Phil is Back On

Nobody ever shuts down the debate. It hasn't ended. I doubt it will for a long time. Just now a days, society is shifting to a pro-stance rather then an anti-stance, which plays out in the media.

 

I was completely unaware that homosexuality was a religion. Care to elaborate?

Last I checked homosexuality describes something that actually exists, while religion describes things that do not exist.

- - - Updated - - -

Which is why I was dumbfounded at the right wing bigots crying about A&E exercising their dictatorial employment practices.

- - - Updated - - -

Right wingers are just as stupid.

 

When will you admit you hate all religious people? Your anti-religious bigotry, intolerance and hatred is on full display here.

- - - Updated - - -

And yet you liberals are trying to outlaw transfats and other unhealthy things. How about we outlaw anal sex as well? You know, based purely on the fact that it is an unhealthy lifestyle.

 

How did this become a Gays vs Ducks thing?

Last I checked, it was A&E that suspended Phil, NOT gay people. LOL


This is such a NON story anyways. 5 years from now, Duck Dynasty will be off the air & gay marriage will be legal in ALL 50 States.

Kinda makes your Anti-Gay victory today seem hollow, huh?

 

because it not true. I suppose you are one of the ones who find that idea too complex. I would hate to be one of the ones who see everything in 1's and 0's, black and white. There are a lot of shades of grey in between

 

If people were simply saying they "didn't like" the homosexual lifestyle, I and most people don't think they are homophobes, and generally they are NOT called "homophobes"!

NO ONE is asking anyone to BE a "homosexual", DO homosexual sex, or "live the homosexual lifestyle", or LIKE any of it!

Its when someone calls homosexuals "pedophiles", "murderers", "unfit to work or live", to be jailed for sexual positions that even straight couples practice, that person IS a "homophobe".

"Live and let live" is both "conservative" and means you are NOT a "homophobe".

 

No one asked you if you agree with their lifestyle. And yes. It does make you a homophobe if you feel the need to tell people who they can and can't fall in love with. And even if you weren't it's just completely rude behavior and none of your business.

 

Yup. The right to marry is a fundamental right that's been upheld by the supreme court in several cases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_the_United_States#Marriage_as_a_fundamental_right

As far as I know there has never been a constitutional argument for the right to stop people from getting married.

 

No. Freedom of speech is an important thing to protect. But there absolutely needs to be a freedom to fire people for hate speech even if that hate speech comes from religious beliefs. Westboro believes all their soldier funeral protesting is in the name of religion too. And in my book anyone who claims "Homosexuality is a sin" is just as bad as those folks. If you get fired for having an (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) opinion about people's sexuality then that's just society keeping the bigots in check. I'm not going to shed a tear for them. Keep your opinions about homosexuality to yourself and quit forcing people to hide their love life and relationships.

 

Yup. You don't hate gay people. You just hate that they're gay. Right. I'm sure if you just explained it like that this whole thing would just blow over.

 

Tell that to the florist or the baker who are being forced to cater a wedding which violates their religious beliefs.

 

Still waiting for someone to explain to me the logic behind allowing deviant homosexuals (I apologize for the redundancy) to marry but not incestuous or polygamous relationships.

Don't worry; I am not holding my breath.

 

The right to get married means marry someone of the opposite sex. Just like a licence to drive a car doesn't mean you can drive any vehicle on the road and as fast as you want to go. Just gotta love the A&E decision though, rubs one in the face of the homosexual crowd!

Liberals are always funny about this. They say "yea, Phil has the right to express his opinion and A&E has the right to pull him off the program." Libertarians don't stop there, they continue with: And people have the right to boycott A&E for ITS DECISION to pull Phil from the show. Liberals only want people to express their beliefs if it lines up with their beliefs. Hell, even our own governor said so.

 

Thanks for proving my statement.

 

Incestuous is obvious. It creates genetic disabilities. I have absolutely no issue with polygamy. If you want to be in a poly relationship that's your right as a consenting adult.

 

And Phil Robertson said none of those things.

 

Your point that you think you're somehow not going to be considered a homophobe for continuing to believe the outdated religious sentiment that homosexuality is a sin? That's just going to be your label in the future. Better get used to it and grow a thicker skin if you're not willing to change your stance and live and let live.

- - - Updated - - -

He likened them to bestiality. He did say those things.

 

All wrong as usual. I GET TO DISCRIMINATE. ME. Get it? And I get to determine the relevance of the basis upon which I discriminate AGAINST THE ENTIRE COHORT.

I also discriminate against pit bulls. They're just another dog, the apologist will say, and this one is friendly and good with kids. Get it away or I WILL shoot it. You don't get to determine MY safety.

Gay men are less psychologically stable, more prone to addiction (pick it, they do it all), WAYYYY out in front in STDs, more prone to suicide and as a group live shorter lives than straights. I want no part of them.

http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/index.htm - They likely won't offer up A/B statistics because the Gaystapo doesn't want them easy to discover but I guarantee that laundry list is led by gay men.

 

So people don't have the right to marry who they want is what you're saying. Some libertarian you are. You clearly don't stand for individual freedoms. That's for sure.

 

The definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. It doesn't make me any less of a libertarian because I believe in strong christian values, but nice try.

Just so you know, libertarian is not an anarchist.

 

"Jeez. He's a real homophobe." " Yeah. The old fart can't help it. Just born in a different time"

Better get used to that being said behind your back.

 

I notice you've said that a few times. Care to really lay down how you can "dislike someone's lifestyle" but not "dislike the person" themselves. I decide my friends based on what they stand for, and who they are as person. How they treat other people and how they treat me. I don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) if you're gay, black, white, or green. If you're a good person, you're a good person. I don't decide who is quality and who isn't by something they cannot decide.

I don't care if no one else will say, but I will, I (*)(*)(*)(*)ing hate religion. I hate it with every fiber of my person. Religion and their subsequent beliefs are responsible for more deaths than anything...ever. Every war has a piece of religious disagreement. It's responsible for more hate on this planet than anything else. Yet sheep blindly follow the invisible man in the sky. Preaching unity, love, and fellowship. All the while picking and choosing who is "wrong" or who's invisible man is better or more right than the opposition. All religion results in is a mask used as an umbrella created to provide rationalization to say whatever you want, while holding up a fictional book as support.

- - - Updated - - -

He likened them to people who have sex with animals, I think that's close enough.

 

Yup. You believe in the individual right to be forced to follow strong christian values. Real libertarian of you. I can just feel the freedom flowing out of you.

 

Wow I'm forcing people to get married?

Man what are you smokin' cuz I want some. You're definitely seeing (*)(*)(*)(*) that isn't there. No way will that gay crap fly in my state.

 

You know, as "glad" (lol!) as I am that A&E ultimately made the right choice here by bringing the man back, I'm internally conflicted as to whether or not to support the show in the future. I didn't watch it originally. I didn't know much about it. But after all that these people have been put through simply for their beliefs, I'd love to support them. However, I don't respect A&E at all at this point. They have proven themselves to be weak and cowardly twice now. The first time when they caved to pressure from GLAAD and suspended Phil and the second time when they caved again to pressure from potential boycotters and reinstated him. Neither time did they stand by their choice. If they had honestly seen the error of their ways, it would be an entirely different story. But they didn't. They just buckled out of fear of losing money. They didn't simply stand up and do the right thing. So personally, I would have rather seen the Robertsons take their business to a gutsier network and tell A&E, "Duck you!"