'Duck Dynasty' Under Fire Following Star's Incendiary Anti-Gay Remarks

[gallantwarrior]

I'm not a troll, you fucking jackass, but you are an idiot. You narrow minded, ignorant fools think there is only one way to see the world and that is your way. You've never opened or used your mind long enough to think about anything; never opened up and read a book long enough to learn anything outside your narrow little world.

Animals in the animal kingdom engage in same sex sexual activity. Ten percent of the human population is and always has been homosexual. How do you define normal? It is a subjective term. You and your ilk do not have the finite definition of normal, fool. You don't even realize that what you consider 'normal' or 'natural' is only what you consider it to be. You don't even realize that there are no absolutes, that the rest of the world does not have to adhere to your religious or personal perspective on what is right and what is wrong. You are an idiot for not even being able to understand that there are other perspectives of reality than your own.

I have raised animals of many kinds my entire life, what you ignorant deviants like to claim is "same sex" activities is nothing of the sort. Both male and female animals exhibit dominance displays that the uninformed, or the agenda-driven misinterpret or misrepresent as sexual activity. Generally, once dominance is established in a group of animals, mounting behavior decreases significantly. I have never witnessed any normal male animal sexually penetrating anything other than a willing female. Your weak-minded and misguided attempts to anthropomophize normal dominance displays and label them as equal to human sexual behavior is nothing more than a pile of PC bullshit.
OK, I'm ready for you to trot out the same old tired "studies" of animals held in abnormal conditions, animals that do exhibit abnormal sexual activity most likely resulting from deprivation of normalcy.

You are ignorant. Scientific, empirical evidence backs up the claim of same sex activities within the animal kingdom. As I said, you are ignorant. Google it. Scientists have studied this. It isn't me being weak minded; it is you being ignorant of science. I don't need to cite any studies: this is considered common, general information--any educated person would be knowledgeable about it. Your personal anecdotal knowledge has no value.

Even if it wasn't normal in the animal kingdom to engage in same sex activities, you still cannot assume to determine what is normal or natural for humans; these are SUBJECTIVE terms, which cannot be definitively determined. If sex is only for procreation, for example, then why are most of the people engaging in sexual activity mostly not doing it for the purpose of procreation? If sex is only for procreation, then men would not want to have anal sex with women. If sex is only or procreatiom, then all women in and past menopause would not be having sex. Simple minds embrace simple ideas: one simple idea is thinking you know what is natural and normal for the whole of humanity.

OK. I'm going to type very slowly so maybe you can follow this...
1. What you label as "anecdotal knowledge" is based on lifelong, daily observation. There are no artificial 'study' parameters. I have studied both biology and psychology and do have more than a typical layman's understanding of the processes of reproduction. I will qualify that no animals I have ever observed engaged in unnatural "same sex" activities, specifically sexual intercourse/penetration of an animalmofmthe same gender.

2. I have made my opinion about human sexuality known several times, perhaps you missed this. Human beings link the physical act with emotional connections with other humans. Therefore, having sex with someone you love is considered an ultimate expression of that love. I do believe humans capable of emotionally "loving" other people of many dissimilar types. If a man (or woman) develops a deep emotional attachment to someone of the same gender, it is not outside human capability to choose to express that emotional love in physical, sexual terms. If viewed from that perspective, you might argue that "same sex" activities are natural human behavior. Humans are also capablemofmusing sex to express less noble emotions, as well, such as anger, rage, hate, control. Humans use sex as a weapon and a tool, a punishment or a reward, as the situation warrants.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Would watching the show make his comments less offensive?

A lot of the people who screamed that Martin Bashir be fired didn't watch his show either. The same with the people who insisted that Alec Baldwin be fired from his show.

You can't insist those guys get fired and then say that this guy should get a pass.

So you're offended? Time to grow up and get over yourself. If you find this offensive, change the channel. It's not like there aren't plenty of trashy shows out there that would be less offensive to you.

Guy, I work three jobs, I don't have time to watch TV. And I probably need to cut down on the time I waste here.

But that wasn't the point I was making to Cave-man.

The point is, Robertson made comments that were offensive to most decent people, and used the bible to justify them.

A&E decided they didn't want to get involved in that shit. They were just making a fun series about rednecks who hunt ducks.

Like you, I work three jobs, watch almost no TV, and spend too much time here sometimes. I don't disagree that A&E is fully within their rights to change their programming as they see fit and suffer any financial losses this decision might incur. Robertson has as much right as anybody else to express his opinions, and to suffer any consequences of that expression. My biggest gripe is with the butthurt people who demand that any opinion they find offensive be silenced. I don't necessarily agree with, or like everything I hear and read, but I "change the channel" and move on.

 

[Esmeralda]

OK. I'm going to type very slowly so maybe you can follow this...
1. What you label as "anecdotal knowledge" is based on lifelong, daily observation. There are no artificial 'study' parameters. I have studied both biology and psychology and do have more than a typical layman's understanding of the processes of reproduction. I will qualify that no animals I have ever observed engaged in unnatural "same sex" activities, specifically sexual intercourse/penetration of an animalmofmthe same gender.

This IS anecdotal information. It is NOT scientific study.

I have made my opinion about human sexuality known several times, perhaps you missed this. Human beings link the physical act with emotional connections with other humans. Therefore, having sex with someone you love is considered an ultimate expression of that love. I do believe humans capable of emotionally "loving" other people of many dissimilar types. If a man (or woman) develops a deep emotional attachment to someone of the same gender, it is not outside human capability to choose to express that emotional love in physical, sexual terms. If viewed from that perspective, you might argue that "same sex" activities are natural human behavior. Humans are also sex to express less noble emotions, as well, such as anger, rage, hate, control. Human use sex as a weapon and a tool, a punishment or a reward, as the situation warrants.

The point is that what you believe is what you believe, your PERSONAL beliefs. You are not in a position to define for the rest of humanity what human sexuality means, is, should be, etc. It is just your personal perspective. That was the point of the original post of mine to which you responded.

So we are back full circle. It's just your opionion. No one can say definitively what is normal or not normal, natural or unnatural. A society as a whole can determine what they find acceptable and create social mores and taboos. Our society, as a whole, nowadays accepts homosexuality as a lifestyle. A minority doesn't. That's your problem.

If the employers of this man want to fire him for his statements, they've every right to do so. He can go to court if he wants to, but will most likely not be vindicated.
__________________

 

[thanatos144]

The homosexual lobby wants to be normal so bad they strike out and try to destroy anybody who says otherwise

tapatalk post

 

[JoeB131]

The homosexual lobby wants to be normal so bad they strike out and try to destroy anybody who says otherwise

tapatalk post

How do you define "normal".

Lady I worked for a few years ago was the most driven, professional person I ever met. And one of the few supervisors who ever really gave me a fair shake.

And she was gay.

And I know straight people who are such complete screwups they need a spouse to keep them in line.

That has nothing to do with Phil Robertson, a guy who expresses his bigotry and uses the bible to rationalize it.

 

[thanatos144]

The homosexual lobby wants to be normal so bad they strike out and try to destroy anybody who says otherwise

tapatalk post

How do you define "normal".

Lady I worked for a few years ago was the most driven, professional person I ever met. And one of the few supervisors who ever really gave me a fair shake.

And she was gay.

And I know straight people who are such complete screwups they need a spouse to keep them in line.

That has nothing to do with Phil Robertson, a guy who expresses his bigotry and uses the bible to rationalize it.

Define normal as the majority of people do see the majority people do not f*** each other up the ass

tapatalk post

 

[Avatar4321]

Right.

.... and?

And nothing. Robertson is getting crucified for his alleged homophobia.

Maher gets a free pass for his.

It doesn't matter what is said. All that matters is who's saying it.

Getting fired is a "pass"? Did you read my post?

Again... morals clause. Standard procedure when you sign up to be a "reality" show actor.

And again the standard morals clause doesnt get invoked because someone advocates being moral.

Or are you seriously suggesting quoting the Bible is immoral.

 

[gallantwarrior]

OK. I'm going to type very slowly so maybe you can follow this...
1. What you label as "anecdotal knowledge" is based on lifelong, daily observation. There are no artificial 'study' parameters. I have studied both biology and psychology and do have more than a typical layman's understanding of the processes of reproduction. I will qualify that no animals I have ever observed engaged in unnatural "same sex" activities, specifically sexual intercourse/penetration of an animalmofmthe same gender.

This IS anecdotal information. It is NOT scientific study.

I have made my opinion about human sexuality known several times, perhaps you missed this. Human beings link the physical act with emotional connections with other humans. Therefore, having sex with someone you love is considered an ultimate expression of that love. I do believe humans capable of emotionally "loving" other people of many dissimilar types. If a man (or woman) develops a deep emotional attachment to someone of the same gender, it is not outside human capability to choose to express that emotional love in physical, sexual terms. If viewed from that perspective, you might argue that "same sex" activities are natural human behavior. Humans are also sex to express less noble emotions, as well, such as anger, rage, hate, control. Human use sex as a weapon and a tool, a punishment or a reward, as the situation warrants.

The point is that what you believe is what you believe, your PERSONAL beliefs. You are not in a position to define for the rest of humanity what human sexuality means, is, should be, etc. It is just your personal perspective. That was the point of the original post of mine to which you responded.

So we are back full circle. It's just your opionion. No one can say definitively what is normal or not normal, natural or unnatural. A society as a whole can determine what they find acceptable and create social mores and taboos. Our society, as a whole, nowadays accepts homosexuality as a lifestyle. A minority doesn't. That's your problem.

If the employers of this man want to fire him for his statements, they've every right to do so. He can go to court if he wants to, but will most likely not be vindicated.
__________________

Interesting thing about your treasured "scientific studies". They still have nothing more than conjecture and theories about what makes someone homosexual. I.e. no hard scientific facts but a whole bunch of opinions and belief. Oh, and I just explained to you that I do, indeed see homosexuality as a lifestyle and accept it as a lifestyle choice based on my own terms. I do have a problem with someone who has chosen this lifestyle demanding that all and sundry accept their choice, even as they would force that acceptance.

 

[daws101]

And nothing. Robertson is getting crucified for his alleged homophobia.

Maher gets a free pass for his.

It doesn't matter what is said. All that matters is who's saying it.

Getting fired is a "pass"? Did you read my post?

Again... morals clause. Standard procedure when you sign up to be a "reality" show actor.

And again the standard morals clause doesnt get invoked because someone advocates being moral.

Or are you seriously suggesting quoting the Bible is immoral.

not all of it, just most of it...

 

[daveman]

I guess I'm having a hard time understand the Right Wing Outrage.

A&E has made a business decision that they won't make money airing a dirty old bigot....

Aren't you guys normally all about big corporations making money?

Who among the people screeching about Robertson actually watches the show?

Hint: Not many.

Would watching the show make his comments less offensive?

A lot of the people who screamed that Martin Bashir be fired didn't watch his show either. The same with the people who insisted that Alec Baldwin be fired from his show.

You can't insist those guys get fired and then say that this guy should get a pass.

So the double standard is okay for the left, but not the right?

 

[Papageorgio]

Would watching the show make his comments less offensive?

A lot of the people who screamed that Martin Bashir be fired didn't watch his show either. The same with the people who insisted that Alec Baldwin be fired from his show.

You can't insist those guys get fired and then say that this guy should get a pass.

It's only offensive to you, simply because he's a Christian, Joe. You want the right to say whatever you want to say about him, his faith and his show, but you begrudge him the right to speak out about his beliefs. Hypocrite!

He's perfectly free to express his beliefs about his superstitions and bigotry.

And A&E is perfectly free to fire him.

But, no, comparing gays to terrorists and theives is REALLY offensive to most decent people.

And you have the right to be a narrow minded bigot and lack reading comprehension or understanding. He did not compare them, he simply stated who would not inherit God's kingdom.

 

[daws101]

It's only offensive to you, simply because he's a Christian, Joe. You want the right to say whatever you want to say about him, his faith and his show, but you begrudge him the right to speak out about his beliefs. Hypocrite!

He's perfectly free to express his beliefs about his superstitions and bigotry.

And A&E is perfectly free to fire him.

But, no, comparing gays to terrorists and theives is REALLY offensive to most decent people.

And you have the right to be a narrow minded bigot and lack reading comprehension or understanding. He did not compare them, he simply stated who would not inherit God's kingdom.

you mean the imaginary one?

 

[Papageorgio]

He's perfectly free to express his beliefs about his superstitions and bigotry.

And A&E is perfectly free to fire him.

But, no, comparing gays to terrorists and theives is REALLY offensive to most decent people.

And you have the right to be a narrow minded bigot and lack reading comprehension or understanding. He did not compare them, he simply stated who would not inherit God's kingdom.

you mean the imaginary one?

If that is your opinion and you and everyone else is entitled to their own opinions.

 

[thanatos144]

I saw on the today shoe some woman said he also said things about civil rights.... I did see anything about civil rights in that interview that asked for the tone this woman had. The media are gathering up to destroy more godly Christian men

tapatalk post

 

[Papageorgio]

Would watching the show make his comments less offensive?

A lot of the people who screamed that Martin Bashir be fired didn't watch his show either. The same with the people who insisted that Alec Baldwin be fired from his show.

You can't insist those guys get fired and then say that this guy should get a pass.

It's only offensive to you, simply because he's a Christian, Joe. You want the right to say whatever you want to say about him, his faith and his show, but you begrudge him the right to speak out about his beliefs. Hypocrite!

He's perfectly free to express his beliefs about his superstitions and bigotry.

And A&E is perfectly free to fire him.

But, no, comparing gays to terrorists and theives is REALLY offensive to most decent people.

Just like you had a right to be fired because your company did not have a favorable opinion of your work and lack of contribution to the company.

 

[rightwinger]

Robertson was Ok while he talked about his religious objections to homosexuality. Nobody would have cared. But he couldn't stop at that when he got into...

What's the deal with gays? why do they fuck each other up the ass when they could be fucking pussy?

homosexuality is a sin....just like bestiality

Blacks were perfectly happy with Jim Crow. It was the outsiders who riled them up

Phil is a redneck racist who hates gays with all his heart. A&E decided he was not the type of person they wanted to represent them

 

[daws101]

And you have the right to be a narrow minded bigot and lack reading comprehension or understanding. He did not compare them, he simply stated who would not inherit God's kingdom.

you mean the imaginary one?

If that is your opinion and you and everyone else is entitled to their own opinions.

so you're not disagreeing it's imaginary then?

 

[PredFan]

Hypocrite, thy name is Democrat.

We shot that one down hours ago. Nice try. It's got problems. Lots of 'em.

I seriously doubt you did. YOU probably think you did but knowing you, you didn't.

 

[daveman]

Robertson was Ok while he talked about his religious objections to homosexuality. Nobody would have cared. But he couldn't stop at that when he got into...

What's the deal with gays? why do they fuck each other up the ass when they could be fucking pussy?

homosexuality is a sin....just like bestiality

Blacks were perfectly happy with Jim Crow. It was the outsiders who riled them up

Phil is a redneck racist who hates gays with all his heart. A&E decided he was not the type of person they wanted to represent them

You repeat your programming well, parrot.

 

[PredFan]

Hypocrite, thy name is Democrat.

We shot that one down hours ago. Nice try. It's got problems. Lots of 'em.

You think it got shot down, you just can't explain liberal hypocrisy. Nice try.

Yeah I thought so.