|
Post by tricia on Dec 18, 2013 23:26:51 GMT -5
....for "Anti Gay" comments. No, he didn't make "Anti Gay" comments. He was asked his opinion by GQ magazine and he gave his honest opinion. Should he have lied to fall in place with everyone who agrees with it? They're a Christian Family. They believe it's wrong. He also stated that adultery, drunkards, and other things that are considered sinful in general are wrong but that he would never treat anyone with disrespect because they're different from him and that God loves everyone. Is everyone supposed to lie now and pretend to go along with something they don't agree with? If I were that family I'd tell A&E to f*ck off and move to another network. za.omg.yahoo.com/news/duck-dynasty-star-phil-robertson-suspended-over-anti-004141554.html
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Dec 19, 2013 8:23:25 GMT -5
That almost looks like a political rant. Better be careful or you might end up having strong opinions about fracking, genetically modified foods, NSA surveillance, US foreign policy....
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Dec 19, 2013 10:03:02 GMT -5
Dear Tricia:
I never saw that show. Isn't is about hunting ducks? Or equipment for duck hunting or something along those lines?
I don't understand why the subject came up in the first place, in the context of duck hunting. Why did the guy answer the question in the first place? He should have just said, "That inquiry really doesn't relate to the show, and it's not a topic I want to discuss because it doesn't interest me."
I don't know what it is with people these days -- they feel obligated to answer all kinds of prying questions and I don't understand why. It's almost as if they don't seem to realize they have the right to refuse if people are being intrusive. He could have saved himself a lot of aggravation by refusing to buy into the reporter's attempt to create controversy.
--Debutante
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2013 12:48:33 GMT -5
I agree with that statement. I think we're about 50/50 here in our differing political views and so-called "values." That's why I so hate having a political forum. It just causes unnecessary rifts between people. If anything ever turns me away from FACTS, it will be this forum, which I have not been shy to say I HATE, HATE, HATE. So, now I'm a hateful person. FACTS was never meant to be a place for politics. I need to go away now and cool off.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Dec 19, 2013 16:05:28 GMT -5
Hmm... well, I've just read his comments and I have to say I find them repugnant and offensive myself. The guy is clearly a bigot, and I can see how his comments would be unacceptable to viewers, not least gay viewers. Sacking him was definitely the appropriate course of action. And yes, he's perfectly entitled to his fucked up views, but if he expresses them in a large circulation magazine he should know that the people who pay to watch him on TV are equally free to give him his marching orders.
|
|
joan
Member
Posts: 1,407
|
Post by joan on Dec 19, 2013 16:21:08 GMT -5
I agree with that statement. I think we're about 50/50 here in our differing political views and so-called "values." That's why I so hate having a political forum. It just causes unnecessary rifts between people. If anything ever turns me away from FACTS, it will be this forum, which I have not been shy to say I HATE, HATE, HATE. So, now I'm a hateful person. FACTS was never meant to be a place for politics. I need to go away now and cool off. I disagree with you lily, not on your Duck Dynasty comments, but the rest of your statement. Politics are just as relevant as any other philosophy humans have. As for: "FACTS was never meant to be a place for politics." When there was just one page for everything, politics was discussed in a few threads, & even if it weren't, it's rigid not to change as people displayed their interest in the topic. You seem to have an obsessive-compulsion to view & write on this page. You often promised to ignore it, so if you can't stop at least balance yourself. So, after you "cool off" know that this was meant as an observation, not a criticism. People disagree with each other, surely you accept this as part of life. It's the political philosophies we follow that directly pertain to our individual lives, our lives in a society. That's as much, if not more, than discussing something very few can even understand (which does not make it irrelevant).
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Dec 19, 2013 16:30:51 GMT -5
I agree with that statement. I think we're about 50/50 here in our differing political views and so-called "values." That's why I so hate having a political forum. It just causes unnecessary rifts between people. If anything ever turns me away from FACTS, it will be this forum, which I have not been shy to say I HATE, HATE, HATE. So, now I'm a hateful person. FACTS was never meant to be a place for politics. I need to go away now and cool off. Lily, we have these discussions because some people like to discuss politics. As for "causes unnecessary rifts",I disagree with Joan, Rabar, Teri, and Mike, but I still consider them my friends. We have these discussions so that we can see other people's viewpoints. Once again, if you find political discussions upsetting, don't look at them. But you can't just tell people to avoid political discussions because you find the discussions upsetting. Would you also like to ban elections because they cause rifts between people? I disagree with you Lily, but I still consider you my friend as well. One thing has nothing to do with the other. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2013 16:38:24 GMT -5
Okay, Joan and Bob, now that you've got that biggie off your chests, how about posting your opinion on the subject at hand instead of hiding behind your vitriol at me. So, the politics forum is valid for people to air their views and opinions, except for mine. I get it. I don't remember getting personal in my post, unlike your posts here.
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Dec 19, 2013 17:00:40 GMT -5
Dear Lily:
The issue as I see it is more one of "homosexuality" being piggybacked on to everything else these days. Why did the reporter ask a guy who is on some kind of duck hunting show this question other than to cause controversy?
If you ask a fundamentalist that kind of question, you know what kind of answer you're going to get. That's a no-brainer.
I don't think it's wise for the duck hunting guy to express a political opinion publically -- but he's entitled to believe whatever he believes.
That being said, I have no problem with some kind of legal arrangement for same sex couples because such a thing would facilitate the process of hospitalization in the event of an emergency.
I really don't care what people do behind closed doors. That's between them and God.
BUT, and this is a huge but -- I don't like when ANYONE talks about their sex life. So I don't want to hear about "gay rights" anymore than I want to hear about "straight rights". I think there is something inherently weird about anyone who wants to open up their bedroom door and invite the world to come in for the show.
Ellen DeGeneres is a classy woman. She mentions her partner no more or less than anyone else would mention their partner. Nor does she go into private details. I watch her show a lot because I like her.
I wish George Takei would just shut up. I heard an interview once where the reporter was asking him about "Star Trek". Every time the guy asked a question about the TV series, Takei would bring the topic back to homosexuality. I find him irritating.
I also find Charlie Sheen irritating for the same reason. He never shuts up either. He is on record as being "straight".
--Debutante
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2013 17:41:14 GMT -5
First of all, I must not watch the same shows that you do, Deb. In any case, I've never heard anyone talk about their sex acts in their bedroom. I've mostly lately only heard and read about homosexuality here on this FACTS board.
I've never watched Duck Dyasty. They look dirty and smelly to me, and those kind of beards make my skin crawl. They probably keep their snacks there. And regarding why the man was asked that question, it's because they purport themselves to be fundamentalist Christians. I am really beginning to hate Christians. The kind of people who want to run anyone else's lives. They're gnorant, and if they really beleive in hell, then they'd better get outfitted with cool clothes, because if any group deserves to be there, it's them. I imagine the Ducks get together with Westboro Baptist Church for fun picnics.
By the way, New Mexico has just bcome the 17th U.S. state to make gay marriage legal. If that disturbs anybody, take an aspirin.
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Dec 19, 2013 18:30:00 GMT -5
Dear Lily:
I have heard many gay people (and straight people) go on and on about their sex lives. And these were adults that should have known better. You can understand that kind of garbage from teenagers -- they think they've discovered sex.
However, I'm very rigid about keeping things private. My husband (and any man I dated before I met him) could tell you that I despise any "public displays" either visual or verbal. I've never hung all over a man like a barnacle in public and I surely wouldn't allow any man to hang on me either. Nor do I think that anyone should push details of their private activities on other people. But then again, I don't think that it's proper to make other people uncomfortable seeing things that should be private, or force them to hear about someone else's private activities.
Luckily, I married a man with class who also isn't into "putting on a show".
I can't imagine that you've never come across this kind of thing. There are many people who seem to think that everyone "cares" about what they do in their bedroom. They give details of their lover's proclivities, rank their past partners as to their "talent" and/or "equipment", and give a rundown on exactly "who" it is they've been with or are with at the moment.
I remember once being invited out to lunch with someone. I don't think we were in the restaurant ten minutes before I got the 411 on "everything you never wanted to know about someone else's sex life and never wanted to ask". I can't begin to tell you how difficult it was to maintain polite behavior when I was so incredibly repulsed. Then after this hour long deluge of nonsense (despite my attempts to change the subject multiple times), the person then ASKS me to share details about my private life. AS IF -- they actually thought I would reciprocate. I imagine my icy stare gave them information they didn't expect. At such times, it never fails to amaze me how little respect people have for themselves or others. Needless to say, that was the first and last time I accompanied that person anywhere. The person earned a spot on my list of people I prefer not to know.
Now then to take this one step further -- surely, you have noticed that the press is constantly bringing up these topics. Which celebrity is involved with which other celebrity -- both gay and straight, replete with details better left unsaid. And with this "anything goes" atmosphere comes such idiocy as "gay rights" parades and whatnot.
People have forgotten the fine art of being ladies and gentlemen.
--Debutante
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2013 18:42:31 GMT -5
No, Deb, I can tell you honest to God, I have never encountered anything like you just described. Never, ever.
As far as celebrities and what they say about or is reported about their sex lives, I have no interest in celebrities per say. I hate "Showbiz Tonight". If you stuck a celebrity in my face, 9 out of 10, and mostly 10 out of 10, I couldn't tell you who they were. I don't read movie magazines (I date myself) or People Magazine or any of that ilk. They bore me. Who the hell cares. When I get the U.S.A. Today magazine in the Sunday paper, and there are questions about certain celebreties, I 99% don't know who they are. But if you ask me about Cary Grant, Elizabeth Taylor, and all those really famous ones, well, yes, I recognize them. But nowadays? I mainly don't give a whit. I may see their movies, and like them or not, but their personal lives? They'd have to pay me to care.
And that is the truth.
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Dec 19, 2013 19:00:41 GMT -5
Dear Lily:
Sometimes it's unavoidable. Observe that Miley Cyrus creature -- you simply can't go a day without a photo of her in a questionable pose coming up online. Either that, or the headline will blare some repulsive comment she made. I believe she's about 21 -- so I suppose she thinks she invented sex. But even so, must the public be forced to view, for example, her x-mas "free the nipple" photo card? I can't imagine how her mind functions -- what do her nipples have to do with Christmas? This idiotic behavior boggles the mind. And like a plague of locusts, she's everywhere.
I do read celebrity pages, because there are a few with real talent. Unfortunately, they're the ones who seldom seem to get much press.
Truthfully, I am tired of sex intruding into everything. It's so ingrained in popular culture it's unavoidable.
In the sixties, the Beatles sang "I want to hold your hand". Now the songs go into graphic details.
All of this (including quizzing some guy for his views on homosexuality when his show is about ducks) is part of the constant barrage of intrusive information.
I miss the days when songs were about holding hands and sex was something people considered personal and private.
--Debutante
|
|
joan
Member
Posts: 1,407
|
Post by joan on Dec 19, 2013 19:07:31 GMT -5
Okay, Joan and Bob, now that you've got that biggie off your chests, how about posting your opinion on the subject at hand instead of hiding behind your vitriol at me. So, the politics forum is valid for people to air their views and opinions, except for mine. I get it. I don't remember getting personal in my post, unlike your posts here. Vitriol? Getting Personal? You're a Riot Alice, I mean Lily, a Regular Riot. Pow, Zoom straight to the Moon.
|
|
joan
Member
Posts: 1,407
|
Post by joan on Dec 19, 2013 19:09:04 GMT -5
Deb, Miley is successful at what she is intending to do---getting our attention, getting us to talk about her. She said it herself.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Dec 19, 2013 20:35:39 GMT -5
Okay, Joan and Bob, now that you've got that biggie off your chests, how about posting your opinion on the subject at hand instead of hiding behind your vitriol at me. So, the politics forum is valid for people to air their views and opinions, except for mine. I get it. I don't remember getting personal in my post, unlike your posts here. I did deal with the subject at hand, Lily. The subject was what you said about the politics board. What I criticized was the opinions you expressed. Not you. And neither Joan nor I said anything about you not being able to air your views. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2013 20:37:19 GMT -5
Okay, Joan and Bob, now that you've got that biggie off your chests, how about posting your opinion on the subject at hand instead of hiding behind your vitriol at me. So, the politics forum is valid for people to air their views and opinions, except for mine. I get it. I don't remember getting personal in my post, unlike your posts here. I did deal with the subject at hand, Lily. The subject was what you said about the politics board. What I criticized was the opinions you expressed. Not you. And neither Joan nor I said anything about you not being able to air your views. Bob Okay, Bob, I forgive you. Don't worry about it anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Dec 19, 2013 21:03:22 GMT -5
"Pow, Zoom straight to the Moon."
Har har, hardee har har!
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Dec 19, 2013 22:20:13 GMT -5
How did he push vile and extreme sterotypes as the article says he did? Did you guys read the actual interview or just the article where they like taking what he said out of context?
He was asked his opinion and he gave it. Again, if you don't agree with something are you supposed to lie and say you do just to save face? Go along with the crowd because everyone else agrees or pretends to because they're too afraid to say they really don't agree with it either?
Their entire family is Christian and they happen to take what the bible says verbatim. It's what the bible says and he quoted it so actually some of it aren't even HIS words. Perhaps they should suspend God (if that's who you believe wrote the bible) indefinetly for making what they consider gay slurs....oh wait, they've already done that and THAT'S okay but don't you DARE say you don't agree with homosexuality because that makes you an asshole. He never even said he didn't LIKE people who were gay. He said he doesn't "get it" that it doesn't "make sense" to him. Of course it doesn't...he's not GAY. Does it make sense to anyone here who is straight that you would be attracted to the same sex? I don't really "get it"...guess why?! Because I'm not gay. Doesn't mean I hate gay people it's just not something I'm in to. So what?
He also stated that people who commit adultery, people who drink in excess, etc...I don't see any adulterers or alcoholics crying that they want him off the air. He would probably say the same thing of poligamy. Do you think they'd give a shit? I have nothing against gay people, I really don't. Do I agree that it's *normal*...no, I don't. I think something happens when their genes are mutating or whatever and perhaps a girl is born that should have been a boy or vicey versy.
It seems now that there are more gay people than ever. Great, whatever. They used to be "in the closet" and now that it's the in thing they're out and everyone else had better damn well agree and say it's great. In other words, if you don't agree with it whether it's just because that's your opinion or because of religious beliefs you better get IN the closet and shut up.
I don't think he said a thing wrong. It's not even like it's my favorite show or anything. The rest of my family watches it so I've seen bits here and there and I will say it's the only "reality" TV show that your kids can watch without parents having to worry about what the subject matter is. They're funny without being vulgar and contrary to what someone said above...they don't drink. A&E actually had a problem with them saying a prayer at the end of every show. It's offensive I guess. Not quite as wholesome as some of the gay parade coverage I've seen with children in the crowd looking on as men run past wearing nothing but a thong and a boa or standing on floats blasting The Village People while humping the air. That's okay though, they're expressing their rights and freedom to be gay.
Since when does being gay give you the right to tell other people what their opinions should be?
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Dec 19, 2013 22:49:20 GMT -5
Dear Tricia:
I agree that the man said what he believed and people who disagree should just learn to live with it in the same way anyone learns to live with any other differing opinion. But the media isn't going to allow that.
The other day I gave Alison a prediction. I told her I will not live to see this -- but that by the time she has children in their teens -- the new "issue" will be whether or not people should be allowed to have sex with children. Sadly, the people who want that will end up getting it because the media will apply the same pressure. This will begin once "gay marriage" is commonplace. Then, the NAMBLA groups will make their move on yet another front. I doubt it begin for a few decades yet -- but it will begin.
--Debutante
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Dec 19, 2013 22:58:44 GMT -5
"He also stated that people who commit adultery, people who drink in excess, etc...I don't see any adulterers or alcoholics crying that they want him off the air."
But that's exactly why his comments were offensive to gays: he grouped homosexuality with bestiality, adultery, drinking to excess etc. Homosexuality is not something you *do*, it's something you *are*. People don't decide to be gay. They are born gay. To condemn a person for what they *are* is very different from condemning them for what they *do*. How would you feel if he had included autism in his list of "sins"?
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Dec 19, 2013 22:59:25 GMT -5
Deb,
I would hope that would NEVER come to be because it's disgusting. I would not care how politcally incorrect I would be in saying that anyone who wants to have sex with a child should be immediately shot in the head like a rabid dog and so should anyone who would *support* it. That's a horrible thought to even come up with...why do you think that?
|
|
|
Post by teri on Dec 19, 2013 23:05:46 GMT -5
you consider me a friend, bob? how sweet is that. melts my heart a waY.... :-}
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Dec 19, 2013 23:07:21 GMT -5
Zak,
He was quoting the BIBLE and what he believes to be true. The BIBLE says it's a sin...he didn't make the rule of what's a sin and what's not. It's his religion and he believes it. Why is that bad? Do you think he should edit the bible and leave just that part out to please people who are gay or support being gay? And last I heard Alcoholism is a disease. It's a fact that part of it is hereditary. Some are born with a greater chance of becoming an alcoholic and some just choose to be one. Just as some are born gay and others choose it. He didn't lump anyone in with anything. They asked what he considered sin and he started naming them off.
If you know the religion...in fact MOST religions believe that you can't break one commandment without breaking them all. There's no such thing as a little sin. My commiting adultery by having sex before marriage could be lumped in with someone who murders I suppose but I'm not going to work myself in to a full lather over it.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Dec 19, 2013 23:13:17 GMT -5
Oh, so if a radical Islamist flew a plane into a building because a passage in the Koran said non-believers should be killed, you'd be okay with that, would you? Or is it just the Bible it's okay to hide behind?
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Dec 19, 2013 23:14:02 GMT -5
PS - If you do decide to work yourself into a lather, don't forget to send me the photos.
|
|
|
Post by debutante on Dec 19, 2013 23:20:21 GMT -5
Dear Tricia:
Why do I think that? Because the bar of behavior keeps getting lowered all the time and that's the final battlefield in terms of human sexual behavior people who believe in "no rules" will want to fight. And as I told Alison -- it will come to that eventually.
Here's how they'll "get it done". It will begin with a gradual creeping in of fictional plots on television about a "loving relationship" between an adult and a child. Except Oliva Benson from the Special Victims Unit (or a character like that) won't be in the plot to say it's wrong. Then the movie industry will give you more of the same -- kind of a "Brokeback Mountain Jr. Division". And Hollywood will give it an academy award. Critics will acclaim the movie as "brilliant and sensitive". People will go to see it -- and since it's controversial, the talking heads will debate it on television. The talking heads will tell everyone that anyone who objects to the concept is a bigot.
The people listening to the talking heads will begin to wonder if they should believe what the talking heads are saying. This will be especially true of college age students who pride themselves on having "open minds".
Then these NAMBLA groups will say that this type of thing needs to be an educational topic that children should be introduced to very young. And they will try to get it talked about in schools. Perhaps it will show up on a puppet show too -- wherein an older character has a relationship with a young puppet. Or, it will show up in an animated form.
By this time, there will be such a saturation of the concept into the public mind that it won't be quite so shocking. After all, it will be depicted on TV all the time. Once the major shock value is gone -- they'll move to bringing it as a true political fight.
Luckily, I am going to be in the cemetery when this occurs. That battle will be the one my daughter's generation will have to fight to protect their children. It's coming...unfortunately.
--Debutante
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Dec 19, 2013 23:48:04 GMT -5
Oh, so if a radical Islamist flew a plane into a building because a passage in the Koran said non-believers should be killed, you'd be okay with that, would you? Or is it just the Bible it's okay to hide behind? That's a bullshit comparison and you know it. Phil Robertoson quoted the bible, gave his opinion and what he believed, and THEN stated that he would never treat ANYONE (Hey gay people you're included here!) with any kind of disrespect because of any of those things or because they were different than him. He said God loves everyone and it's not up to him (Phil). So is what you're saying that Phil Robertson and his family should not believe what their religion teaches..or wait..they can believe the teachings and what the bible says but just not the parts that may offend someone. OR maybe they should believe it but keep it a secret because now religion is the thing that you're supposed to be ashamed of so they should lie because it's much more important to please people who may be offended than to please the God that they believe in. AND another THING....muslims don't believe in homosexuality either. Betcha no one would say anything to THEM about it though...ya know why? We're not allowed to offend them either. It's like we have a friggin "Do not offend" list over here like freakin endangered species.
|
|
|
Post by tricia on Dec 19, 2013 23:48:44 GMT -5
PS - If you do decide to work yourself into a lather, don't forget to send me the photos. I will....do no such thing.
|
|
|
Post by Roger (over and out) on Dec 20, 2013 0:09:35 GMT -5
"AND another THING....muslims don't believe in homosexuality either."
Either? And are you suggesting that Americans should emulate Muslims? In strict Muslim countries women aren't allowed to go anywhere on their own. Or drive a car. Or visit bars. Or drink alcohol. Or look "the wrong way" at men. Are you suggesting that because Muslims have these values it should be okay for non-Muslims to have them too?
The problem here is not what he believes. The problem here is that he expressed his beliefs in a high circulation magazine (with a sizeable gay readership) - and his beliefs are bigoted and offensive to a substantial section of the public (gays, lesbians, their families and friends). And - and this is the crux of it - he's an entertainer. He's in a business where success/popularity relies on the approval and good will of the people who pay to be entertained. And if you insult a large section of that audience you damage the "product" - the TV show in this case - and jeopardize the livelihood of other people. And while he has a perfect right to express his bigoted and misinformed views, the people who hire him also have a perfect right NOT to hire him if they don't want their product to be associated with him or his views.
Again - and you don't seem to get this - he lumped being gay in with a list of antisocial behaviors including bestiality and adultery, as if homosexuality was a lifestyle choice. That's offensive.
|
|