Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 d-usa wrote:
It's pretty much not the "gay is a sin" remark.

It's the whole "start with gays, no better than people who feth animals" slant of his statements.

It is ironing that people are mad that a person who is on a fake reality show about yuppies acting like rednecks can't be "real".

Where are the same people defending "I'm gonna get AIDS in Africa. kidding, I'm white!" lady and trying to keep her from getting fired because freedom of speech.

And, to no surprise, you cut off his quotation--like the media--with bestiality and remove the part where he lumps them with adulterers, the drunks, and the swindlers.

The point of his statement is that all sin is the same. Not that homosexuality is as perverse as bestiality.

But again, not surprised.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jamesk1973 wrote:
I am not surprised at their reversal.

If you are gay and you somehow think that his remark equating gays to people who practice bestiality is aimed at you in particular, perhaps you have the problem.

Yup.

He is back, While I really detest what he says, Im glad I can stop hearing my cousin complain.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/21/phil-robertson-duck-dynasty-return_n_4485646.html

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
He is back, While I really detest what he says, Im glad I can stop hearing my cousin complain.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/21/phil-robertson-duck-dynasty-return_n_4485646.html

What about what he said is it that you detest?

And please, read the article. He's not back. They're showing previously recorded episodes.

“It seems like, to me, a vagina -- as a man -- would be more desirable than a man’s anus," Robertson told GQ. "That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”
Calling Homosexuality Illogical.

“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong. Sin becomes fine," he later added. “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. 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.”
Using a slippery slope saying that homosexuality will lead to bestiality.
And claiming to believe the bible, but ignoring many historical context.

Also yeah. I was incorrect

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
“It seems like, to me, a vagina -- as a man -- would be more desirable than a man’s anus," Robertson told GQ. "That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”
Calling Homosexuality Illogical.

While I don't think being gay is a choice (I believe it's biological) there is no evolutionary purpose to homosexuality, as it cannot result in procreation.

Additionally, if you're not an idiot is pretty clear that he's being a bit glib or tongue in cheek with that quite.

“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong. Sin becomes fine," he later added. “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. 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.”
Using a slippery slope saying that homosexuality will lead to bestiality.

No slippery slope there, and the only people claiming it is are ones SEARCHING for a problem. He's saying that all sin is equal in the eyes or his god and paraphrasing Corinthians to do so.

And claiming to believe the bible, but ignoring many historical context.

Meaning what? Elaborate.

But then again, I actually read the GQ article, unlike what appears to be about 85% of the people commenting on it on the Internet. In fact, the worst thing he said, and I'm paraphrasing here, was his likening Muslims as a whole to the Nazi regime.

But that doesn't fit nearly as well in the atheist narrative.

I wasnt talking about the Anus Part, I was talking about calling it Illogical. There are many things that are illogical, Hell duck hunting can be called that. Why go hunting when you can buy it? Illogical =/= wrong
"Start from Homosexuality and Morph from there"
Pretty clear slippery slope to me, says that you start with homosexuality and it turns into other things. Like bestiality and orgies.
And ignoring much in the bible is defunct, the selling of your daughter into slavery, the whole reason Sodom and Gammorah fell wasnt the gay sex, but inhospitality.

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It's pretty much not the "gay is a sin" remark.

It's the whole "start with gays, no better than people who feth animals" slant of his statements.

It is ironing that people are mad that a person who is on a fake reality show about yuppies acting like rednecks can't be "real".

Where are the same people defending "I'm gonna get AIDS in Africa. kidding, I'm white!" lady and trying to keep her from getting fired because freedom of speech.

And, to no surprise, you cut off his quotation--like the media--with bestiality and remove the part where he lumps them with adulterers, the drunks, and the swindlers.

You start with homosexuality, then bestiality. His words.

The point of his statement is that all sin is the same. Not that homosexuality is as perverse as bestiality.

Cheating on your wife is as bad as fething a dog.

Being a drunk is as bad as fething a dog.

Being a swindler is as bad as fething a dog.

Being homosexual is as bad as fething a dog.

Yeah, doesn't make it any better.

But again, not surprised.

I'm not surprised that people are defending the guy that said that being gay is as bad as being a dog fether and that there is something wrong with you if you choose a mans anus ofer a woman's vagina.

There is a difference between thinking stuff is a sin and being judgemental. And not recognizing that difference is what results in situations such as these.

 cincydooley wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
“It seems like, to me, a vagina -- as a man -- would be more desirable than a man’s anus," Robertson told GQ. "That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”
Calling Homosexuality Illogical.

While I don't think being gay is a choice (I believe it's biological) there is no evolutionary purpose to homosexuality, as it cannot result in procreation.

There have been a few studies showing an evolutionary benefit to being homosexual. I'd have to dig them up though to get the details.

Additionally, if you're not an idiot is pretty clear that he's being a bit glib or tongue in cheek with that quite.

And if you got nothing else worthwhile to say you start throwing the idiot word around.

And if you are being "glib or tongue in cheek" and it backfires then it's because you made a stupid joke, not because everybody else is wrong.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I wasnt talking about the Anus Part, I was talking about calling it Illogical. There are many things that are illogical, Hell duck hunting can be called that. Why go hunting when you can buy it? Illogical =/= wrong

Moronic statement, and if you knew anything about the robertsons, you'd realize it. The family is about land to plate, and they hunt to eat.

I mean, Based on this I'm not sure you know what illogical means.

"Start from Homosexuality and Morph from there"
Pretty clear slippery slope to me, says that you start with homosexuality and it turns into other things. Like bestiality and orgies.
And ignoring much in the bible is defunct, the selling of your daughter into slavery, the whole reason Sodom and Gammorah fell wasnt the gay sex, but inhospitality.

So an orgy is akin to bestiality in your mind? Interesting.

Further, the stories in the Bible are there to teach broader themes and lessons. The fact that selling your daughter into slavery is defunct has no bearing on that.

 cincydooley wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I wasnt talking about the Anus Part, I was talking about calling it Illogical. There are many things that are illogical, Hell duck hunting can be called that. Why go hunting when you can buy it? Illogical =/= wrong

Moronic statement, and if you knew anything about the robertsons, you'd realize it. The family is about land to plate, and they hunt to eat.

You'd also realize that they adopted a persona for TV to appeal to a broader audience and that they are staring in what is basically a scripted reality show.

Yes I understand that about the Robertsons. But my statment is not moronic. They can do that, no skin of my back, but when you own a giant company you dont NEED to do that, so it is Illogical, but not wrong, Homosexuality may be Illogical, but not wrong.
And why is the Selling daughter into slavery defunct but not hatred of homosexuality isnt?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I wasnt talking about the Anus Part, I was talking about calling it Illogical. There are many things that are illogical, Hell duck hunting can be called that. Why go hunting when you can buy it? Illogical =/= wrong

Moronic statement, and if you knew anything about the robertsons, you'd realize it. The family is about land to plate, and they hunt to eat.

You'd also realize that they adopted a persona for TV to appeal to a broader audience and that they are staring in what is basically a scripted reality show.

Im starting to agree with D-usa.......*Goes outside* Huh, IT is raining cats and dogs.

 d-usa wrote:

You start with homosexuality, then bestiality. His words.

Being a drunk is as bad as adultery

Being a swindler is as bad as adultery.

Being homosexual is as bad as being an adulterer.

THIS is the point. Biblically, all sin is equal, and all is equally forgivable. The "levels of sin" wasn't introduced by the bible, but by Dante.

.... is something wrong with you if you choose a mans anus ofer a woman's vagina.

He didn't say that. He said to him it was illogical.

I think smoking is illogical. Doesn't mean I think there's something wrong with smokers.

There is a difference between thinking stuff is a sin and being judgemental. And not recognizing that difference is what results in situations such as these.

Where was the judgement here? Again, had you read the article he even said it wasn't his place to judge, but rather gods.

There have been a few studies showing an evolutionary benefit to being homosexual. I'd have to dig them up though to get the details.

Looking forward to that. Is it a natural culling of populations?

And if you got nothing else worthwhile to say you start throwing the idiot word around.

And if you are being "glib or tongue in cheek" and it backfires then it's because you made a stupid joke, not because everybody else is wrong

Maybe you prefer to substitute "idiot" with "being obtuse?"

It's pretty clear he was joking. Is it a bad joke? Maybe, but that's purely subjective.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

You'd also realize that they adopted a persona for TV to appeal to a broader audience and that they are staring in what is basically a scripted reality show.

The earth to plate part isn't scripted. They operate a huge plantation and pretty much live off their own land

In fact, the GQ article mentions it. The author calls it "some real pre-hipster gak".

But again, you'd have had to read the article and not just the selective blurbs the media is feeding you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Yes I understand that about the Robertsons. But my statment is not moronic. They can do that, no skin of my back, but when you own a giant company you dont NEED to do that, so it is Illogical, but not wrong, Homosexuality may be Illogical, but not wrong.
And why is the Selling daughter into slavery defunct but not hatred of homosexuality isnt?

.

Not sure what some of this means. I think maybe you and I have different definitions for illogical.

Additionally, Duck Commander is hardly "giant", with their 15 whole employees.

Still, the make alot of money. They doont need to hunt for survival, they choose to. So it is illogical to do all that work when you can drive down to the store. If that is what they like, good for them, but it doesnt make sense. Illogical =/= wrong.
And IMO when people say "IT is not my place to judge them, it is gods" Right after saying something they are trying to say something they believe and know is wrong, but says something afterwords to defuse it

 cincydooley wrote:

There have been a few studies showing an evolutionary benefit to being homosexual. I'd have to dig them up though to get the details.

Looking forward to that. Is it a natural culling of populations?

Actually the oposite. While the gay male is less likely to have children, female relatives on the maternal side of the gay male are more likely to have more children and have a higher rate of fertility and reproductive success.

So my statement was slightly incorrect that there is a evolutionary benefit to being homosexual and it should have said that the evolutionary beneficial genetic trait that results in more reproductive success in women also seems to be a genetic cause for homosexual behavior om select males along the maternal line.

I remember the actual study, and I have to do some more diggint to find it. But here is one summary of it.

And if you got nothing else worthwhile to say you start throwing the idiot word around.

And if you are being "glib or tongue in cheek" and it backfires then it's because you made a stupid joke, not because everybody else is wrong

Maybe you prefer to substitute "idiot" with "being obtuse?"

It's pretty clear he was joking. Is it a bad joke? Maybe, but that's purely subjective.

And if you tell a bad joke then you can't really get upset when people get angry at your bad joke. What about this lady:

"Going to Africa. Hope I don't get AIDS. Just kidding. I'm white!"

Where are the protests and angry people that are fighting for her to get her job back because she was clearly just joking?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Still, the make alot of money. They doont need to hunt for survival, they choose to. So it is illogical to do all that work when you can drive down to the store. If that is what they like, good for them, but it doesnt make sense. Illogical =/= wrong.

Somebody is killing whatever they eat no matter how much money they have though. I don't really think it's any more illogical for them to hunt and kill their own food than to pay somebody somewhere to drive a bolt through a cows head before picking up the meat at the store. For me hunting makes you appreciate the animal and the whole process of something dying to feed you more. Food doesn't become just a thing, it's attached to a life.

For me the only "illogical" hunting is trophy hunting. Eat what you kill or don't kill it is my philosophy.

Just read the entire article. These people are weird, I am not surprised they go their own show.

The weirdest thing about all of this in my opinion is that people watch a show where millionaires dress up as hillbillies and pretend to do hillbilly things as if they don't know damn well how phony the whole thing is, as if the guy in question doesn't have a masters in education.

And good pun with that take wing comment, I didn't catch it till HBMC pointed it out.

Yeah, I have to start to wonder if this was a farce. I mean the whole comment about why he voted romney must be fake.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:
What was the scandalous thing he said?

Here is a link to the GQ article.

The reason that it has become so "scandalous" is that he has comments such as this in there:

Phil On Growing Up in Pre-Civil-Rights-Era Louisiana
“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field.... They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!... Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases 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.”

As far as Phil is concerned, he was literally born again. Old Phil—the guy with the booze and the pills—died a long time ago, and New Phil sees no need to apologize for him: “We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?”

As far as "being a hatemonger" goes, Phil isn't that bad but the controversy surrounding the statements is justifiable. I should also say that he seems like a perfectly nice guy, but with the views he espouses in the article are questionable.

Thanks...

My outrage-o-meter is "nil".

Seems to me that GLAAD is the intolerant party.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
What was the scandalous thing he said?

He quoted Corinthians.

Yeah... saw that...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
“It seems like, to me, a vagina -- as a man -- would be more desirable than a man’s anus," Robertson told GQ. "That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”
Calling Homosexuality Illogical.

As a man... I think it's illogical too.

If I was gay... then it'd be logical.

This ain't scandalous...

“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong. Sin becomes fine," he later added. “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. 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.”
Using a slippery slope saying that homosexuality will lead to bestiality.
And claiming to believe the bible, but ignoring many historical context.

Also yeah. I was incorrect

He's not saying homosexuality will lead to bestiality. Far from it. Only that it's act is a sin according to the bible.

Is anyone really surprised about all this?

 d-usa wrote:
Cheating on your wife is as bad as fething a dog.

Does the first act committed with the second act make it okay?
Asking for a friend >_>

 cincydooley wrote:

The point of his statement is that all sin is the same. Not that homosexuality is as perverse as bestiality.

When you claim that all sins are the same you simultaneously claim that they are all equally perverse.

My wife works at cracker barrel, the are apparently co-op'd with A&E so pulled all duck dynasty products with his face on it, and took the other stuff and put it on sale.

 Ouze wrote:
The weirdest thing about all of this in my opinion is that people watch a show where millionaires dress up as hillbillies and pretend to do hillbilly things as if they don't know damn well how phony the whole thing is, as if the guy in question doesn't have a masters in education.

And good pun with that take wing comment, I didn't catch it till HBMC pointed it out.

Thanks. I've just been sitting around thinking about what a badass I am(favorite hobby ) for coming up with that one. I'll probably be immobilized, laughing at my own joke, through the rest of the Christmas season.

 Ouze wrote:
The weirdest thing about all of this in my opinion is that people watch a show where millionaires dress up as hillbillies and pretend to do hillbilly things as if they don't know damn well how phony the whole thing is, as if the guy in question doesn't have a masters in education.

No, this is the weirdest thing about all this.

 dogma wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
The weirdest thing about all of this in my opinion is that people watch a show where millionaires dress up as hillbillies and pretend to do hillbilly things as if they don't know damn well how phony the whole thing is, as if the guy in question doesn't have a masters in education.

No, this is the weirdest thing about all this.

This gives me an idea for a what might have been thread.

 Ouze wrote:
The weirdest thing about all of this in my opinion is that people watch a show where millionaires dress up as hillbillies and pretend to do hillbilly things as if they don't know damn well how phony the whole thing is, as if the guy in question doesn't have a masters in education.

If anything, isn't that proof that he's not at all bright?

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It's pretty much not the "gay is a sin" remark.

It's the whole "start with gays, no better than people who feth animals" slant of his statements.

It is ironing that people are mad that a person who is on a fake reality show about yuppies acting like rednecks can't be "real".

Where are the same people defending "I'm gonna get AIDS in Africa. kidding, I'm white!" lady and trying to keep her from getting fired because freedom of speech.

And, to no surprise, you cut off his quotation--like the media--with bestiality and remove the part where he lumps them with adulterers, the drunks, and the swindlers.

The point of his statement is that all sin is the same. Not that homosexuality is as perverse as bestiality.

But again, not surprised.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jamesk1973 wrote:
I am not surprised at their reversal.

If you are gay and you somehow think that his remark equating gays to people who practice bestiality is aimed at you in particular, perhaps you have the problem.

Yup.

This is nothing new. It happens all the time on dakka.

I have personally been a victim of this overly sensitive "can't say anything negative about homosexuality or you are a bigot" mentality. It's good that some people get it

GG

Dude's a millionaire, my give-a-crap is broken.

Alfndrate wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Cheating on your wife is as bad as fething a dog.

Does the first act committed with the second act make it okay?
Asking for a friend >_>

I also, have, ahem, a friend who is interested in this answer.

hotsauceman1 wrote:Still, the make alot of money. They doont need to hunt for survival, they choose to. So it is illogical to do all that work when you can drive down to the store. If that is what they like, good for them, but it doesnt make sense. Illogical =/= wrong.
And IMO when people say "IT is not my place to judge them, it is gods" Right after saying something they are trying to say something they believe and know is wrong, but says something afterwords to defuse it

You've apparently never had meat that you hunted/fished yourself. There's a lot that can be said for knowing EXACTLY where that food came from, and that you earned it yourself. When they take those ducks to eat, they know that they were the ones that hunted it, an animal that got to live a free life in the wild and not in some megafarm, cleaned it themselves, and ultimately prepared it the way they wanted. In a world where one of McDonald's key ingredients in it's hamburger was a pink slime and chicken McNuggets are literally the worse parts of the animal ground up to look like an edible food, knowing that you killed, cleaned, and cooked your meat is a pretty good feeling. Not to mention it's probably healthier and is a good skill to have in general if you're poor.

I'm surprised the idea of hunting over buying your meat in a supermarket has taken on more with more "liberal" (really cant think of a better term at the moment sorry) areas. Instead of that meat possibly coming from some sort of horrible megafarm with inhumane conditions, by hunting you allow the animal to live in a natural environment, and if you're a good shot, a far more humane death than it would ever get in the wild. Not to mention that if you hunt, you can get your meat much cheaper than buying it in a store.

Plus, you know, their whole business revolves around duck calls and hunting accessories. Would you buy hunting equipment from guys who never hunted and instead bought their meat from a supermarket? It would be like buying a tabletop game by a guy who's never played a game in his life, or buying a car from a designer who only uses the bus to get around town. I would think they "need" to hunt, if only to keep their image and to keep a good idea of what the average hunter will want to buy.

That is not what im arguing, I respect those who eat what they kill. What im saying that is that just become something doesnt make logical sense, doesnt mean it is bad. I was using their hunting as an example.

So why isn't GLAAD going after this SNL skit?
http://www.hulu.com/watch/575541

This is a stereotypical hyper-exaggerated queen, who finds "love" at the end of the episode by hooking up with a hot young hustler who will ignore his advanced age in exchange for upkeep and money.

What about Alec Baldwin? As far as I know, he is still a Capital One pitchman.

Why is making fun of this topic okay? And yet what Phil Robertson said is allegedly "horribly offensive" and should suffer actual economic consequences for expressing them... nevermind that those where his opinions that no one should EVER be surprised about.

I guess it matters which team you're on...eh?

 whembly wrote:
So why isn't GLAAD going after this SNL skit?
http://www.hulu.com/watch/575541

This is a stereotypical hyper-exaggerated queen, who finds "love" at the end of the episode by hooking up with a hot young hustler who will ignore his advanced age in exchange for upkeep and money.

What about Alec Baldwin? As far as I know, he is still a Capital One pitchman.

Why is making fun of this topic okay? And yet what Phil Robertson said is allegedly "horribly offensive" and should suffer actual economic consequences for expressing them... nevermind that those where his opinions that no one should EVER be surprised about.

I guess it matters which team you're on...eh?

A solid point.