This is total crap. Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson suspended.

He certainly did LUMP homosexuality in with a list of other things - and all those other things were antisocial *behaviors*. The clear implication was that homosexuality was the same as bestiality, drug addiction, adultery etc.

And yes, people believe all kinds of things. That doesn't mean it would be a good idea to express their beliefs in a large circulation magazine. Do gay people and their families and friends read that magazine? Duh, yes they do. Were these people sure to find his comments insulting and offensive? Duh, yes, they were. Is an entertainer who makes comments in a leading magazine that are offensive to a sizeable section of the audience of the TV show he appears in someone a producer would want in his show? Duh, no.

If I were interviewing him for a job and he told me what his views were on homosexuality, I wouldn't give him the job. He has a right to his views, sure. But I (or any employer) have a right to find his views repugnant and not hire him.

I just want you to know that I still believe he did nothing wrong. It still irks me that people think everyone has to dance around or lie about what they believe or there should be repercussions (sp? I'm not looking it up)because they don't go along with what the mainstream thinks they should AND that YOU have not won this debate. I'm simply tired and going to bed. I hope that doesn't offend anyone.

Dear Lily:

If I understand the objection you and Zak are raising correctly -- the fact that homosexuality was mentioned in the same proximity as bestiality is the point of offense.

However, if we take this a step farther -- I propose that somewhere in the world there is someone who is "into" bestiality that would find you and Zak "offensive" because you're singling his preference out as being "wrong" compared to homosexuality. And you and Zak would probably say you don't understand what he sees in zebras or antelope. And thus, make your value judgment based on the fact that his preference has no meaning for you.

Now I suppose the argument could be put forth that some people believe homosexuality to be genetic. On the other hand, if mankind is an offshoot of the ape as Darwin believes -- then if Mr. Bestiality could reasonably argue that since he's technically classified as an "animal" -- his interest in other animals is genetic too. He could probably make a whole argument as to whether or not sex is species specific is a proven fact. (Zoology isn't my strong point -- I rather think most species are unable to cross-breed, but I don't really know). Anyhow, I think people will attempt to justify whatever they want to justify to support their views.

Eventually, it all comes down to that issue of "value judgments". Now I realize that most of us (Most? Heck, probably all of us -- were told in college that value judgments were a terrible thing. But it seems they are only "wrong" if they are applied to behavior matters. I see no reason why that category should be exempt).

If I were, for example to give a $1 bill to an employee as a week's worth of wages (because $1 or $500 wouldn't be any different if I refuse to assign a value judgment to the worth of the bill) I would be taken to court and sued for monies owed. Rightly so. We have assigned value to certain numbered bills because it helps society to function.

If I had an old jalopy that was held together with spit and tissue paper and accidently rammed it into a Lamborghini -- the owner of that car would expect me to reimburse him for the value of his automobile. I couldn't say for example, say that my car, being worth perhaps $150 is what I should pay him because after all, they are both cars. To recognize that a Lamborghini is better is making a value judgment that is universally agreed upon by car enthusiasts.

A work by Da Vinci is certainly worth more than my paintings (in terms of defined cultural iconic works).

So the truth is, we as a society make value judgments all of the time. Where we make them largely depends on our personal experiences.

Now....I am with Tricia in that I personally do not understand why someone would be interested in a member of the same sex. I just don't "get " it. I don't get it in the same way you and Zak don't get bestiality (neither do I, and so Mr. Bestiality wouldn't like all three of us). But we have made a value judgment here -- and technically it's no different than the duck hunting guy saying he doesn't approve of the gay lifestyle. He just drew his line with a broader pen stroke.

So here's the question -- why can we say we don't like bestiality (and nobody questions that assessment), but I couldn't say I don't understand homosexuality (without being labeled a bigot.)

Clearly, not all the ducks are in a row in this argument. Where is the consistency?

--Debutante