have no idea how you drew that, all I know is that I didn't say anything like it.

reply to post by BlueMoonJoe

Yes, they did.

Thanks for the link.

The article quickly went viral, garnering over 100,000 Facebook shares within 24 hours of being published and lighting up the right-wing blogosphere. Among many bloggers and commenters, the shared sentiment was that this was a logical progression from the normalization of homosexuality that began in the 1960's.

The only problem is, the report wasn't true. The APA appears to have made a seemingly small mistake that set off a rapid chain reaction of confusion and hate.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

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 Christians really didn't do much of anything but scream without looking. Sort of what you are accusing A&E of. 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.

Put down your hammer, dude.

You mean this hammer? I'm not carrying it.

It's not hard to see where this will lead. More children will become sexual prey," said an article in Charisma News, a Christian media organization, quoting "cultural expert" Sandy Rios, a Fox News contributor and talking head for the anti-gay American Family Association's radio station.

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

JohnPhoenix

Er.. Love how you take scripture out of context.. so I guess Jesus was a disgrace? He as a Nazarene always had long hair you know.. in fact.. it was illegal for Jesus to cut his hair at all!

Yeah.. I wanna be there when you tell Jesus he was a disgrace. That's gonna be good.

How did I take it out of context?
www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...

It's very clear what is meant by this-Women should look like women and men should look like men. According to Paul, men should not have long hair. One can make the argument that is simply what Paul believed and leave it at that. As I am agnostic, I really don't care. I was raised in fundamentalist religion though. Don't tell me I don't know the bible. I was forced to read it more times than I care to recall.

Jesus was from Nazareth, he was not a Nazarite, there is a distinct difference between the two. Samson was, not Jesus. He likely did not look like what you think he did either. Furthermore Matthew states he drank wine. Nazarites were forbidden from drinking or touching grapes/wine.

antonia
reply to post by AuntC

 

Google says she was born in 1950 and she was married at 16.

Well then if that is so then they would have been married in 1966 according to that. Which then would tell us they haven't been married 50 years yet either. Yet they said he gave her that ring and they re said their vows for their 50th anniversary??? I am just wondering if Bing got things messed up??? Or what?? Even my daughter is still arguing with me over this because she is doing a paper on Kay and she put it down for her birthday being in 1966, she also saw it and copied it all down.

reply to post by AuntC


I'm sorry, your daughter's school accepts papers on reality TV characters as academic work?

Hmmm, this does not bode well for the nation.

As for the date discrepancy, they may have celebrated early for the TV show or something.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


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

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. Which he admits to being guilty of.

Also, Phage, Christians are not against "homosexuals." They are against men having sex with other men. If you have an inclination that way and you don't do it, it's not sin.

Christians are against people saying "it's a natural desire, therefore it's okay." It's okay to have the desire. It's not okay to act on any immorally sexual impulse. That's why people keep pointing out the other sexual sins listed in the bible.

And maybe this is OT, but I am old enough to remember when A&E used to broadcast Shakespeare in the park.....WTF happened?

Art must now be hillbilly, swamp people, country folk stereotypes with a smattering of Jersey Girls for good measure.

How in the world is any of this Art? I do get laughing at backwoods people might be mildly entertaining for some people though.

reply to post by IraColmillo

Actually, he's pretty specific. You can start at about 17:30.

They are against men having sex with other men.

Yes. I know. I just don't know why it is any concern of theirs. (Yeah, I know. Gotta "save" 'em.) Don't you think there are worse "sins" than diddling each other? No wait, a mortal sin is a mortal sin, right? Gay sex = murder?

It's okay to have the desire. It's not okay to act on any immorally sexual impulse.

What constitutes "immoral" sex? Is oral sex "immoral"? I guess so, since there is no godly reason to do it and it's fun. Masturbation (solo and otherwise)? Why is it "immoral" for people who want to, to do anything they want sexually? Why is it anyone's business but theirs? Seems somewhat "unnatural" to be so concerned about what other people do in their bedrooms. Hurting people is immoral.

His right, of course. My right to call his (and others') obsession somewhat odd (And rude and hurtful and ignorant and foolish).

Everything in this warped, twisted civilization is about marketing- herein lies but another example of it, directed to the literally unwashed masses who thirst for...completely mindless entertainment. I of course consider myself a scion of the latter, but I have questions. I have questions about everything. Why discuss this drivel? Why the big push to push ones sexual peccadilloes?

No, referring to people as indecent, insolent, murdering, heartless, senseless, and ruthless doers-of-evil does absolutely nothing to indicate that Phil has any negative feelings toward gays and lesbians huh? How could anyone be offended by being called all that? BY Phil or by the Bible.

Silly homosexuals.

What I find most disgusting is hiding one's opinions under the skirts of religion. Have the guts to come out of the prayer closet and speak your mind. Phil Robertson at least did a little bit of that in his GQ tirade for a bit, before his lawyers and family shooed him back under the feathers of Mama Church.

Your religion protects you from control by the government, but it does not allow you to cowardly utter insults and vileness, to judge and condemn others, to show hatefulness instead of love to other people, and then think you can retreat behind Jesus's robes. Here's what The Lord Jesus™ has to say to you:

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles? Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!" (Jesus, Matthew 7:21-23)