The Great Duck Dynasty Debate

As everyone with a computer or cellphone knows, Phil Robertson has been suspended from appearing in the A&E series Duck Dynasty as a result of anti-LGBT statements he made in an interview with GQ magazine.  The explosive response to the various stages of this process have been as varied as they have been expected.

The LGBT community was outraged by the statements.  Christians who operate from a dogma-first position and Bible literalists jumped to his defense.  In the middle of this process, A&E reacted quickly and decisively to Robertson’s statements.  Amid all of the vitriol and bluster, this is the great victory.  A&E made the business decision (and regardless of the personal positions of the the members of the great corporate hierarchy, it is still a business decision) that it was in the best interest of the network, their advertising revenue and their audience to not have someone in a high profile position on their most successful series who publicly espouses this kind of belief.

This is a huge win for equal rights.  Really, it is.  Typically this kind of scenario has required a much lengthier growing outrage over an individual’s actions or comments before action is taken.  Then, it has often been a talk show apology tour with a perfectly crafted non-apology and then a return to business as usual.  This situation is excitingly unique.  This time, it is not the LGBT community having to continually attempt to shift the status quo.  This series of events shows that the status quo is actually changing.  A&E knew what the overwhelming public response would be an acted almost immediately.  This time, the might and weight of advocates for equality was deemed stronger from the get go.

This has thrown a particular set of conservative religious individuals for a complete loop.  This time they lost so fast they are finally in the position of fighting the uphill battle that the rest of us have fought so many times.  They have to convince the rest of us that he should not be ridiculed for his position and that A&E would be better off having him.  It has led to a debate that we have been dancing around for quite some time and blown it wide open.

Conservative leaders are calling it an infringement of his freedom of speech or his freedom of religion.  This is a last ditch effort to ignore a fact that has been rising into the marketplace of ideas for some time – a complete literal interpretation of the Bible includes tenets that are at times racist, misogynistic, homophobic or completely ludicrous.

A literal Bible reading was used to deny women the vote, African-American equality and interracial marriage.  It is still used in support of anti-marriage equality legislation as a losing battle is fought against equality in marriage.  When it comes to LGBT rights and issues it is finally, painfully becoming clear that the majority of our modern society does not see this as acceptable.

This has led some to a ludicrous reinterpretation of the first amendment to include a great deal of wishful thinking.  The right to free speech still does not include the right to speak without any reaction.  Once again, for the umpteenth time, you get to say whatever you want, that is your right, and then the rest of us get to tell you what we think about it.  If your speech is hateful, bigoted, insane or just stupid – we get to tell you that.  You can say whatever you want, wherever you want, but the rest of us can treat you like the unwashed lunatic in the town square wearing the sandwich board that says the unicorns are returning to enslave us all.  Your right.  Then our right.

Telling you we don’t agree with what your religion thinks, or more specifically how you interpret and apply what you think your religion thinks (that’s a convoluted way to happily acknowledge that many Christians do not practice their faith this way or hold such beliefs) is not impinging on the free exercise of your religion.  You get to assemble and worship.  You get to believe absolutely anything you want.  You get to interact with your creator or the billions of aliens Xenu brought to earth in any way you choose.  However, if your religion holds beliefs that deny the equality of all human beings, when you articulate those beliefs in public you are going to be mocked and derided for the bigoted aspects of your faith.  But you get to keep articulating them.  You just may learn, as Mr. Robertson did, that your platform for sharing them is diminished or removed completely.  There is no right to exercise your freedom of religion before an audience.  If no one wants to hear it, no one has to listen.

Above and beyond that, when you express a belief as “not my opinion, but God’s” it does not make it more valid, nor is it an excuse to hide behind.  Whether your opinion is from Allah, Buddha, Jesus, L. Ron Hubbard or the fancy faeries that flit about the meadows of Stonehenge, when you speak it – it’s your opinion.  You don’t get to shrug and say “it’s not up to me.”  Opinions aren’t fact.  The right to any opinion does not come with the right to ensure that opinion is agreed with or respected in any way.  Not only that, you can and will suffer the consequences if you express an opinion the rest of society finds abhorrent.  I can tell you that I think people taste delicious, and everyone I know has the right to stop attending my dinner parties.

Opinion, speech, reaction, consequences.  We get to judge each other’s opinions, speech and even religion when it is expressed as a part of the public, pop culture, political or social media dialogue.

To those who have said “who cares what he thinks?”, it is our history of reacting loudly and strongly with ever-growing support to castigate anyone in a high profile position in the public eye who acts or speaks with bigotry toward the LGBT community that helped us arrive at this moment where A&E knew what the response would be and made a decision to take Mr. Robertson’s platform away and denounce their association with him.  Expressing outrage leads to change.  Making an example of every example brings us closer and closer to a time when bigots have the good sense to keep their bigotry to themselves or inside a diminishing circle of like-minded individuals.  We win by making it clear it is not okay every single time it happens.

And finally, a brilliant and perfect example of an historically acceptable bigoted opinion in judgment of a minority group in our nation was met with swift and decisive reaction.  Well done A&E.  For those who find the reaction to and consequences of Mr. Robertson’s ignorant and judgmental religion-based opinion head spinning, I hope you don’t have vertigo because the head spinning has just begun.

One final serious thought – what was GQ doing interviewing anyone from Duck Dynasty in the first place?

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Human Behavior, In The News and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

73 Responses to The Great Duck Dynasty Debate

  1. sn0r8t!k says:

    love your thoughts and the way you express them, for all of us who don’t express ourselves as well as you do.

    Like

  2. Anonymous says:

    Love your thoughts and the way you express them, for all of us who don’t express ourselves as well as you do.

    Like

  3. canal pirate says:

    I
    Love your thoughts and the way you express them, for all of us who don’t express ourselves as well as you do.

    Like

  4. canal pirate says:

    I Love your thoughts and the way you express them, for all of us who don’t express ourselves as well as you do.

    Like

  5. canal pirate says:

    I Love your thoughts and the way you express them, for all of us who don’t express them as well as you do.

    Like

  6. kodonohue@juno.com says:

    how does one delete a comment? would like to delete the comment from, snor8t!k. I go by canal pirate and want to stay that way!

    Please note: message attached

    Like

  7. Gary says:

    I agree wholeheartedly with you. And your final thought was my first reaction when I heard about this whole deal.
    .

    Like

  8. Lots of words. Can you just distill them into two paragraphs? Thanks.

    Like

  9. Mary Novatny says:

    Oh no. Don’t lump us bible literalists in there! When someone quotes a scripture out of context to support their argument that’s not bible literalism. Bible literalists take the bible in ITS context, not conform it to ours. I am a bible literalist and could not support anything phil robertson said if you paid me a million dollars

    Liked by 1 person

    • Anonymous says:

      Biblical literalists, with all due respect, ignore history. There is no reason to think that the bible is an infallible text that can be taken literally; further, even those who try to read it literally will find themselves in disagreement with other literalists. It is a complex book, consisting of many parts written by many people over hundreds of years and translated to and from multiple languages. Biblical scholars devote entire careers to figuring out what even to smallest passage literally mean. The great risk is that people who THINK they are capable of fully and accurately reading the bible are prone to develop a dangerous over confidence. You are not racist but others have read, and will continue to read the bible and think that it literally does call for racism, as or sexism, or other forms of bigotry. It would be a much safer world if we all had a little more humility and acknowledge that, if there is a god, he works in mysterious ways. If there is a god, who among us can be so presumptuous as to think we can speak for him just because we read a book?

      Like

    • Stephen says:

      Dear Mary,

      Does your version of biblical literalism also include stoning your neighbors to death for sins and the hundreds of other ideas that were certainly cultural markers of the times in which the books of the bible were written, but which seem wildly contradictory and downright perverse today? I won’t go into any detailed discussion, but you certainly know the passages I speak of. Not calling into question your innate goodness or faith either, I’ve just never heard anyone who seems logical and intelligent defend a literal interpretive stance either, so I am interested!

      Liked by 1 person

  10. Glen Davis says:

    Well said, and thank you for saying it!

    Like

  11. Michele says:

    Cause and effect… BINGO!
    His right – yep.
    His employers right to react – yep.
    Thanks Emerson!

    Like

  12. Amanda says:

    I had the same thought about GQ interviewing a backwater, no style redneck! Wtf, GQ?

    Like

    • Anonymous says:

      Racist much?

      Like

      • Anonymous says:

        Since when is “Redneck” a race?

        Like

      • Loki says:

        While “Redneck” is not considered a race it is a common term used to define a large population of the US (because of perceived life style, behaviors etc) and as such should and could be considered at the very least, an ethnic group. So yes, racist would loosely fit.

        Like

      • Anonymous says:

        “Redneck” is a racial term, it only applies to white people. The term originated when white people working in the fields with their heads down all day would get the backs of their necks sunburned.

        Like

    • Jen Hartwig says:

      Amanda, how is calling someone a “backwater, no style redneck” being above what he said? Judging someone because of their beliefs, where they were raised, etc., just because it is different than how you grew up, makes you no better than him when he made his homophobic comments.

      Like

  13. Wow, how perfectly thought out and conveyed! Thanks! Put’s the whole thing into a wonderfully sane and “open” light!

    Like

  14. Mark Green says:

    1.4 million people disagree with A&E.

    A&E will cave

    People interpret the bible to fit their own agenda.

    In this case the majority of people whom side with DD will ultimately have their way albeit with or without A&E

    Like

    • I am not sure where you got the 1.4 million figure but there are also X number of people who AGREE with A&E. It is about time that those who call themselves Christian experience the life that everyone else does. The idea that the “speak” for GOD & GOD believes exactly like they do & that everyone else just has to like it while they run roughshod over “those” they disagree with is ludicrous. When “those” people disagree then the Christians claim that “their right to practice their religion” is being taken away. America is not now nor has it ever been deemed a “Christian Nation”. We have lots of Christians (& some of them are even TRUE ones who follow the injunction of doing unto others what they would want done to them) but Christianity nor any other religion is enshrined in our constitution. I have lost count of the number of “Christians” who refuse to treat any other as a human being with civil rights because of something they “believe” is wrong. Wrapping up hatred, bigotry & prejudice with GOD doesn’t make it any less hated, bigoted or prejudiced.
      He said it. He meant it. There ARE consequences.

      Like

    • doug says:

      mark green,
      1.4 million agree.
      I disagree that A&E will cave.
      BUT the Robertsons will not cave either.
      They were Christians before they were TV celebrities.
      And they will have strong Christian values with or without A&E or the Duck Dynasty TV Show

      Like

  15. Mark Green says:

    Here is where the link with 1.4 million – http://tinyurl.com/kwaxcjn

    Like

  16. Why are we avoiding also including a discussion about his racist and Islamophobic comments that appeared in the same article?

    Like

    • Anonymous says:

      Because Phil didn’t make any racist or Islamophobic remarks.
      You choose to read that into his statements just like you read into the Homophobic remarks.

      What about Al Sharpton? His statements were clear and caught on tape.
      You giving him a pass because he fits your agenda?

      Like

      • Stephen says:

        Fantastic how the defender posts anonymously rather than stand up for his beliefs… One would have to be blind to the nature of Phil’s remarks to interpret them as NOT racist (or at least wildly ignorant of historic fact!)

        Like

    • Hey Jason, I’m not “avoiding” discussing those issues. There are many outlets and forums for discussing this issue and each person is welcome to focus it in the direction they chose. My point in addressing the homosexuality comments was to get to the larger issue of homophobic comments are addressed, what the repercussions are etc. in media and how the Bible is used by some to defend homophobic statements. It’s not avoiding those issues, it’s just choosing my own personal priorities in the things I think on and wish to discuss with those who are interested. I happily welcome and support others who wish to write from other points of view who contribute to the larger discussion.

      Like

  17. Mark Green says:

    Now here is the full context of what Phil was talking about. Robertson’s full remarks as recorded by GQ were:

    “Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong… Sin becomes fine. 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.” Robertson then paraphrased Corinthians from the Bible: “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.”

    And if that wasn’t explicit enough, the “Duck Commander” added: “It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. 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.”

    Earlier on Wednesday, Robertson responded to the firestorm:

    I myself am a product of the ’60s; I centered my life around sex, drugs, and rock and roll until I hit rock bottom and accepted Jesus as my Savior. My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together. However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.

    Like

  18. Mark Green says:

    Do you want to leave out this:
    “However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.”

    You have to leave this part out because because it nullifies the whole argument you want to have.

    When you knock Phil off his soap box do you want to give it to Al Sharpton?

    Like

    • Hey Mark, simply saying “I would never treat anyone with disrespect…” doesn’t mean you aren’t doing so. The desire to not disrespect people is not the same as ensuring that your words and deeds actually respect all people. It doesn’t nullify the argument. It’s also easy to give words of mollification after the fact, because you’ve seen an enormous reaction to something you said.

      Like

    • Ally Parsons says:

      I don’t know why you’re bringing up Al Sharpton, I don’t particularly support the man but I guess it’s an easy way for you to deflect from the actual point of this conversation.
      Whether he believes he did or not Phil Robertson disrespected a large number of people with his poorly thought out statements. Times are changing and remarks like that cannot be accepted and ignored anymore.
      He stated that black people were happy with less rights than him and that anyone of a different religion, anyone who has cheated in a marriage and any homosexual will not be accepted into heaven. Just saying “I would never treat anyone with disrespect” does not mean that thousands of people were not disrespected by his words.

      Like

    • Penny Starr says:

      Sign over Auschwitz concentration camp “WORK MAKES YOU FREE”. Just saying something doesn’t make it so.

      Like

  19. robbushblog says:

    “If no one wants to hear it, no one has to listen.” Exactly. For those who were so greatly offended, don’t watch the show, like me. I’ve never seen it, nor do I care to ever see it. If the gay groups had just let it go, we wouldn’t have to keep hearing this crap over and over again in every media outlet and form. It would have been read by just those who read GQ and it would not be drumming up support for him, which will eventually get him back on the show.

    Like

    • Stephen says:

      Fine… we won’t watch it, but A&E doesn’t have to suffer the corporate backlash and fiscal damage that keeping him on the air would cause either. To suggest that we remain ignorant and cloistered is part of the problem. When EVERY person hasthe same legal protections under the law… the same rights… and the same responsibilities, THEN we will be a country to be proud of. Instead, we bury our heads that people still say and do horrible and egregious things, often while claiming to base them on faith and religious dogma. That isn’t Christ-like in the least, and neither are the comments he made.

      Like

    • Kevin says:

      I believe Mr. Collins addresses that:
      “To those who have said “who cares what he thinks?”, it is our history of reacting loudly and strongly with ever-growing support to castigate anyone in a high profile position in the public eye who acts or speaks with bigotry toward the LGBT community that helped us arrive at this moment where A&E knew what the response would be and made a decision to take Mr. Robertson’s platform away and denounce their association with him. Expressing outrage leads to change. Making an example of every example brings us closer and closer to a time when bigots have the good sense to keep their bigotry to themselves or inside a diminishing circle of like-minded individuals. We win by making it clear it is not okay every single time it happens.”
      I have had numerous friends say “who cares?” or “let it die down!” We had this swift reaction because the LGBT community has been vocal–we can marry in NM as of today because the LGBT community is vocal. Stay VOCAL!

      Like

  20. The Laws of the Universe at play! For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction! Call it Science, Call it Karma, Call it “Casting your bread upon the water”… It all will come back to you sooner or later….

    Like

  21. You know, Fred Phelps thinks that he is practicing the right religion and that everyone else is heading straight to hell. His church also believes that they are the only people going to heaven and that one of their rewards will be to sit at God’s side and ridicule the 99.9% who are in hell with the Devil. Is he right? Does he practice the correct religion?

    It’s all so subjective, but the bottom line is, A & E has the right to do whatever they see fit and no matter how many people disagree it is ultimately their decision. Give a backwoods redneck enough rope and they will almost always hang themselves.

    Like

    • robbushblog says:

      There is another example of outrage giving power. When people have counter-protests against those Westboro Baptist morons, and play the videos of them on the news and online, it gives them power. Did you know that the KKK still exists? Yep. You wouldn’t know it though, because we never see them on TV or anywhere else. Ignore them and they go away. Don’t give them the power to upset you and their message eventually flames out. Don’t respond to hate with anger. Ignore them.

      Like

      • Stephen says:

        People DID try ignoring Phelps for quite some time and they never went away… If anything, the attention and counter protests have STOPPED many of the planned Westboro protests from happening at all. We are all entitled to our own opinions Sir, but we are NOT entitled to our own facts!

        Like

      • I agree with the thought behind this, but the difference is when it is someone who already has the “power” you speak of. This isn’t about some anonymous person saying something ridiculous and being made famous by an overreaction to it. This is the star of the number one show on a major cable network. Sometimes the overreaction provides the opportunity to take that platform away from them and continue to send the message to others who would convey similar sentiments that it is no longer acceptable in reasonable society to do so.

        Like

      • robbushblog says:

        I wouldn’t consider someone being on a crappy reality show as someone who has any real power. The power I’m speaking of is derived from the emotional reaction his words caused. If he was an elected official, that would be a different story. That would be an individual already in possession of some power.

        Like

  22. Queen Quack says:

    Emerson Collins, I don’t know you but you said very succinctly what I believe about the duck debate. The religious people of this world don’t realize we heathens are sick of their intolerance.

    Like

  23. Randy says:

    Simple…… It seems to me he missed the point. Bottom line is is ok if he does it but not ok if someone else does it regardless of how it’s stated. Plus, the most outstanding thing in the comments is the example of Al Sharpton – Yes, he a spew hatred all day long in every public forum and before every kind of audience and never is his platform been taken away. No, it seems to me you have missed the point. Bigotry isn’t just a one way street and neither is intolerance – and a good part of the bigotry and intolerance these days come from the very persons and organizations that this article is defending/promoting. Seems to me he, again, has missed the point.

    Like

  24. Mark Green says:

    The point being missed here is that you all assume you know what is in Phil’s heart.
    You dismiss the point of him saying I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.
    You would have not known what his religious beliefs were if GQ would have not asked.
    Do you people even know that he has an African American grandson?
    Do you even know how many homosexuals that he knows and has broken bread with?
    Do you not believe he would risk his own life to help save yours?
    It’s called humanity. He is a Humanitarian.
    He doesn’t care about your sexual preference, religious beliefs or political affiliation.
    He cares about what he believes in and not what you want him to believe.

    Get It?

    Like

  25. Mark Green says:

    The media are crucifying Phil Robertson for his views because he is a conservative Christian. If Phil were a Muslim, the media would “Respect” his worldview and religious beliefs.

    Like

  26. Anonymous says:

    Omg! Yes!! I think i just had an agreeance orgasm.

    Like

  27. Ryan says:

    I really don’t understand any of this. The man is stating what he believes to be true in an interview. He didn’t say everyone believe what I believe. Would you have rather him lied? Everyone is supposed to embrace everything now to be PC? It seems to me the “intolerance” lies with the people who could care less about this show or this man. It’s the mentality of we love everyone unless they don’t agree with what we believe, then we hate them. It seems to me that if you live a homosexual lifestyle you would know that not everyone is going to be “ok” with that. And by “ok’ I mean, not hating you, not being homophobic, but just not choosing to want to live a homosexual lifestyle, whatever the reason maybe. If he said he hated gays that would be one thing. That would totally be over the line but he didn’t. It’s just getting upset to get upset that is really tiring.

    Like

  28. Just saying says:

    It’s a well written article with some good points and some bad. When groups are upset with the opinion of others and voice that disapproval that’s fine. That’s Freedom of speech but ad soon as that groups starts saying things like ” they should keep those opinions to them selves and those like them” they have now become hypocrites.

    Like

  29. Myron says:

    I really enjoyed reading this. Being a heterosexual and having gay and lesbian family and friends; I took of fence to the crap that spewed out of his mouth. It astonishes me that in this day and time that people are still this ignorant. Do you really think being homosexual is just about sex, really?

    Thanks for a very well written rebuttal to this ignorance.

    Like

    • Gary says:

      So what you’re saying is your opinion matters, his doesn’t? In this day and age it astonished me that you self-righteous narcissists believe that anything outside of your “safe zone” is ignorance. I have nothing against gays but I also have nothing against people having the RIGHT to speak their mind when they feel something is offensive to them.

      Like

  30. Anonymous says:

    What was GQ interviewing him for anyway? Classic !!!

    Like

  31. Anonymous says:

    So sick of this whole controversy. Why can’t someone express their beliefs anymore? Can’t we be adults and agree to disagree? If you don’t approve of his views, don’t watch the damn show. The big executives and their corporate decision is based purely on the fact that they don’t want to get sued. I don’t believe they are taking a moral high ground here, it’s all about the money.

    Like

  32. So its OK for the LGBT community to force its viewpoint on people, and its a WIN when corporate media succumb to that perspective? How is that tolerance, for which the LGBT community supposedly champions on behalf of its members? The real win is when LGBT and Christians can coexist without trying to force their perspectives on each other.

    Like

  33. Gary says:

    Its rather pathetic that the only reason for an “overwhelming majority” is because people are afraid to speak their minds these days for fear of being reamed on by the self-righteous gays who seem to feel their opinions are the only ones that matter these days. Stick and stones, buttercups… suck it up and stop being such pussies over a few words.

    Like

  34. kurt says:

    Wow! A guy expresses his opinion and the Anti-Christian fairy police have a fit….now there’s a surprise!

    Like

  35. Kevin Kato says:

    First sentence is false. I have a cell phone and a computer but never heard about any of this nonsense until a few minutes ago. But that’s just nit-picky isn’t it, for an article so full of importance. This duck dynasty guy is a real philosopher. I mean, I’ve never seen a minute of the show but since everyone with a cell phone or computer except me knows all about him and his opinions it all must be eminently consequential. Nevermind he is only a celebrity because we made him one (we not including me because even though I have a cell phone and a PC I don’t have a TV). He is there on screen so his
    opinion matters and we need to lionize or pillory as we see fit. Seriously? By the way, one more false statement: No one has the right to exercise their religion in front of an audience. What then is the alternative, any of us has the right to tell someone we choose to pay attention to what they can or better daredareddareate not talk about? Christ (oops,can I say that?)

    Like

  36. Kevin Kato says:

    First sentence is false. I have a cell phone and a computer but never heard about any of this nonsense until a few minutes ago. But that’s just nit-picky isn’t it, for an article so full of importance. This duck dynasty guy is a real philosopher. I mean, I’ve never seen a minute of the show but since everyone with a cell phone or computer except me knows all about him and his opinions it all must be eminently consequential. Nevermind he is only a celebrity because we made him one (we not including me because even though I have a cell phone and a PC I don’t have a TV). He is there on screen so his
    opinion matters and we need to lionize or pillory as we see fit. Seriously? These are the people that stir us to debate? By the way, one more false statement: No one has the right to exercise their religion in front of an audience. What then is the alternative, any of us has the right to tell someone we choose to pay attention to what they can or better .dare not talk about? Christ (oops,can I say that?)

    Like

  37. Always reference your references…I challenge anyone to find a story in the Bible that doesn’t advocate all men/women are equal. The author is completely unfounded.

    Like

  38. Respectfully, this article is almost as poorly written and poorly reasoned as those who are attacking A&E.

    Both sides completely miss the point that both Robertson and the network were all well within their rights.

    There has been no “win” for either side in this, and unfortunately, there won’t be.

    Hopefully it will lead to, at some point, some respectful discussions from both sides, but in a legal sense, this is a dead issue.

    Emotions, not logic, are winning the day here.

    Like

  39. Dr. Steve Brule says:

    This is not about “tolerance” or “equal rights”, but it is about silencing those who do not agree with the gay lifestyle. There were no equal rights being infringed upon. A man was stating his personal opinions.

    You are not allowed to have a dissenting voice- you’ll be “shamed”, branded a “hateful, gay-bashing homophobe”, and far, far worse. For little more than saying you don’t agree with something.

    This is the typical emotion-based rhetoric used to guilt people into backing down.

    The LGBT community does not want free speech as the Chik-Fil-A spectacle demonstrated. They would prefer people lose their jobs, careers, and are humiliated publicly for what amounts to little more than voicing their personal opinions which are often not extreme, but in many cases reasonable disagreements with said topics.

    It’s a sad state of affairs, and reeks of hypocrisy.

    Like

  40. Jay Garcia says:

    You are amaze – balls

    Like

  41. Hayden says:

    What a fantastic overview of the situation. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

    Like

  42. AnonymousAlso says:

    Calling homosexuality illogical is not homophobic. He says anal sex is illogical because it’s a misappropriation of that oriface. I agree. Just because you can put a penis in a hole doesn’t make that hole appropriate. God, Mother Nature, Intelligent Design or evolution designed sex for reproduction. Finding some other “feel good” copulation possibilitues doesn’t make it logical any more than sticking my finger in a light socket just because it fits and electries me.

    Like

What are your thoughts??

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s