# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  'Duck Dynasty' star makes anti-gay comments; GLAAD slams

## green73

> Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson is making anti-gay comments in the January issue of GQ.
> 
> In statements that threaten the A&E reality hit’s wildly popular and uplifting brand of faith, family and hunting, the Robertson patriarch said: “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.”
> 
> The magazine suggested Robertson’s son Jep endorsed his family’s beliefs: “We’re not quite as outspoken as my dad, but I’m definitely in line. If somebody asks, I tell ’em what the Bible says.”
> 
> GLAAD quickly condemned the quotes. “Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe,” said spokesperson Wilson Cruz. “He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans – and Americans – who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples. Phil’s decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors who now need to reexamine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families.”
> ...


http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/12/18/du...asty-anti-gay/

Update:




> [...]
> 
> *BREAKING: A&E kicks Phil Robertson off Duck Dynasty*
> http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/12/18/du...obertson-phil/
> 
> A&E broke its silence on Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson’s anti-gay comments late Wednesday.
> 
> The cable network announced Robertson is off the hit show for the time being.
> 
> ...


Update:




> The Robertson Family Official Statement
> 
> http://duckcommander.com/news/robert...ical-statement

----------


## angelatc

Who the $#@! cares?

----------


## green73

> Who the $#@! cares?


I'll get back to you on that.

----------


## eduardo89

> Who the $#@! cares?


I'm GLAAD you at least can admit you're a bigot.

----------


## shane77m

I am glad that GLAAD is so tolerant of others beliefs.

----------


## eduardo89

> I am glad that GLAAD is so tolerant of others beliefs.


Tolerance only means tolerance of the homosexual agenda. Anything else is just hate and bigotry.

----------


## brushfire

Everything is in its place, and the world is turning.  Different strokes...

Its why limited government is best.  Cause you never know when you, as a *****, may find yourself under the control of a homophobe - or when you, as a bigot SOB, may find yourself under the control of an alternative lifestyler.

There is an entertainment factor here though... I'd love to see where this goes.  This dialog is necessary to desensitize the overly sensitive.  Some people dont understand that its ok to disagree with one another.  Political correctness has conditioned people to be overly sensitive.

----------


## torchbearer



----------


## TaftFan

“Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe,” 

Says the non-Christian

----------


## mczerone

> http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/12/18/du...asty-anti-gay/





> As backtracking goes, Robertson’s statement isn’t very contrite and seems to contradict his previous statements. He would “never treat anyone with disrespect,” yet just compared gay people to drunkards and prostitutes and adulterers and thieves and said they were locked out of heaven. Which sounds pretty disrespectful, no?


(1) He didn't "compare" them - he quoted a list that included them all as disparate groups, necessarily inferring that they aren't "comparable" except by inclusion on the list.

(2) It's only disrespectful if you 100% agree with his view of the Bible and the afterlife. In his mind, he doesn't make the rules, he just follows them, and he's reporting what the rules are. If you have a different interpretation of the Bible, or don't believe in Heaven, then you have nothing to take offense at.

----------


## ctiger2

I don't see anything wrong with what he said. He simply stated what he believes for his life, and that he's not judging anyone. Seems to have his head on quite straight. 

People who live deviant lifestyles just want everyone to agree that their lifestyles are not sinful and get pissed when their life decisions are exposed for what they are, sins.

Everyone sins. Some people sin by lying, stealing, cheating & killing. Some sin in other ways.

----------


## Miss Annie

Oh heavens to mergatroy!!   His exercise of free speech is spreading ****-phobia!  
One of the reasons that I love capitalism so much is that it gives me many options on what my money supports and doesn't.  My money will not be supporting GLAAD anymore!!

----------


## FloralScent



----------


## Romulus

> I am glad that GLAAD is so tolerant of others beliefs.


winner

----------


## green73

*
'DUCK DYNASTY' STAR TAKES ON GAYS 
 *

----------


## Brett85

I believe that homosexuality is a sin, because that's what the Bible says.  However, I still don't really like to make a blanket statement like, "all gays are going to hell," because as a human being I don't have the authority to decide who goes to heaven and who goes to hell.  Only God has that authority.  That may not have been what Phil was saying, but I'm just pointing out that Christians have to be careful in how we present these issues to others.  We are supposed to stand by Biblical principles and stand by what's right, but the greatest commandment that Christ gave us is to love one another.  I've certainly been guilty in the past of being too judgemental and having an attitude that is too prideful.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Merry Christmas!




(Courtesy of Reason: http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/18/if...oks-effeminate)

----------


## green73

> Merry Christmas!


Great. Now the NSA thinks I'm gay.

----------


## James Madison

> Merry Christmas!


Tha' $#@! did I just watch?

----------


## Demigod



----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Great. Now the NSA thinks I'm gay.


Nothing wrong with being happy at Christmas. "Don we now our gay apparel..."

The Obamacare people got it wrong, it's "don", not undon...

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Tha' $#@! did I just watch?


Obamacare. Get enrolled!

----------


## Petar

> Merry Christmas!


Gay people don't like liberty because they are stupid.

----------


## Miss Annie

With as popular as this show is.......  this is only going to hurt A&E.   Not even sure if the rest of the clan would continue without the Dad. 
Personally I am sick to death of people being condemned for exercising their right to free speech.   When did everyone because such wussies and feel so desperate for everyone to agree with what ever they think of feel.   Sick I tell ya!! 

*BREAKING: A&E kicks Phil Robertson off Duck Dynasty*
http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/12/18/du...obertson-phil/

A&E broke its silence on Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson’s anti-gay comments late Wednesday.

The cable network announced Robertson is off the hit show for the time being.

The network issued the following statement to EW: “We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series Duck Dynasty. His personal views in no way reflect those of A+E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely.”

An A&E spokesperson confirmed this statement means exactly what it says: Robertson is off the show for an as-yet-undetermined period of time. The rest of his family will continue on the reality series.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Great. Now the NSA thinks I'm gay.


Or you read Reason. 

At least there's a girl in there. Hmmm. On second thought...

http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/18/if...oks-effeminate

----------


## dannno

> 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.


That's actually a fantastic way of coming to the realization that you are straight and that gay and bisexual men inherently have different tendencies, for whatever reason.

----------


## TonySutton

> That's actually a fantastic way of coming to the realization that you are straight and that gay and bisexual men inherently have different tendencies, for whatever reason.


The ironic thing about his statement is in raw numbers in the US, it is likely there are more heterosexual men having anal sex with females than there are gay men having anal sex with men.  My assertion is based on a CDC report which showed 44% of heterosexual men age 25-44 have had anal sex with a female. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Breaking: Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson has been fired.

----------


## mczerone

> With as popular as this show is.......  this is only going to hurt A&E.   Not even sure if the rest of the clan would continue without the Dad. 
> Personally I am sick to death of people being condemned for exercising their right to free speech.   When did everyone because such wussies and feel so desperate for everyone to agree with what ever they think of feel.   Sick I tell ya!! 
> 
> *BREAKING: A&E kicks Phil Robertson off Duck Dynasty*
> http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/12/18/du...obertson-phil/
> 
> A&E broke its silence on Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson’s anti-gay comments late Wednesday.
> 
> The cable network announced Robertson is off the hit show for the time being.
> ...


Publicity Stunt. They give Phil a vacation, the loudmouths from "the other side" get all worked up about it, Phil hugs a gay guy on his "welcome back" episode.

Ratings bonanza. The network wins. Phil wins. "The gays" win. And no one in the cheap seats learns a damned thing about tolerance, property rights (free speech), or the fact that we're all being played to fight among ourselves while the corporacrats laugh.

----------


## James Madison

> With as popular as this show is.......  this is only going to hurt A&E.   Not even sure if the rest of the clan would continue without the Dad. 
> Personally I am sick to death of people being condemned for exercising their right to free speech.   When did everyone because such wussies and feel so desperate for everyone to agree with what ever they think of feel.   Sick I tell ya!!


Free speech only applies to the things Progressives like. Now if we're talking about abortion...

----------


## TaftFan

Sign the petition to end the suspension!

https://www.change.org/petitions/a-e...phil-robertson

----------


## phill4paul

> Publicity Stunt. They give Phil a vacation, the loudmouths from "the other side" get all worked up about it, Phil hugs a gay guy on his "welcome back" episode.
> 
> Ratings bonanza. The network wins. Phil wins. "The gays" win. And no one in the cheap seats learns a damned thing about tolerance, property rights (free speech), or the fact that we're all being played to fight among ourselves while the corporacrats laugh.


  Phil has wanted off the show for awhile. 




> In an interview with Parade magazine, Phil reveals that there will come a day when he's not a part of the hit reality series. When asked how much longer he'll star on the show, Phil replied, "Not long. But I think it'll go on without me."


 http://tv.yahoo.com/blogs/tv-news/ph...221133667.html

----------


## green73

> With as popular as this show is.......  this is only going to hurt A&E.   Not even sure if the rest of the clan would continue without the Dad. 
> Personally I am sick to death of people being condemned for exercising their right to free speech.   When did everyone because such wussies and feel so desperate for everyone to agree with what ever they think of feel.   Sick I tell ya!! 
> 
> *BREAKING: A&E kicks Phil Robertson off Duck Dynasty*
> http://insidetv.ew.com/2013/12/18/du...obertson-phil/
> 
> A&E broke its silence on Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertsons anti-gay comments late Wednesday.
> 
> The cable network announced Robertson is off the hit show for the time being.
> ...


FFS. LOL.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

The rest of the family should quit in protest.  It's completely ridiculous that A&E thinks they can do this.

----------


## green73

> The rest of the family should quit in protest.  It's completely ridiculous that A&E thinks they can do this.


Yes!

----------


## phill4paul

> The rest of the family should quit in protest.  It's completely ridiculous that A&E thinks they can do this.


  As I pointed out Phil has wanted out of the show for awhile. He may consider this a blessing as it would allow him out of any contracts. I think "the show will go on" as they say in snow business.

----------


## kahless

The gay lobby is completely out of control and wields way too much power in this country. I would never discriminate against someone who is gay and I do not advocate discrimination. However people need to start taking a stand and having a backbone against the radical gay lobby.

I do not even watch the show but this $#@! with the gay lobby getting people fired for their personal beliefs or some remark made under breath out of anger (Baldwin) is really starting to piss me off.

With that said I am not surprised that the scumbag A&E management fired him. This is the same network that paid the Gotti family. A&E just gave me another reason not to watch them or reminded why I don't watch them.

----------


## juleswin

Only on RPF are you expected to be tolerant of the intolerant. Only on RPF(and DU) is free speech expect to be a one way deal. Sorry guys but it is not a contradiction for a tolerant person to be intolerant of the intolerant, its the same way you showing no respect to someone who doesn't respect themselves doesn't make you a hypocrite. And also the idea that A&E firing this man for expressing his freedom of speech some how violates his freedom of speech omits the A&E by firing him is also expressing its freedom of expression. It just shows that actions be it in form of speech have consequences. You also use your freedom of expression by boycotting A&E for what they did to him. Its a free world. 

I actually like the show in the few episodes I watch at work, the family is really nice and funny. I think the whole episode could have been handled differently, he like most people living in the country and non western countries have very little knowledge about gay people. He should have plead the 5th and said he knows nothing and them and their lifestyle. People indeed do fear what they do not understand and in his attempt to be frank about something he was ignorant about, he said something that offended the whole group of people

He should come out and do some sort of middle of the road apology and be done with it. Please man up and don't $#@! it up for the rest of the clan.

----------


## 69360

He didn't say anything hateful or discriminatory. He's entitled to his beliefs and A&E is entitled to fire him. But the man's reputation should not be sullied over this. He's not a bigot.

I don't personally agree with what he said nor the way GLADD treated him. A&E is just stupid and will lose a ton of money over this.

----------


## dannno

> He's not a bigot.


No, but he's quite the comedian.

----------


## phill4paul

A&E didn't seem to have a problem airing this episode....




  "Mother issues".. Si's got 'em. Lol.

----------


## Miss Annie

> Only on RPF are you expected to be tolerant of the intolerant. Only on RPF(and DU) is free speech expect to be a one way deal. Sorry guys but it is not a contradiction for a tolerant person to be intolerant of the intolerant, its the same way you showing no respect to someone who doesn't respect themselves doesn't make you a hypocrite. And also the idea that A&E firing this man for expressing his freedom of speech some how violates his freedom of speech omits the A&E by firing him is also expressing its freedom of expression. It just shows that actions be it in form of speech have consequences. You also use your freedom of expression by boycotting A&E for what they did to him. Its a free world. 
> 
> I actually like the show in the few episodes I watch at work, the family is really nice and funny. I think the whole episode could have been handled differently, he like most people living in the country and non western countries have very little knowledge about gay people. He should have plead the 5th and said he knows nothing and them and their lifestyle. People indeed do fear what they do not understand and in his attempt to be frank about something he was ignorant about, he said something that offended the whole group of people
> 
> He should come out and do some sort of middle of the road apology and be done with it. Please man up and don't $#@! it up for the rest of the clan.


I don't get why he should apologize for stating his opinions and beliefs?   Maybe a disclaimer, stating that his views in no way reflect the views of A&E, but I don't see where an apology is necessary.  Was he intolerant?  I don't think so?  Does he disagree with people, yes, but since when is that intolerance?  People disagree with me all that time, that is their right and I WANT them to have that right..... so that I in turn may have the right to disagree right back with them!   Since when did disagreement become intolerance?

----------


## Cowlesy

> Breaking: Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson has been fired.


lol

I mean, what else is there to really type but "lol" to that.

----------


## kahless

> Only on RPF are you expected to be tolerant of the intolerant. Only on RPF(and DU) is free speech expect to be a one way deal. Sorry guys but it is not a contradiction for a tolerant person to be intolerant of the intolerant, its the same way you showing no respect to someone who doesn't respect themselves doesn't make you a hypocrite. And also the idea that A&E firing this man for expressing his freedom of speech some how violates his freedom of speech omits the A&E by firing him is also expressing its freedom of expression. It just shows that actions be it in form of speech have consequences. You also use your freedom of expression by boycotting A&E for what they did to him. Its a free world. 
> 
> I actually like the show in the few episodes I watch at work, the family is really nice and funny. I think the whole episode could have been handled differently, he like most people living in the country and non western countries have very little knowledge about gay people. He should have plead the 5th and said he knows nothing and them and their lifestyle. People indeed do fear what they do not understand and in his attempt to be frank about something he was ignorant about, he said something that offended the whole group of people
> 
> *He should come out and do some sort of middle of the road apology* and be done with it. Please man up and don't $#@! it up for the rest of the clan.


One should never apologize for your religious beliefs.  He clearly said he would show them love while disagreeing with their lifestyle. 

GLAAD and the radical gays have launched a culture war against those of the Christian faith.  It starts with a high profile case like this to condition the masses.  Next step the average American being discriminated against for their Christian beliefs.

Considering the outrage I think they may have over played their hand and this looks to be back firing on the gays.

----------


## Cowlesy

The only way these guys look like idiots if they start the bleating apologies and that they were "misunderstood."  I hope Phil just shrugs and goes Duck Hunting.

I kind of doubt GLAAD members are a huge segment of the Duck Call user population.

----------


## green73

> I kind of doubt GLAAD members are a huge segment of the Duck Call user population.


They're really missing out. I understand a lisp makes a mallard drake want to fly right into your lap.

----------


## juleswin

> I don't get why he should apologize for stating his opinions and beliefs?   Maybe a disclaimer, stating that his views in no way reflect the views of A&E, but I don't see where an apology is necessary.  Was he intolerant?  I don't think so?  Does he disagree with people, yes, but since when is that intolerance?  People disagree with me all that time, that is their right and I WANT them to have that right..... so that I in turn may have the right to disagree right back with them!   Since when did disagreement become intolerance?



You apologize because what was said offended or was going to offend a lot of people regardless of whether the disclaimer was given or not. Also, i am not even sure if what he said was technically intolerant but it was definitely ignorant. 

Also, disagreeing with someone about something that is innate to them can be offensive. He would have gotten the same treatment if he said something similar about short, disabled, black, or maybe even red haired people because the general public seems to take offense at people that go around offending groups of people.

----------


## Brett85

I certainly don't agree with firing him.  I wonder whether he would've been fired if he would've simply said something like, "as a Christian, I personally disagree with homosexuality, but I respect other people's points of view on the issue."  I think he could've said what he said a little bit differently.  But, even saying something like that may not have even been good enough for the GLADD people.  You probably can't even state that you disagree with homosexuality if you want to have your own show on TV.

----------


## Miss Annie

> You apologize because what was said offended or was going to offend a lot of people regardless of whether the disclaimer was given or not. Also, i am not even sure if what he said was technically intolerant but it was definitely ignorant. 
> 
> Also, disagreeing with someone about something that is innate to them can be offensive. He would have gotten the same treatment if he said something similar about short, disabled, black, or maybe even red haired people because the general public seems to take offense at people that go around offending groups of people.


It is his right to be ignorant.  I don't believe that homosexuality is innate, no more than being a cheater is innate. It's a choice.  People go from homosexuality to heterosexuality all the time.  It's not like someone who has Down's syndrome or something.  People are ignorant about Christianity all the time,...... we choose whether or not we are going to be offended.  
"No one can make me feel inferior without my permission" ~ Eleanor Roosevelt

----------


## Brian4Liberty

The establishment really has the diversion thing down...


"Squirrel!"

----------


## juleswin

> It is his right to be ignorant.  I don't believe that homosexuality is innate, no more than being a cheater is innate. It's a choice.  People go from homosexuality to heterosexuality all the time.  It's not like someone who has Down's syndrome or something.  People are ignorant about Christianity all the time,...... we choose whether or not we are going to be offended.  
> "No one can make me feel inferior without my permission" ~ Eleanor Roosevelt


You are right, everyone has the right to be ignorant, but if you make what most people consider to be an ignorant statement in public, they expect you to apologize. The truth is that majority of the people see homosexuality as a innate condition and until that changes, people making statement with the assumption that it is a changeable behaviour will be pressured to apologize for what they said.

----------


## fr33

I think A&E will be the biggest loser over this ordeal.

----------


## James Madison

> Also, disagreeing with someone about something that is innate to them can be offensive. *He would have gotten the same treatment if he said something similar about short, disabled, black, or maybe even red haired people* because the general public seems to take offense at people that go around offending groups of people.


You don't honestly believe what I bolded, do you? Short people are routinely mocked across all forms of media -- weak, inferior, un-athletic, compensating for something. Short (pun not intended) of saying the disabled should be put to death, they're free to mock, unless it's someone of note like Michael J. Fox or Christopher Reeves. People rip on gingers all the time. I will give you black people, though.

----------


## juleswin

> One should never apologize for your religious beliefs.  He clearly said he would show them love while disagreeing with their lifestyle. 
> 
> GLAAD and the radical gays have launched a culture war against those of the Christian faith.  It starts with a high profile case like this to condition the masses.  Next step the average American being discriminated against for their Christian beliefs.
> 
> Considering the outrage I think they may have over played their hand and this looks to be back firing on the gays.


If you believe him, Barrack Obama used the same excuse for not supporting gay marriage so i dont think it was just because of his religion. I think the quote below is what people find offensive because I don't think anyone who ever watched a whole episode of Duck Command thinks he or anyone from the show was pro gay lifestyle.




> “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.”
> 
> “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.”


Saying homosexuality will lead of bestiality is not cool, also how is it that he does not know that for gays, everything is backwards. Their best friends are females and they are attracted to guys. The guy should have passed on that whole line of questions, nothing good can come out of answering it.

----------


## malkusm

> I believe that homosexuality is a sin, because that's what the Bible says.  However, I still don't really like to make a blanket statement like, "all gays are going to hell," because as a human being I don't have the authority to decide who goes to heaven and who goes to hell.  Only God has that authority.  That may not have been what Phil was saying, but I'm just pointing out that Christians have to be careful in how we present these issues to others.  We are supposed to stand by Biblical principles and stand by what's right, but the greatest commandment that Christ gave us is to love one another.  I've certainly been guilty in the past of being too judgemental and having an attitude that is too prideful.


+rep ... particularly what resonates with me is the "Only God has that authority" part. If I believe in His judgment, what right have I to judge? If I don't, what difference does it make? Either way, people need to focus more on getting their own houses in order than on what others are doing with theirs.

----------


## Miss Annie

> You are right, everyone has the right to be ignorant, but if you make what most people consider to be an ignorant statement in public, they expect you to apologize. The truth is that majority of the people see homosexuality as a innate condition and until that changes, people making statement with the assumption that it is a changeable behaviour will be pressured to apologize for what they said.


I don't think the majority of people are homosexuals (I think only the homosexuals see it as an innate condition) and I don't think that people should have to crater to mob rule either.  He may have been inarticulate, but he actually used very "scientific" words.... LOL.  As I stated before, I don't think he should apologize for his beliefs.  If thats the case he needs to apologize to adulterers, idolators, the greedy, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers.

----------


## ONUV

almost 8000 comments from angry neocons on the article drudge linked lol

----------


## juleswin

> You don't honestly believe what I bolded, do you? Short people are routinely mocked across all forms of media -- weak, inferior, un-athletic, compensating for something. Short (pun not intended) of saying the disabled should be put to death, they're free to mock, unless it's someone of note like Michael J. Fox or Christopher Reeves. People rip on gingers all the time. I will give you black people, though.


If someone is a serious way came out on national TV and said

"I do not understand ginger people, they have really pale skin that looks like it will peel if you rub on it, they have really unsightly freckles everywhere on their body and the hair color is just very unnatural and creepy. I just think they should marry each other and keep to themselves, but I love them all"

That person will be forced to make an apology tomorrow or fired from his TV show. There is a difference between a comedian making fun of black, short, ginger people and someone in a serious way dissing said group. 




Had Eddie Murphy said what he said in a non stand up way about gays, he would have faced the same problem as Roberson.

----------


## Henry Rogue

> Great. Now the NSA thinks I'm gay.


That's going to end up in somebodies signature, probably Danke's.

----------


## Brett85

> +rep ... particularly what resonates with me is the "Only God has that authority" part. If I believe in His judgment, what right have I to judge? If I don't, what difference does it make? Either way, people need to focus more on getting their own houses in order than on what others are doing with theirs.


Yeah, I've just discovered from reading and studying the Bible that I have enough problems in my own personal life that I don't need to spend all my time judging others.

----------


## James Madison

> If someone is a serious way came out on national TV and said
> 
> "I do not understand ginger people, they have really pale skin that looks like it will peel if you rub on it, they have really unsightly freckles everywhere on their body and the hair color is just very unnatural and creepy. I just think they should marry each other and keep to themselves, but I love them all"
> 
> That person will be forced to make an apology tomorrow or fired from his TV show. There is a difference between a comedian making fun of black, short, ginger people and someone in a serious way dissing said group.


I don't buy that for a second. Even if a few gingers were offended, they don't have a) victim class status and b) an organization with immense political power to process the outrage into soundbites. Finally, there is no ginger community -- they integrate into society and their traits are bred out of existence within several generations, typically.

Having said that, I don't find anything in that statement to get overly riled-up about.

----------


## kathy88

> One should never apologize for your religious beliefs.  He clearly said he would show them love while disagreeing with their lifestyle. 
> 
> GLAAD and the radical gays have launched a culture war against those of the Christian faith.  It starts with a high profile case like this to condition the masses.  Next step the average American being discriminated against for their Christian beliefs.
> Considering the outrage I think they may have over played their hand and this looks to be back firing on the gays.


Back firing..... Bahahaha

----------


## Brett85

> If someone is a serious way came out on national TV and said
> 
> "I do not understand ginger people, they have really pale skin that looks like it will peel if you rub on it, they have really unsightly freckles everywhere on their body and the hair color is just very unnatural and creepy. I just think they should marry each other and keep to themselves, but I love them all"
> 
> That person will be forced to make an apology tomorrow or fired from his TV show. There is a difference between a comedian making fun of black, short, ginger people and someone in a serious way dissing said group.


Is it just the way that this guy phrased what he said that's controversial?  Would it have been controversial if he had simply said that he personally disagrees with homosexuality because of his religious beliefs?  Or would you and A@E view that as being just as bad?

----------


## oyarde

> Merry Christmas!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Courtesy of Reason: http://reason.com/blog/2013/12/18/if...oks-effeminate)


I dunno wtf that is , I am not watching that , but I am not getting enrolled , what is that an obummercare ad ?

----------


## oyarde

> Nothing wrong with being happy at Christmas. "Don we now our gay apparel..."
> 
> The Obamacare people got it wrong, it's "don", not undon...


Yeah , but gay meant happy back in the day , only gays I know who are happy are on RPF's , the rest are miserable communist democrats, who would gladly steal everything from everyone to ensure everybody is miserable , lol

----------


## Christian Liberty

> 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.


That's really explicit coming from a conservative Christian, IMO.



> I believe that homosexuality is a sin, because that's what the Bible says.  However, I still don't really like to make a blanket statement like, "all gays are going to hell," because as a human being I don't have the authority to decide who goes to heaven and who goes to hell.  Only God has that authority.  That may not have been what Phil was saying, but I'm just pointing out that Christians have to be careful in how we present these issues to others.  We are supposed to stand by Biblical principles and stand by what's right, but the greatest commandment that Christ gave us is to love one another.  I've certainly been guilty in the past of being too judgemental and having an attitude that is too prideful.


I don't think Phil said that.  Although, from what I've heard they are baptismal regenerationists.  If that's the case I wouldn't view them as Christians anyway, and thus wouldn't take any stock in any of his judgments.

----------


## kahless

Drudge main headline since last night links to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/liv...efinite-666808 

The comment system had defaulted to showing "Best comments" first with people overwhelming voting "Yes" to this question.




> Do you support Phil Robertson's opinion?
> 
> Yes↑ No↓
> 
> 27800  | 139


This morning the cowards at the Hollywood Reporter changed the default to "Newest" first and that comment is now "Awaiting Moderation". LOL

----------


## Rudeman

> Saying homosexuality will lead of bestiality is not cool, also how is it that he does not know that for gays, everything is backwards. Their best friends are females and they are attracted to guys. The guy should have passed on that whole line of questions, nothing good can come out of answering it.


Except he didn't, at least not in anything you quoted. Unless you think he said that homosexuality leads to bestiality which leads to sleeping around with woman after woman. Which would seem like a weird cycle (probably because he didn't say it). You can disagree with him all you want but lets not twist his words.

----------


## 69360

I think the gay lobby overplayed their hand big time with this one. The backlash I've seen in article comments is 100 to 1 in favor of Phil Robertson. 

Personally I don't think their is anything wrong with being gay or with what Phil said.

----------


## UtahApocalypse

Well this once again proves reality shows are fake.

----------


## juleswin

> Except he didn't, at least not in anything you quoted. Unless you think he said that homosexuality leads to bestiality which leads to sleeping around with woman after woman. Which would seem like a weird cycle (probably because he didn't say it). You can disagree with him all you want but lets not twist his words.


Then how exactly should I interpret this quote from him?

: “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.*”

The fact that he even tries to make any connection between homosexuality and bestiality is what I think people take offense to. I think he should have passed on the subject and maybe just say that he is against the lifestyle and his religion or even say he doesn't know enough about homosexuals to make a sensible contribution to the topic.

----------


## juleswin

> I think the gay lobby overplayed their hand big time with this one. The backlash I've seen in article comments is 100 to 1 in favor of Phil Robertson. 
> 
> Personally I don't think there is anything wrong with being gay or with what Phil said.


This is going to be a big win for A&E, they signed a multi year deal with the rest of the clan which means that the show will be on for a few more years to come and if the show is on, the fans will be there to support it.

Add to this the popularity the show is generating from all the controversy and what it will do to merchandise sales which i believe A&E gets a small percentage of. This is a win for everyone including Phil who has indicated in the past that he wanted to take a break from the show.

----------


## PierzStyx

> As backtracking goes, Robertsons statement isnt very contrite and seems to contradict his previous statements. He would never treat anyone with disrespect, yet just compared gay people to drunkards and prostitutes and adulterers and thieves and said they were locked out of heaven. Which sounds pretty disrespectful, no?



I'm pretty sure he didn't make that comparison. The Apostle Paul made that one.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Who the $#@! cares?


A + E has the right to fire him, but I care because I suspect these kinds of statements will become criminal as these special interest groups get more and more powerful.

I don't believe in the homosexual lifestyle.  If someone does, and they want to do that, that's on them.  But at this point its gay people pushing their tyranny on Christians, not the other way around.  If you really think they'll stop here, well, I disagree with you.

----------


## green73

> I'm pretty sure he didn't make that comparison. The Apostle Paul made that one.



I didn't say those things.

----------


## Todd

> It seems like, to me, a vagina -- as a man -- would be more desirable than a man's anus


Can't say I disagree.   Sam Kinison used to get big laughs for essentially saying the same thing.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't buy that for a second. Even if a few gingers were offended, they don't have a) victim class status and b) an organization with immense political power to process the outrage into soundbites. Finally, there is no ginger community -- they integrate into society and their traits are bred out of existence within several generations, typically.
> 
> Having said that, I don't find anything in that statement to get overly riled-up about.


I don't either.  Phil just said what the Bible says about it.  As far as I understand it, he was asked the question anyway.  Even if not, what he said wasn't in any way crossing the line.  




> If someone is a serious way came out on national TV and said
> 
> "I do not understand ginger people, they have really pale skin that looks like it will peel if you rub on it, they have really unsightly freckles everywhere on their body and the hair color is just very unnatural and creepy. I just think they should marry each other and keep to themselves, but I love them all"
> 
> That person will be forced to make an apology tomorrow or fired from his TV show. There is a difference between a comedian making fun of black, short, ginger people and someone in a serious way dissing said group. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Had Eddie Murphy said what he said in a non stand up way about gays, he would have faced the same problem as Roberson.


There's a difference between physical appearance and lifestyle.  There's also a difference between hating the sin and hating the sinner.

----------


## juleswin

For the record, I did not see his apology on first reading. So that changes my whole point about making some middle of the road apology to try and satisfy the good people that were offended by his remark

For anyone who missed the apology like I did, here it is again from the OP



> UPDATE: A&E released this statement from Phil Robertson addressing the controversy: 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. Beyond that, A&E had no comment.
> 
> As backtracking goes, Robertsons statement isnt very contrite and seems to contradict his previous statements. He would never treat anyone with disrespect, yet just compared gay people to drunkards and prostitutes and adulterers and thieves and said they were locked out of heaven. Which sounds pretty disrespectful, no?






I wonder if he said it like Keith Chegwin in the clip from Extras

----------


## Christian Liberty

Why should he have apologized?  What did he say that was so offensive?  

Out of curiosity, has Justin Raimondo commented on this at all?

----------


## brushfire

> Can't say I disagree.   Sam Kinison used to get big laughs for essentially saying the same thing.


Some people are fascinated by having things up their a$$.  I know someone who works with pathology reports, and they come across some interesting reports now and then.  I've seen them, redacted of course - for HIPA reasons, and I find it rather intriguing too.  Not once have I been in the shower, while shampooing my hair, and wondered... hmmm?..  I bet I could shove this up my a$$.  The thought has never crossed my mind, not to mention even giving it a go.  Its also quite amusing to read a medical description of a shampoo bottle, dimensions and all.  Someone had to measure that thing - LOL.

People's bodies are people's bodies, and people's opinions are people's opinions...  BFD if Phil does understand the ***** guy - there's nothing that says he fk'n has to.  Get on with it... Its a big world, there will be somebody out there who will accept you for who you are.

Its right to point out how the gladys are being just a little hypocritical here.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

I don't know if this is a good thing for Rand or not, but #StandWithPhilRobertson is now trending on Twitter. Of course the MSNBC haters will use it for their hate propaganda, but will the GOP base tie Duck Dynasty popularity to Rand?

----------


## Brian4Liberty

‘Stand With Phil’: See the Support Flooding the Internet for Suspended ‘Duck Dynasty’ Star




> “Phil Robertson and his family are great citizens of the state of Louisiana. The politically correct crowd is tolerant of all viewpoints, except those they disagree with.” Jindal said in a statement. “I don’t agree with quite a bit of stuff I read in magazine interviews or see on TV. In fact, come to think of it, I find a good bit of it offensive. But I also acknowledge that this is a free country and everyone is entitled to express their views. In fact, I remember when TV networks believed in the First Amendment. It is a messed up situation when Miley Cyrus gets a laugh, and Phil Robertson gets suspended.”


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...-dynasty-star/

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Is it just the way that this guy phrased what he said that's controversial?  Would it have been controversial if he had simply said that he personally disagrees with homosexuality because of his religious beliefs?  Or would you and A@E view that as being just as bad?


I personally didn't like the more explicit parts of his comment (see the part Tod quoted), but A+E didn't care about that at all.  And even that isn't enough reason to fire him, IMO.



> ‘Stand With Phil’: See the Support Flooding the Internet for Suspended ‘Duck Dynasty’ Star
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...-dynasty-star/


Good for Jindal.

----------


## kahless

That Eddie Murphy bit would never be allowed to air if he made it today.  If some how it did air, there would protests outside of HBO, demands for an apology on every channel and his career would be effectively over.  Murphy would not get a free pass as a Comedian since it sacrilege to the Progressives to say anything about the gays.

The Progressive culture that dominates the media has a code of preferred mocking that goes something like this and includes only heterosexuals.

1. Conservative Christian white males.  
2. White males that are short or bald or fat.
3. Conservative Christian white females.
4. All white males and females over 40.
5. White males and females under 40.
6. Devout Conservative Christians of color.  

On the opposite side, the #1 untouchable group is gays followed by non-devout Christian blacks.  Since the Progressives rank gays above blacks Murphy would be destroyed if it aired today.  The Progressives are like the KKK in reverse order of hate.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That Eddie Murphy bit would never be allowed to air if he made it today.  If some how it did air, there would protests outside of HBO, demands for an apology on every channel and his career would be effectively over.  Murphy would not get a free pass as a Comedian since it sacrilege to the Progressives to say anything about the gays.
> 
> The Progressive culture that dominates the media has a code of preferred mocking that goes something like this and includes only heterosexuals.
> 
> 1. Conservative Christian white males.  
> 2. White males that are short or bald or fat.
> 3. Conservative Christian white females.
> 4. All white males and females over 40.
> 5. White males and females under 40.
> ...



I'm a conservative (theologically, at any rate) Christian white male, fat, and under 40

----------


## green73

'Boycott A&E' Facebook Support Page for Phil Robertson Gets 400K Likes within Hours

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywo...oycott-AE-page

----------


## TaftFan

> 'Boycott A&E' Facebook Support Page for Phil Robertson Gets 400K Likes within Hours
> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywo...oycott-AE-page


So has mine. Sorry I have to brag.

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Bring...68187893258350

And my petition has nearly 50,000 signers.

https://www.change.org/petitions/a-e...phil-robertson

----------


## liberalnurse

> Sign the petition to end the suspension!
> 
> https://www.change.org/petitions/a-e...phil-robertson


Only need 23 more sigs to reach 50,000.

----------


## green73

> So has mine. Sorry I have to brag.
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/pages/Bring...68187893258350
> 
> And my petition has nearly 50,000 signers.
> 
> https://www.change.org/petitions/a-e...phil-robertson


WOW!

----------


## shane77m

As a kid was anyone ever around the kid that was always saying stuff like "mmmm, look what so and so did" or "listen to what so and so said" just to cause trouble? That is what the media is. That annoying little kid that would get the grownups worked up.

----------


## PRB

I believe the TV channel has every right to fire who they want based on opinions they disagree with. But first of all, it's going to be their own loss, since it's a highly rated and profitable show, even if it hurts Phil first. Secondly, and sadly, it's a blatant double standard, everybody knows that under this same argument, A&E CAN also fire a gay person if he expressed his hatred on Christianity, homophobia, Republicans ...etc, but they wouldn't, if they did, they'd do nothing wrong, but would be under lots of pressure (not from their own audience) and likely have a discrimination lawsuit (essentially saying you're not allowed to fire gay people even they say something you disagree with, but you're allowed to fire Christian bigots because that's your free speech). People would ALWAYS say in defense of civil rights and forced equality "if you don't hire and serve minorities, it's your loss anyway" but if it is, why should we force it?

----------


## kahless

> I'm a conservative (theologically, at any rate) Christian white male, fat, and under 40


You are not worthy of existence in the eyes of Progressives. You are one step away from being worst of the worst in their eyes, above 40, white male and fat.  

We joke, but the day is already here where people of faith are bashed as the sick twisted evil ones by the Progressive media.  If people do not take a stand against the Progressives, I believe through gradualism they will slowly criminalize Christianity.  This will start with a ban on preaching specific biblical versus regarding Homosexuality, as has already been criminalized in Canada and Sweden.

If they are not stopped I believe discrimination against Christians will progress as years of Progressive media conditioning and public school indoctrination centers make the Christian belief system a minority view.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You are not worthy of existence in the eyes of Progressives. You are one step away from being worst of the worst in their eyes, above 40, white male and fat.  
> 
> We joke, but the day is already here where people of faith are bashed as the sick twisted evil ones by the Progressive media.  If people do not take a stand against the Progressives, I believe through gradualism they will slowly criminalize Christianity.  This will start with a ban on preaching specific biblical versus regarding Homosexuality, as has already been criminalized in Canada and Sweden.
> 
> If they are not stopped I believe discrimination against Christians will progress as years of Progressive media conditioning and public school indoctrination centers make the Christian belief system a minority view.


Yeah, it bugs me.  I don't approve of homosexuality, but I believe in personal liberty.  If they want to sleep together, that's between them and God.  I absolutely support preaching on the entire Bible, including that which speaks against homosexuality, but I have no interest in manipulating government against them (I'm sure you don't either, I'm just illustrating a point).  That said, I wish they'd take the same stance toward me, and other people of faith.  Instead, they try to impose their will on me, and other people of faith.  And that's what aggravates me so much.  I abide by the golden rule, and frankly, in this area, the majority of Christians do too.  Oh, many violate it in other areas, towards drug users and prostitutes (Most evangelicals are political conservatives who want to ban those activities) but I've seen precious few who actually want to criminalize homosexuality.  Why they can't just leave us alone, I'll never understand.  And frankly, as strong of a believer in individual rights as I am, sometimes I feel like I want to quote Leviticus 20:13 at those who openly flaunt that lifestyle just to tick them off.  Of course, there are gay people who aren't part of the progressive movement.  I know of at least one gay poster here, and Justin Raimondo is gay (Hence why I asked if Raimondo had commented on this whole situation) but most are just shills for the progressives and don't give a crap about liberty.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You are not worthy of existence in the eyes of Progressives. You are one step away from being worst of the worst in their eyes, above 40, white male and fat.


Not to mention straight, and waiting for marriage.  That would make me REALLY not worthy for existance in the eyes of these idiots

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Out of curiosity, has Justin Raimondo commented on this at all?


Not so far as I know. But being familiar with Justin, I am 100% confident he would defend Robertson's right to say what he did - and A&E's right to do what they did. (As for what he might personally think about what Robertson said, I don't know - but as noted, I am sure he would not allow his opinion in that regard to sway or modulate his prinicples).

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Not so far as I know. But being familiar with Justin, I am 100% confident he would defend Robertson's right to say what he did - and A&E's right to do what they did. (As for what he might personally think about what Robertson said, I don't know - but as noted, I am sure he would not allow his opinion in that regard to sway or modulate his prinicples).


I agree that Robertson had the right to say what he did, and that A + E had the right to do what they did.  I'd be absolutely shocked if Raimondo said anything else.  I'm more curious if he was personally offended by the statement or not.  I'd be somewhat surprised if he was.

That said, I believe what Phil Robertson said was acceptable, and that A +E is being a jerk here.  Phil simply stated that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin.  Doesn't seem like he was deliberately offensive about it or anything like that.

----------


## Snew

don't really care... Robertson obviously has the right to say what he did, no matter how offensive, and A&E obviously has the right to do what they did... but I think Robertson's racial statements in the GQ interview are being overlooked in all this hoopla, tbh.

----------


## TaftFan

> don't really care... Robertson obviously has the right to say what he did, no matter how offensive, and A&E obviously has the right to do what they did... but I think Robertson's racial statements in the GQ interview are being overlooked in all this hoopla, tbh.


He was combating the whole "everyone was racist back then" story.

----------


## kahless

I am just going to keep the TV off.  I turned on "The Five" and so far what a bunch of cowards.  "He should not have said it" bs.

I am more offended by the cowards on "The Five" saying it was wrong than anything this guy said.

----------


## BamaAla

> don't really care... Robertson obviously has the right to say what he did, no matter how offensive, and A&E obviously has the right to do what they did... but I think Robertson's racial statements in the GQ interview are being overlooked in all this hoopla, tbh.


Do they have the "right" though? Let's ignore the RPF definition of rights and focus solely on American jurisprudence. If this situation presented in reverse, would the right exist? If this story was not about the Duck Commander and was about some guy named Thomas from Sioux Falls and Thomas posted on FaceBook in support of gay sex and was subsequently fired, would that be okay? 

I agree, in our utopian world, what has happened is A okay, but I'm not sure that, in the real world, it is okay. Furthermore, I'm not all together sure that I'm comfortable with people losing their jobs over political/religious speech in any case.

----------


## Rudeman

> Then how exactly should I interpret this quote from him?
> 
> : 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.*
> 
> The fact that he even tries to make any connection between homosexuality and bestiality is what I think people take offense to. I think he should have passed on the subject and maybe just say that he is against the lifestyle and his religion or even say he doesn't know enough about homosexuals to make a sensible contribution to the topic.



You have completely misinterpreted what he has said. No where does he say that homosexuality lead to bestiality. He was asked what was sinful and listed several examples, one of those examples was sleeping around with women.

Again if you're going to go with what you misinterpreted then you must also think he said bestiality leads to promiscuity with women.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

This whole incident shows the massive disconnect between A&E and the general public.  Nearly all of my friends were against the decision.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Do they have the "right" though? Let's ignore the RPF definition of rights and focus solely on American jurisprudence. If this situation presented in reverse, would the right exist? If this story was not about the Duck Commander and was about some guy named Thomas from Sioux Falls and Thomas posted on FaceBook in support of gay sex and was subsequently fired, would that be okay?


YES.  Or at least, it should be.  Of course, in the real world there's always a double standard because the world hates Christians.




> I agree, in our utopian world, what has happened is A okay, but I'm not sure that, in the real world, it is okay. Furthermore, I'm not all together sure that I'm comfortable with people losing their jobs over political/religious speech in any case.


You may not be comfortable with it.  I'm not particularly either, at least in ordinary cases.

But property rights are property rights, and  free association is free association. The same logic that you might use to prevent refusal to associate in one instance could be used against you the next.

Progressives and "Conservatives" (More talking about the typical right wing here, not really about libertarian leaning, constitutional paleocons) don't generally care about internally consistent logic, but we should.  And you can't really put a "real world" spin on the liberty ideal, because rights are always rights regardless of what America says, or any double standard.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> This whole incident shows the massive disconnect between A&E and the general public.  Nearly all of my friends were against the decision.


I doubt anyone I know well would support it.  But hey, the CRA of 1964 will soon be expanded to include churches that don't perform "gay marriages".  Its going to be a mess, I just hope that people realize their hypocricy on that point when it finally hits them in the face.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> I doubt anyone I know well would support it.  But hey, the CRA of 1964 will soon be expanded to include churches that don't perform "gay marriages".  Its going to be a mess, I just hope that people realize their hypocricy on that point when it finally hits them in the face.


Who is realizing what hypocrisy?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Who is realizing what hypocrisy?


I have no doubt at some point churches are going to start getting sued for "discrimination" against gays.  Many of the people who are rightfully going to be upset like this still support other anti-discrimination laws, and thus are hypocrites.

----------


## Brett85

> I have no doubt at some point churches are going to start getting sued for "discrimination" against gays.  Many of the people who are rightfully going to be upset like this still support other anti-discrimination laws, and thus are hypocrites.


Yeah, I agree.  Like with the situation with the bakery owner who refused to sell a cake to a gay couple, a lot of Christians would probably want the goverment to intervene if the situation were reversed and a gay bakery owner refused to sell a cake to a Christian couple who had gotten married and tried to buy a cake.  Of course, we realize that the correct position is that the principle of freedom of association should apply in every situation, regardless of which group is being "discriminated" against.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> I have no doubt at some point churches are going to start getting sued for "discrimination" against gays.  Many of the people who are rightfully going to be upset like this still support other anti-discrimination laws, and thus are hypocrites.


Well I support the freedom to be racist and all that but the issues aren't in any way related.  The LGBT movement didn't even exist in 1964, and the movement could have been defeated had people in 1980, 1990, and 2000 realized what would eventually happen.  I don't think banning discrimination based on race necessarily leads to banning discrimination based on lifestyle.  Not saying either of them is something government should concern itself with, but they are completely separate issues.

----------


## Deborah K

> If you believe him, Barrack Obama used the same excuse for not supporting gay marriage so i dont think it was just because of his religion. I think the quote below is what people find offensive because I don't think anyone who ever watched a whole episode of Duck Command thinks he or anyone from the show was pro gay lifestyle.
> 
> Saying homosexuality will lead of bestiality is not cool, also how is it that he does not know that for gays, everything is backwards. Their best friends are females and they are attracted to guys. The guy should have passed on that whole line of questions, nothing good can come out of answering it.


I agree with others that he should (we all should) be able to speak freely about our opinions without having to worry about losing our credibility or income over it just because a certain group of people decided to get 'butt hurt' over it (pardon the pun).  Paula Dean was brought up in Kathy's thread on FB and she's another example.  The militant gay groups, along with those who peddle race division have become society's thought police.  

I like Phil, and the show amuses me.  I don't view ***** the same way he does, nor do I interpret what the Bible states about homosexuality in the same way he does.

On another note: Kathy's issue with this in her FB post was more to the point, and that is, that the sheeple allow this sort of distraction to concern them, while TPTB use these distractions to keep the masses from paying attention to issues that affect our freedoms, sometimes permanently.

----------


## jmdrake

> I have no doubt at some point churches are going to start getting sued for "discrimination" against gays.  Many of the people who are rightfully going to be upset like this still support other anti-discrimination laws, and thus are hypocrites.


Well, technically churches can still discriminate against blacks if they wish under the first amendment and many (most?) systematically discriminate against women by not ordaining them as clergy.  That said, yes it will be interesting.  Democrat Donny McClurkin has already received the wrath of the gay lobby.  His crime?  Responding to another gospel singer that said God made him gay with "God did not call you to that perversion."







Oh...and that was a violation of the 1st amendment as the discrimination perpetrated against Donnie McClurkin and Tim Tebow was done by mayor of D.C.

----------


## Saint Vitus

It amuses me what pisses off the public these days.  Nobody gives a $#@! about the NSA, but if some petty celebrity on some scripted "reality" t.v. show is fired, then everyone goes nuts.

----------


## Deborah K

> This whole incident shows the massive disconnect between A&E and the general public.  Nearly all of my friends were against the decision.


I submit that it's not a disconnect, it's cowardice.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Well I support the freedom to be racist and all that but the issues aren't in any way related.  The LGBT movement didn't even exist in 1964, and the movement could have been defeated had people in 1980, 1990, and 2000 realized what would eventually happen.  I don't think banning discrimination based on race necessarily leads to banning discrimination based on lifestyle.  Not saying either of them is something government should concern itself with, but they are completely separate issues.


They aren't separate.  Both issues have to do with government trampling on the freedom of association and the freedom to property.

"Religion" isn't really an argument either, and I say that as a devout Christian.  What counts as a "religion"?  Does Uncle Sam get to decide?  He shouldn't.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> They aren't separate.  Both issues have to do with government trampling on the freedom of association and the freedom to property.
> 
> "Religion" isn't really an argument either, and I say that as a devout Christian.  What counts as a "religion"?  Does Uncle Sam get to decide?  He shouldn't.


I agree with you on property rights.  But you have to look at the context of when the CRA of 1964 was passed.  There is no comparison between racial injustice and what the homosexuals are fighting against.

----------


## Deborah K

With respect to the A&E article you referred to:




> ".........As backtracking goes, Robertsons statement isnt very contrite and seems to contradict his previous statements. He would never treat anyone with disrespect, yet just compared gay people to drunkards and prostitutes and adulterers and thieves and said they were locked out of heaven. Which sounds pretty disrespectful, no?"


This writer is showing a complete lack of understanding about the context of Phil's biblical reference.  He wasn't comparing homosexuality to other sinful behavior, he was including it with the other behavior because the Bible does the same thing.

Personally, I don't see homosexuality as a sin, per se.  I don't believe ***** have a choice in the matter any more than heteros do.  Bi-sexuals are the only ones with a choice.  And the Bible doesn't say, "...whosoever believeth in me shall have everlasting life....unless you're a ****."  So, I think ***** who believe in Christ and who do their best  to represent Christ's teachings will be saved.  But I also believe that anyone, straight or gay, who lives an immoral life without regard to our Father, as described in detail by Phil, will perish.  So, because I believe that sex is sacred, and should be an act of love between two consenting adults who are committed to each other for life, I cannot say with certainty that a loving, Christian, committed gay couple will perish.

----------


## TaftFan

I have now started a White House petition: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...rtson/Z0Lx6JQq

----------


## Christian Liberty

What does "Calling for" entail?  Advice or force?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I agree with you on property rights.  But you have to look at the context of when the CRA of 1964 was passed.  There is no comparison between racial injustice and what the homosexuals are fighting against.


I'm not saying they are directly comparable, simply that one thing leads to another.

I'm also talking about private property here, not "public" property, on which discrimination shouldn't be tolerated if it is to exist at all.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> What does "Calling for" entail?  Advice or force?


I think it means advice.




> I'm not saying they are directly comparable, simply that one thing leads to another.
> 
> I'm also talking about private property here, not "public" property, on which discrimination shouldn't be tolerated if it is to exist at all.


I can see how anti-discrimination laws could lead to inventing new classes of people.  I understand your point.  But I don't really think the CRA of 1964 really inspired gays at the time.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I can see how anti-discrimination laws could lead to inventing new classes of people.  I understand your point.  But I don't really think the CRA of 1964 really inspired gays at the time.


I wasn't saying it did.  I was saying that once you give up the principle, you lose your logical basis for opposing tyranny.

That law sure is inspiring them now, however.

----------


## juleswin

> I agree with others that he should (we all should) be able to speak freely about our opinions without having to worry about losing our credibility or income over it just because a certain group of people decided to get 'butt hurt' over it (pardon the pun).  Paula Dean was brought up in Kathy's thread on FB and she's another example.  The militant gay groups, along with those who peddle race division have become society's thought police.


We have the right to say what we want but also what we say have consequences. The Black militant guy at the Obama DHS who got fired for saying racist stuff on his facebook I think deserved to be fired. I think everyone on this forum agreed with it, the only complaint here was that he wasn't fired fast enough which is true. The solution I see for this is for US to speak back with our checkbooks. Start boycotting the entertainment industry when they do stuff like fire Paula Dean or ESPN refusing to run pro 2nd amendment ads or A&E doing what they did to Phil even after he apologized. They will only listen when you start talking back.  




> I like Phil, and the show amuses me.  I don't view ***** the same way he does, nor do I interpret what the Bible states about homosexuality in the same way he does.
> 
> On another note: Kathy's issue with this in her FB post was more to the point, and that is, that the sheeple allow this sort of distraction to concern them, while TPTB use these distractions to keep the masses from paying attention to issues that affect our freedoms, sometimes permanently.


First of all, who is Kathy? i do agree that this is a distraction for most of the sheeple. But I just wonder if the sheeple will even pay any attention with or without any distraction? So I am left to wonder who exactly this distraction is for or what they are trying to distract us from.

----------


## TaftFan

The Robertson Family Official Statement

http://duckcommander.com/news/robert...ical-statement

----------


## UtahApocalypse

> The Robertson Family Official Statement
> 
> http://duckcommander.com/news/robert...ical-statement


Good for them. It's not very often in show business that people show integrity and stand for their beliefs. The ball is now in A&E's court, lets see if the flinch or if they let the liberals win.

----------


## green73

> The Robertson Family Official Statement
> 
> http://duckcommander.com/news/robert...ical-statement


Added to the OP.

----------


## green73

*

WE'LL WALK! 
 *

----------


## aGameOfThrones

At least it wasn't about *black people*

----------


## James Madison

Anyone else see this as a case of 'wrongful termination'? Unless he specifically breached his contract, I don't see how an employer can legally and morally terminate an employee for comments that are not part of non-disclosure agreements, releasing sensitive information, etc. I also think it's funny to see Progs defending an employer's privilege, while $#@!ting on the employee. Aren't these people always claiming Republicans want corporations to ride roughshod over their employees, while presenting themselves as representing the working man?

----------


## Dary

Whatever happened to "if you don't like it, then change the channel"?

----------


## klamath

> The Robertson Family Official Statement
> 
> http://duckcommander.com/news/robert...ical-statement


Well I have never seen one episode of Duck dynasty and don't have any interest to watch but I will side with them over the ***** mafia.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

I think this whole episode might create a backlash against the gay rights movement.

----------


## klamath

> I think this whole episode might create a backlash against the gay rights movement.


 This and jailing a guy for not selling a cake to a gay marriage. It is clear it is not about live and let live but forcing people at a point of a gun to accept and approve of their lifestyle.

----------


## Todd

> I have now started a White House petition: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...rtson/Z0Lx6JQq


Just what we need.  More Government getting involved to decide peoples private affairs.

----------


## Snew

> It amuses me what pisses off the public these days.  Nobody gives a $#@! about the NSA, but if some petty celebrity on some scripted "reality" t.v. show is fired, then everyone goes nuts.


So true.

----------


## UtahApocalypse

> It amuses me what pisses off the public these days.  Nobody gives a $#@! about the NSA, but if some petty celebrity on some scripted "reality" t.v. show is fired, then everyone goes nuts.



^^^^ This is the most important post in the entire thread.

In less then 24 hours over 1.3 million people have liked that Stand with Phill facebook page, over 250k have signed a petition, and hundreds of tweets a minute. Stand with Phil has had more action in one day then anything the liberty movement has done in a year. This clearly shows the disconnect in the American public. Until WE the people change, our government will just keep rolling on right over us. As the great quote says...... ".....if you can keep it"

----------


## oyarde

> This and jailing a guy for not selling a cake to a gay marriage. It is clear it is not about live and let live but forcing people at a point of a gun to accept and approve of their lifestyle.


Appears that way to me.

----------


## oyarde

> It amuses me what pisses off the public these days.  Nobody gives a $#@! about the NSA, but if some petty celebrity on some scripted "reality" t.v. show is fired, then everyone goes nuts.


Yes . Nobody watches the NSA on tv though ....

----------


## kahless

> ^^^^ This is the most important post in the entire thread.
> 
> In less then 24 hours over 1.3 million people have liked that Stand with Phill facebook page, over 250k have signed a petition, and hundreds of tweets a minute. Stand with Phil has had more action in one day then anything the liberty movement has done in a year. This clearly shows the disconnect in the American public. Until WE the people change, our government will just keep rolling on right over us. As the great quote says...... ".....if you can keep it"


With all the propaganda the NSA is kind of a murky thing for the average Joe to sift through and find the truth.  This case is however is pretty easy for people to get their head around.

I think this is the tipping point and people have had enough with the gay thought police.  The people at GLAAD are no different from the race baiters that incite what they pretend to be against.

----------


## sluggo

Ha, the gay rights movement seems to be generating more anti-gay sentiment than existed before.

Like a bunch of rainbow colored Al Sharptons.

----------


## BamaAla

> ^^^^ This is the most important post in the entire thread.
> 
> In less then 24 hours over 1.3 million people have liked that Stand with Phill facebook page, over 250k have signed a petition, and hundreds of tweets a minute. Stand with Phil has had more action in one day then anything the liberty movement has done in a year. This clearly shows the disconnect in the American public. Until WE the people change, our government will just keep rolling on right over us. As the great quote says...... ".....if you can keep it"



Meh, there was a lot of reaction the Snowden stuff and the gun grab attempts.

Beyond that, though, at lot of people will view this Duck Commander thing as a lot more important than the NSA or the FED. A guy that they follow and love just lost his lucrative job for actually stating aloud a belief held by themselves and millions like them. That's going to cause a visceral reaction. The NSA issue is distant to them and doesn't really hit home. The FED is hard to understand and Joe Six Pack, working 50 hour weeks to pay the bills and barely having enough left over for a case of Natural Lite, doesn't have the time or inclination to sit down and digest the requisite materials to grasp the situation.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Lol.

----------


## PRB

> Lol.


lol, I have no idea who stockman is, but I know that's how him.

----------


## Tywysog Cymru

> This and jailing a guy for not selling a cake to a gay marriage. It is clear it is not about live and let live but forcing people at a point of a gun to accept and approve of their lifestyle.


The guy getting arrested didn't get a lot of coverage though, the MSM made sure the general public didn't hear about it.  But firing Phil Robertson isn't something you can chose not to cover.

----------


## torchbearer

A&E is homophobic and violated section 7 of civil rights act.

----------


## juleswin

Straw man much, A&E never actually said what Phil said was homophobic. Anyway what he said was ignorant, everybody knows gay people because of some psychological abnormality prefer guys over gals. Also the weird connection he tried to make with homosexual relationship and bestiality is what I think put his statement over the top.

Whenever you try to connect homosexuality with bestiality or pedophilia or even incest, you will piss off a lot of people and it doesn't matter if you are reading straight from the bible or not. Also Phil and his clan mates are in a contract with A&E and my guess is that said contract has a ton of behavioral clause that if violated allows A&E to get out of the contract. This is not uncommon with highly paid people like sports and movie stars. I seriously doubt the federal govt will be visiting A&E studios with charges of violating anyone's civil rights. 

Don't know what exactly to make of this video but it seems like this whole thing could have been a setup. If the pictures in it are real, then one has to wonder just how long these guys have been bearded rednecks? or was it all hatched to script a reality TV(like most scripted so called reality shows) show that will bring country folk back to watching TV again.

----------


## Deborah K

> ^^^^ This is the most important post in the entire thread.
> 
> In less then 24 hours over 1.3 million people have liked that Stand with Phill facebook page, over 250k have signed a petition, and hundreds of tweets a minute. Stand with Phil has had more action in one day then anything the liberty movement has done in a year. This clearly shows the disconnect in the American public. Until WE the people change, our government will just keep rolling on right over us. As the great quote says...... ".....if you can keep it"


I view it as an opportunity to bring his supporters on board.  Of all the groups that are getting pissed off about social engineering, and govt control, this group of supporters would be the most likely to be receptive to Dr. Paul's message.

----------


## Deborah K

> Straw man much, A&E never actually said what Phil said was homophobic. Anyway what he said was ignorant, everybody knows gay people because of some psychological abnormality prefer guys over gals. Also the weird connection he tried to make with homosexual relationship and bestiality is what I think put his statement over the top.


Oh come on!  He didn't do that!  If he had mentioned ONLY bestiality and not the other list of sins, then you could make that claim.  Otherwise, you have to conclude that homosexuality also leads to "sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men”, because he finishes the sentence with that quote.  Then he goes on to paraphrase 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.”

----------


## Rudeman

> Straw man much, A&E never actually said what Phil said was homophobic. Anyway what he said was ignorant, everybody knows gay people because of some psychological abnormality prefer guys over gals. Also the weird connection he tried to make with homosexual relationship and bestiality is what I think put his statement over the top.



Your lack of reading comprehension is really disappointing, I've told you at least twice that you're wrong yet you persist in your ignorance.

----------


## juleswin

> Your lack of reading comprehension is really disappointing, I've told you at least twice that you're wrong yet you persist in your ignorance.


Yes, he didn't compare homosexuality to beastiality per say but the insinuated that tolerating homosexuality will lead(morph) to other sins like beastiality and adultery. Still has the same effect whenever you mention gay sex to beastiality.

----------


## James Madison

> Yes, he didn't compare homosexuality to beastiality per say but the insinuated that tolerating homosexuality will lead(morph) to other sins like beastiality and adultery. Still has the same effect whenever you mention gay sex to beastiality.


As a straight male, bestiality is about as appealing as gay sex.

----------


## CPUd

> On December 18th 2013, the Facebook page Stand With Phil Robertson was created. A mere 24 hours later that page had gained just under 1 MILLION Facebook likes. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could replicate that? We can! We just need to look over what they did and see what worked.





http://www.bigbrandexaminer.com/vira...less-24-hours/

----------


## James Madison

> http://www.bigbrandexaminer.com/vira...less-24-hours/


Rand needs to release a statement defending Robertson ASAP. That would single-handedly win him thousands of votes for 2016.

----------


## Peace&Freedom

> Yes, he didn't compare homosexuality to beastiality per say but the insinuated that tolerating homosexuality will lead(morph) to other sins like beastiality and adultery. Still has the same effect whenever you mention gay sex to beastiality.


Actually, he didn't insinuate any morphing, he cited scripture that associated homosexuality as part of a class of sexual or other sins and lifestyles that will not be part of the kingdom of God. Homosexuality does not "become" something immoral or evil, the activity (and a commitment to it) IS immoral or evil in and of itself.

----------


## lilymc

> Only on RPF are you expected to be tolerant of the intolerant. Only on RPF(and DU) is free speech expect to be a one way deal. Sorry guys but it is not a contradiction for a tolerant person to be intolerant of the intolerant, its the same way you showing no respect to someone who doesn't respect themselves doesn't make you a hypocrite. And also the idea that A&E firing this man for expressing his freedom of speech some how violates his freedom of speech omits the A&E by firing him is also expressing its freedom of expression. It just shows that actions be it in form of speech have consequences. You also use your freedom of expression by boycotting A&E for what they did to him. Its a free world. 
> 
> I actually like the show in the few episodes I watch at work, the family is really nice and funny. I think the whole episode could have been handled differently, he like most people living in the country and non western countries have very little knowledge about gay people. He should have plead the 5th and said he knows nothing and them and their lifestyle. People indeed do fear what they do not understand and in his attempt to be frank about something he was ignorant about, he said something that offended the whole group of people
> 
> He should come out and do some sort of middle of the road apology and be done with it. Please man up and don't $#@! it up for the rest of the clan.


Why should he apologize?   He stated his beliefs.  Can someone please post a transcript of what the guy actually said?   Did he use any hateful slurs, or did he merely say what many people (Christians) believe -  that it's a sin?    Because if it's the latter, then he has no reason to apologize.

----------


## juleswin

> Why should he apologize?   He stated his beliefs.  Can someone please post a transcript of what the guy actually said?   Did he use any hateful slurs, or did he merely say what many people (Christians) believe -  that it's a sin?    Because if it's the latter, then he has no reason to apologize.


I will assume that you are married or been in a relationship before. You will realize that sometimes you find your self apologizing for being honest. This very similar to that, you apologize not necessarily because you were dishonest but because you offended people for characteristic which they have no control of.

It sucks, but you do it because it is the diplomatic thing to do and because you didn't mean to hurt anyone by you being honest.

----------


## TaftFan

> Rand needs to release a statement defending Robertson ASAP. That would single-handedly win him thousands of votes for 2016.


Cruz did. So should Rand.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I will assume that you are married or been in a relationship before. You will realize that sometimes you find your self apologizing for being honest. This very similar to that, you apologize not necessarily *because you were dishonest but because you offended people for characteristic which they have no control of.*
> 
> It sucks, but you do it because it is the diplomatic thing to do and because you didn't mean to hurt anyone by you being honest.


He wasn't talking about the characteristic; he was talking about what was said in the Bible about the act.  It's not a sin to have the urge; the sin is the acting out of it.

But, that isn't the point.  Why are so many getting their panties in a wad over one man's statements?  What this one man says doesn't impact gays.  Not everyone is going to agree with their lifestyle and certainly don't want it pushed on them.  So what?  Why don't gays go live their lives and stop trying to force everyone, including by using government, to act like they accept the gay lifestyle as something other than deviant behavior.

----------


## jmdrake

> Straw man much, A&E never actually said what Phil said was homophobic. Anyway what he said was ignorant, everybody knows gay people because of some psychological abnormality prefer guys over gals. Also the weird connection he tried to make with homosexual relationship and bestiality is what I think put his statement over the top.


Question.  Do you think it's possible for someone to have a psychological abnormality to prefer animals over humans?  And I know...I know.  That's different because "animals can't consent."  But people don't worry about animals consenting to being slaughtered and eaten or experimented on or a whole host of other things much worse than unconsensual sex. 

Anyway, full disclosure.  As a recovering sex addict I go to a support group with all kinds of people working to stay away from all kinds of things from porn and masturbation to animals, to men and women to inanimate objects.  The definition of "sobriety" for our support group is progressive victory over lust, and no sex outside of marriage with marriage being defined as sex between a man and a woman.  Gays actually feel quite welcome in the group.  So do pedophiles and people who prefer animals and everything else you can imagine.  No sinner is looking down on another sinner.  Some of the nicest people you want to meet wouldn't be safe around your cat.  Why do you want to put them down?

----------


## robert9712000

> You apologize because what was said offended or was going to offend a lot of people regardless of whether the disclaimer was given or not. Also, i am not even sure if what he said was technically intolerant but it was definitely ignorant. 
> 
> Also, disagreeing with someone about something that is innate to them can be offensive. He would have gotten the same treatment if he said something similar about short, disabled, black, or maybe even red haired people because the general public seems to take offense at people that go around offending groups of people.


The difference is your being a bigot if you judge a person on something you have no control over.A short person can not help being short,While a person may have gay thoughts,they choose whether to act upon them.

Its no different than if im angry at someone and i have thoughts of punching them in the face.Just because i had the thought does not mean i am forced to act upon it.If i end up punching the person im mad at i can not say its not my fault i was born with anger issues and i couldn't help it.Society would say " Yes it is your fault you need to deal with your anger".There is a lack of consistency in saying a gay person can not help being Gay ,because they can.

 Even though i think its wrong to act upon it, I would not try to force them to act a different way.It is up to each of us too figure out what is right or wrong and God will judge them in the end.In return though i do not want them to tell me what i can or can not say or think.

 A& E had every right to fire them,but they did not do it because they disagreed with his comments,they fired him because they are cowards and would never dare make any stand that goes against popular opinion.They knew what he believed before they took him on,but as like the rest of society says "We have no problem with your beliefs as long as you shut up and never discuss it"

----------


## PRB

> http://www.bigbrandexaminer.com/vira...less-24-hours/


Proof this NONtroversy was all staged by A&E, WalMart and Robertson.

----------


## Danke



----------


## liberalnurse

> Less than 48 hours after Cracker Barrel announced plans to pull Duck Dynasty items off its shelves in the wake of cast member Phil Robertson's anti-gay comments, the Southern country store and restaurant chain has reversed its decision.


http://gma.yahoo.com/cracker-barrel-...ml?.tsrc=bsnls

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I think this whole episode might create a backlash against the gay rights movement.





> This and jailing a guy for not selling a cake to a gay marriage. It is clear it is not about live and let live but forcing people at a point of a gun to accept and approve of their lifestyle.


I agree, although I don't think anyone who already supports "gay rights" (Meaning: special privledges) will change their views.  SOme who didn't care as much will get more fired up though.  Gunny said that this made him upset about an issue he was previously neutral on.



> The guy getting arrested didn't get a lot of coverage though, the MSM made sure the general public didn't hear about it.  But firing Phil Robertson isn't something you can chose not to cover.


True.




> Yes, he didn't compare homosexuality to beastiality per say but the insinuated that tolerating homosexuality will lead(morph) to other sins like beastiality and adultery. Still has the same effect whenever you mention gay sex to beastiality.


He's right.




> Question. Do you think it's possible for someone to have a psychological abnormality to prefer animals over humans? And I know...I know. That's different because "animals can't consent." But people don't worry about animals consenting to being slaughtered and eaten or experimented on or a whole host of other things much worse than unconsensual sex.


Exactly.  The reason bestiality is immoral has nothing at all to do with the rights of the animal.

----------


## Dr.3D

> Exactly.  The reason bestiality is immoral has nothing at all to do with the rights of the animal.


Yep, it's about perversion.   No one is trying to reproduce with an animal.   They just want the perverse sexual gratification of having sex with something.  Perhaps they should just buy a sex toy and have at it.

----------


## otherone

> The definition of "sobriety" for our support group is progressive victory over lust, and no sex outside of marriage with marriage being defined as sex between a man and a woman.


There is a difference between perversion and addiction.  Your group sounds church-sponsored, given it's specific sobriety goals.  There are quite a few fornicators in the world who aren't addicted to sex.  Is your group affiliated with SLAA or locally grown?

----------


## Voluntarist

> Yes, he didn't compare homosexuality to beastiality per say but the insinuated that tolerating homosexuality will lead(morph) to other sins like beastiality and adultery. Still has the same effect whenever you mention gay sex to beastiality.


Well, you know ... gateway sex

----------


## Dr.3D

> Well, you know ... gateway sex


Get with the spirit.... that should be gaytway sex.

----------


## Voluntarist

I've never sat down and actually watched an episode of the show from start to finish. The limited amount of it that I have seen simply tells me that A&E intended it as a caricature of the culture that Phil represents. To that end I can laugh at it - and Phil keeps delivering (as with the recently discovered video of "bearded religious zealot in a headscarf urging men to take child brides'".

----------


## matt0611

> I've never sat down and actually watched an episode of the show from start to finish. The limited amount of it that I have seen simply tells me that A&E intended it as a caricature of the culture that Phil represents. To that end I can laugh at it - and Phil keeps delivering (as with the recently discovered video of "bearded religious zealot in a headscarf urging men to take child brides'".


""They got to where they're getting hard to find, mainly because these *boys* are waiting 'til they get to be about 20 years old before they marry 'em,""

I could be wrong, but just be my quick glancing over that article your statement is false. He's not "urging men to take child brides". He's urging boys to marry girls while they (both) are young. I don't necessarily see anything wrong or immoral about this advice. I see nothing wrong with boys and girls that are 15,16,17+ getting married to each other. I think men and women are both better off marrying young. Shrug.

The lefties will surely foam at the mouth about it though. They eat this stuff up.

----------


## jmdrake

> There is a difference between perversion and addiction.  Your group sounds church-sponsored, given it's specific sobriety goals.  There are quite a few fornicators in the world who aren't addicted to sex.  Is your group affiliated with SLAA or locally grown?


SA is an international organization that is about as old as SLAA and probably as large.  Also your comment shows a general lack of understanding of addiction.  There are many people who drink who aren't alcoholics, but the definition of sobriety for an alcoholic is not not drink at all.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yes, he didn't compare homosexuality to beastiality per say but the insinuated that tolerating homosexuality will lead(morph) to other sins like beastiality and adultery. Still has the same effect whenever you mention gay sex to beastiality.


Could you please explain from a strictly Biblical sense why homosexuality is not a sin but bestiality is?  Thanks.

----------


## otherone

> SA is an international organization that is about as old as SLAA and probably as large.  Also your comment shows a general lack of understanding of addiction.  There are many people who drink who aren't alcoholics, but the definition of sobriety for an alcoholic is not not drink at all.


This isn't about 12 step groups, it's about characterizing homosexuality as deviance, while pretending sexual addiction is permissible within a heterosexual marital relationship.

----------


## juleswin

> Question.  Do you think it's possible for someone to have a psychological abnormality to prefer animals over humans?  And I know...I know.  That's different because "animals can't consent."  But people don't worry about animals consenting to being slaughtered and eaten or experimented on or a whole host of other things much worse than unconsensual sex.


Yes, I do think beastiality can be an innate psychological condition/abnormality like homosexuality. Just for the record, I am not one of those animal rights people. I think it should be legal to kill em(horses included), fight em(dogs too, not just chickens) and if you really have to, have sex with them. So yea, I don't care for the little critters, but animals are different from people of the same sex because they are the same sex not different species.    




> Anyway, full disclosure.  As a recovering sex addict I go to a support group with all kinds of people working to stay away from all kinds of things from porn and masturbation to animals, to men and women to inanimate objects.  The definition of "sobriety" for our support group is progressive victory over lust, and no sex outside of marriage with marriage being defined as sex between a man and a woman.  Gays actually feel quite welcome in the group.  So do pedophiles and people who prefer animals and everything else you can imagine.  No sinner is looking down on another sinner.  Some of the nicest people you want to meet wouldn't be safe around your cat.  Why do you want to put them down?


When you say not sinner is looking down on another sinner, do you consider homosexual married couples sinners? Also are gays with a normal sexual appetite accepted in your sex therapy clinic? if the answer is no then its makes no difference that they accept gays into your clinic. Pedophiles and people who prefer animals are all in a different category seeing as they are dealing with different species and under developed human beings.

----------


## jmdrake

> This isn't about 12 step groups, it's about characterizing homosexuality as deviance, while pretending sexual addiction is permissible within a heterosexual marital relationship.


What isn't about 12 step groups?  You made an uninformed comment that my group must be "local" and I corrected you.  Sorry that taking correction is a problem for you.  That said, do you know what the word "deviation" means?  It simply means off the norm.  Sadly because of our politically correct society a "deviation" can no longer be called a "deviation."  Still, you're the one that used the word, I didn't.  By the way, I went back to the quote that I made and I see that you selectively quoted it, and now you seem to be responding in a less than honest manner.




> Straw man much, A&E never actually said what Phil said was homophobic. Anyway what he said was ignorant, everybody knows gay people because of some psychological abnormality prefer guys over gals. Also the weird connection he tried to make with homosexual relationship and bestiality is what I think put his statement over the top.





> Question.  Do you think it's possible for someone to have a psychological abnormality to prefer animals over humans?  And I know...I know.  That's different because "animals can't consent."  But people don't worry about animals consenting to being slaughtered and eaten or experimented on or a whole host of other things much worse than unconsensual sex. 
> 
> Anyway, full disclosure.  As a recovering sex addict I go to a support group with all kinds of people working to stay away from all kinds of things from porn and masturbation to animals, to men and women to inanimate objects.  The definition of "sobriety" for our support group is progressive victory over lust, and no sex outside of marriage with marriage being defined as sex between a man and a woman.  Gays actually feel quite welcome in the group.  So do pedophiles and people who prefer animals and everything else you can imagine.  No sinner is looking down on another sinner.  Some of the nicest people you want to meet wouldn't be safe around your cat.  Why do you want to put them down?


juleswin called homosexuality a "psychological abnormality".  Those were *his words* and he is on *your side* of the argument.  I pointed out that there are many kinds of "psychological abnormalities".  Some people are perfectly happy with their abnormalities.  Some are not.  If you are happy with sleeping with another man or sleeping with a blow up doll or whatever I'm not going to get in your way.  My point to juleswin, and that I will repeat to you, is that why are some abnormalities "honorable" in your eyes, and others not?  I put no one down for his abnormality (as juleswin put it).  I decided I was no longer happy with my particular "abnormality" and decided to do something about it.  You seem intent on being judgmental because I won't put homosexuality in the special category of "normal abnormalities" that you want to carve out for it.

----------


## juleswin

> Could you please explain from a strictly Biblical sense why homosexuality is not a sin but bestiality is?  Thanks.


I don't think I can but in catechism, we were told that there are big and small sins. My guess is that homosexual acts especially for people who have this psychological affinity to people of the same sex is a much smaller sin than people who have sex with animals because of some sexual fetish.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yes, I do think beastiality can innate psychological condition/abnormality like homosexuality. Just for the record, I am not one of those animal rights people. I think it should be legal to kill em(horses included), fight em(dogs too, not just chickens) and if you really have to, have sex with them. So yea, I don't care for the little critters, but animals are different from people of the same sex because they are the same sex not different species.


I didn't ask if they were different or the same.  Men and women are different.  Same sex and opposite sex attractions are different.  But you seem to be saying one is more wrong than the other. 




> When you say not sinner is looking down on another sinner, do you consider homosexual married couples sinners? Also are gays with a normal sexual appetite accepted in your sex therapy clinic? if the answer is no then its makes no difference that they accept gays into your clinic. Pedophiles and people who prefer animals are all in a different category seeing as they are dealing with different species and under developed human beings.


Let's skip pedophila for a moment.  There is no biblical age of consent.  (Well...maybe 12 as that's when men were seen as transitioning to adulthood).  In the 1800s when most people ended school at the 8th grade there were a lot of people who married what we now consider "children".  And society's interest (whether you agree with it or not) in protecting children places that in a different category than homosexuality *or* bestiality.  Notice I didn't bring pedophilia up.  I don't think Phil did either, but maybe I missed that. 

Back to bestiality.  You asked me if I think a married homosexual couple are sinners.  I'm asking you if you think someone who has sex with animals is a sinner.  I'm not asking if you think it should be allowed or not.  I'm not asking you if you think its a good thing to do or not.  I'm asking you if you would be one (homosexuality) in a "not sin" category and bestiality in a "sin" category.  If the answer to that question is you'd treat them differently, then why?  If the question is you don't think either is a sin, then doesn't that prove Phil's point?  And hey, maybe that's the correct position (no pun intended).  Maybe nothing is a sin as long as it "feels good" and it doesn't impinge on any other human's rights.  But that's a different definition of sin than the one Phil grew up with.

----------


## otherone

> What isn't about 12 step groups?  You made an uninformed comment that my group must be "local" and I corrected you.  Sorry that taking correction is a problem for you.  That said, do you know what the word "deviation" means?  It simply means off the norm.  Sadly because of our politically correct society a "deviation" can no longer be called a "deviation."  Still, you're the one that used the word, I didn't.  By the way, I went back to the quote that I made and I see that you selectively quoted it, and now you seem to be responding in a less than honest manner.


My apologies for questioning the geography of your group; but you've missed my point entirely.  Your group is clearly christian, as it's idea of acceptable behavior appears biblical.  Why would someone with a sexual addiction be allowed to have sex with anyone...including a spouse...until his/her addiction is managed? Your group doesn't seem to be about sexual addiction, it appears to be about frowned-upon sexual behavior.  Your definition of "deviant"..."off the norm"....is disingenuous.  As an example...is "masturbation" "off the norm"?
Your group appears to be concerned with immorality, not addiction.

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't think I can but in catechism, we were told that there are big and small sins. My guess is that homosexual acts especially for people who have this psychological affinity to people of the same sex is a much smaller sin than people who have sex with animals because of some sexual fetish.


Why?  Why would one be a smaller sin than the other?  Because one is more acceptable in modern society than the other?  Because one bothers you more on a personal level than the other?  Does the catechism teach that homosexual acts are a small sin?  And I thought your position was that it isn't a sin at all?  I'm confused.

----------


## otherone

> Why?  Why would one be a smaller sin than the other?  Because one is more acceptable in modern society than the other?  Because one bothers you more on a personal level than the other?  Does the catechism teach that homosexual acts are a small sin?  And I thought your position was that it isn't a sin at all?  I'm confused.


Homosexuality is no more or less sinful than any other type of fornication.

----------


## juleswin

> What isn't about 12 step groups?  You made an uninformed comment that my group must be "local" and I corrected you.  Sorry that taking correction is a problem for you.  That said, do you know what the word "deviation" means?  It simply means off the norm.  Sadly because of our politically correct society a "deviation" can no longer be called a "deviation."  Still, you're the one that used the word, I didn't.  By the way, I went back to the quote that I made and I see that you selectively quoted it, and now you seem to be responding in a less than honest manner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> juleswin called homosexuality a "psychological abnormality".  Those were *his words* and he is on *your side* of the argument.  I pointed out that there are many kinds of "psychological abnormalities".  Some people are perfectly happy with their abnormalities.  Some are not.  If you are happy with sleeping with another man or sleeping with a blow up doll or whatever I'm not going to get in your way.  My point to juleswin, and that I will repeat to you, is that why are some abnormalities "honorable" in your eyes, and others not?  I put no one down for his abnormality (as juleswin put it).  I decided I was no longer happy with my particular "abnormality" and decided to do something about it.  You seem intent on being judgmental because I won't put homosexuality in the special category of "normal abnormalities" that you want to carve out for it.


Just before I commit the crime of comparing beastiality to homosexuality, I have to point out a big difference between the 2. First, people that are homosexual will still choose people from the same sex even with the availability of people of the opposite sex in the area. What we see in prisons where men and women engage in homosexual relationship is very similar to beastiality. The majority of the beastiality cases usually occur in isolated farm towns by young horny men or by social outcasts who cannot have a normal relationship with a human being and whose only option is their hands or some poor animal. 

Homosexuals are not doing this because of lack of opposite sex partners, they do it because they are wired like that. So when I mention homosexuality in the same category as beastiality its only to highlight that it is a mental/psychological condition. In fact, left handedness will be a better comparison to it. Try converting a left handed person to use their right hand and see how well that works out.

----------


## jmdrake

> My apologies for questioning the geography of your group; but you've missed my point entirely.  Your group is clearly christian, as it's idea of acceptable behavior appears biblical.


No it isn't.  There are Jews, Muslims and even agnostics are welcome.  Agnostics tend to find some kind of God before it's all over.  It's pretty much impossible to work any 12 step program (AA, NA, SA, SAA, SLAA) without coming to some understanding of God.  Further, are you aware of the fact that gays have less rights in Hindu India than they have in most Christian countires?  See: http://reason.com/archives/2013/12/1...direction-into  So the idea that this is somehow a "biblical" thing is simply inaccurate.




> Why would someone with a sexual addiction be allowed to have sex with anyone...including a spouse...until his/her addiction is managed?


Huh?  Allowed?  You don't know how this works do you?  If you are a part of an addiction recovery group, nobody is telling you what you are or are not "allowed" to do.  Make your own choices.  And some married people voluntarily choose periods of celibacy as a part of their recovery.  That said, in order to have a working program for any kind of addiction you need some definition of sobriety.  I'm not married, but I was.  During that period I was not sober as I was watching porn, masturbating etc.  If I had just had sex with my wife, I wouldn't have had a problem.  A good definition of addiction is feeling compelled to do something you don't want to do.  If you're fine with watching porn and masturbating and you can pick it up or put it down whenever you feel like it then you aren't an addict.  It's the same as with alcohol.  If you can pick it up and put it down at will then you aren't an addict.  If you can't, then you are.  It's not merely the amount of alcohol one might drink.  It's the lack of control.




> Your group doesn't seem to be about sexual addiction, it appears to be about frowned-upon sexual behavior.  Your definition of "deviant"..."off the norm"....is disingenuous.  As an example...is "masturbation" "off the norm"?
> Your group appears to be concerned with immorality, not addiction.


So what is your group like?  What definition of sobriety does your group use?  And if you aren't a part of a recovery group, why are you trying to discuss something that you don't understand?

----------


## jmdrake

> Homosexuality is no more or less sinful than any other type of fornication.


And most Christian believe fornication to be sinful.  Maybe it is...maybe it isn't.  Phil thinks it is.  So what?

----------


## jmdrake

> Just before I commit the crime of comparing beastiality to homosexuality, I have to point out a big difference between the 2. First, people that are homosexual will still choose people from the same sex even with the availability of people of the opposite sex in the area. What we see in prisons where men and women engage in homosexual relationship is very similar to beastiality. The majority of the beastiality cases usually occur in isolated farm towns by young horny men or by social outcasts who cannot have a normal relationship with a human being and whose only option is their hands or some poor animal.


Hmmmm....that doesn't explain why someone with high speed access to the internet would choose to watch bestiality porn when that same person could watch men and women or men and men or women and women.  Do you have some stats?  It seems like you are stereotyping without evidence.  Dannno a while back posted audio of someone who called into a radio show to talk about his fetish for his dogs and he didn't sound like some country hick.  And it's interesting that you called making such a comparison a "crime".  Why?  I thought we didn't believe in thought crimes?




> Homosexuals are not doing this because of lack of opposite sex partners, they do it because they are wired like that. So when I mention homosexuality in the same category as beastiality its only to highlight that it is a mental/psychological condition. In fact, left handedness will be a better comparison to it. Try converting a left handed person to use their right hand and see how well that works out.


People have been successfully "converted" from being left handed to right handed all the time.  Should that happen?  I don't think so.  But it has.  It goes the otherway as well.  If your right hand got cut off, after some years you would become quite proficient in using your left hand.  I also knew a girl in elementary school who was athletic and left handed but for some odd reason never learned to use her right hand to catch a ball.  So she would use a right handers glove on her left hand, catch the ball, take the glove off and throw it with her left hand.  She could have and should have learned to use her right hand with something.  So no, I don't think that analogy gets you very far.  But it's a red herring anyway.  I wasn't asking if it was easier to start or stop being attracted to animals than it was to start or stop being attracted to the same sex.  I'm asking why do you think Phil's position that accepting that homosexuality is not a sin doesn't mean people will be more likely to accept that bestiality is not a sin.  Bestiality is actually condemned fewer places in the Bible if I recall correctly.  Is there some strong condemnation of bestiality in the catechism?

----------


## otherone

> Huh?  Allowed?  You don't know how this works do you?  If you are a part of an addiction recovery group, nobody is telling you what you are or are not "allowed" to do.  Make your own choices.  And some married people voluntarily choose periods of celibacy as a part of their recovery.  That said, in order to have a working program for any kind of addiction you need some definition of sobriety.


THESE ARE YOUR WORDS:
The definition of "sobriety" for our support group is progressive victory over lust, and no sex outside of marriage with marriage being defined as sex between a man and a woman 

I only know about your group from WHAT YOU'VE WRITTEN.  
Your comments are contradictory.

----------


## juleswin

> Why?  Why would one be a smaller sin than the other?  Because one is more acceptable in modern society than the other?  Because one bothers you more on a personal level than the other?  Does the catechism teach that homosexual acts are a small sin?  And I thought your position was that it isn't a sin at all?  I'm confused.


The question you asked me was to justify why beastiality is a sin and homosexuality is not a sin using the bible. I agree that both were sins according to the bible, and I don't think I have ever argued homosexuality not being a sin according to the bible. My big problem was him putting the 2 on the same level.

I don't really see whats confusing about that.

----------


## otherone

> And is bestiality not another form of fornication?


I don't know.  How does the Bible define fornication?

----------


## jmdrake

> The question you asked me was to justify why beastiality is a sin and homosexuality is not a sin using the bible. I agree that both were sins according to the bible, and I don't think I have ever argued homosexuality not being a sin according to the bible. My big problem was him putting the 2 on the same level.
> 
> I don't really see whats confusing about that.


Okay.  Bestiality is condemned in Leviticus.  Homosexuality is condemned in the same chapter in Leviticus.  Homosexuality is condemned in the writings of Paul.  Bestiality isn't mentioned.  Bestiality is more sinful because......?

----------


## jmdrake

> THESE ARE YOUR WORDS:
> The definition of "sobriety" for our support group is progressive victory over lust, and no sex outside of marriage with marriage being defined as sex between a man and a woman 
> 
> I only know about your group from WHAT YOU'VE WRITTEN.  
> Your comments are contradictory.


My statements are not contradictory in the least.  I'm "allowed" not to be sober.  Nobody is going to kick me out of the group for not being sober.  Okay, if I don't have a long enough period of sobriety I'm probably not the one to sponsor someone else trying to get sober.  But other than that I have to make choices for myself.  Sobriety is a benchmark, not an obligation.  I haven't contradicted myself.  You are just trying to make judgments about something you don't understand.

----------


## otherone

> My statements are not contradictory in the least.  I'm "allowed" not to be sober.  Nobody is going to kick me out of the group for not being sober.  Okay, if I don't have a long enough period of sobriety I'm probably not the one to sponsor someone else trying to get sober.  But other than that I have to make choices for myself.  Sobriety is a benchmark, not an obligation.  I haven't contradicted myself.  You are just trying to make judgments about something you don't understand.


Is it the word "allowed" that is problematic?  To rephrase, you've written your group claims SOBRIETY= NO SEX OUTSIDE MARRIAGE.  Right?

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't know.  How does the Bible define fornication?


Then how do you know whether or not homosexuality is another form of fornication that is no more sinful than any other form?

Frankly that doesn't matter anyway.  I edited my post too late as you already had responded.  Phil thinks fornication is a sin.  He thinks homosexuality, whether in "marriage" or not, is fornication.  Maybe he's wrong, maybe he isn't.  Maybe fornication isn't a sin.  Maybe homosexuality in marriage isn't a sin even though it's outside the Biblical definition of marriage.  Whatever.  What I'm trying to get at is, agree with him or disagree, he's being consistent with the Bible as he understands it.  Maybe he doesn't understand it.  Maybe you understand it better.

----------


## jmdrake

> Is it the word "allowed" that is problematic?  To rephrase, you've written your group claims SOBRIETY= NO SEX OUTSIDE MARRIAGE.  Right?


Correct.  And I find that helpful.  It's something I can understand.  I've played around with other definitions of sobriety like "No excessive masturbation".  Well....how much is excessive?  It's like saying "Don't drink too much."  How much is too much?  And if your problem is that once you start you can't stop, why start?  I'm unfamiliar with SLAA's definition.  Is it "No porn and no excessive masturbation?"  Well...without porn masturbation is boring to me and not worth doing.  The two go hand in hand.  I know what works *for me*.  You may think the definition is some sort of "moralizing" but I can tell you that *for me* it isn't.  I've tried other definitions and they just didn't work.

Edit: One other thing.  I totally get why gays don't want to be compared to (what's the term for people who like sex with animals?).  One is becoming socially acceptable and the other is not.  I don't look down on people from either group.  I've done some rotten things in my life (to me anyway) and that's why I'm in the state I'm in headed into 2014.  I definitely don't think it's any more wrong for two women to have sex than it is for me to get my jollies watching them do it on my computer.  And while I've never got into male/male porn or human/animal porn, I don't just someone who has as any worse than me.  If you're happy with the way you are, whatever that is, great!  If not, do what you have to do to be happy with yourself.  Have a Happy New Year!

----------


## juleswin

> Hmmmm....that doesn't explain why someone with high speed access to the internet would choose to watch bestiality porn when that same person could watch men and women or men and men or women and women.  Do you have some stats?  It seems like you are stereotyping without evidence.  Dannno a while back posted audio of someone who called into a radio show to talk about his fetish for his dogs and he didn't sound like some country hick.  And it's interesting that you called making such a comparison a "crime".  Why?  I thought we didn't believe in thought crimes?


Ofc, that was a bit hyperbolic on my part. See I criticized Phil for comparing beastiality to homosexuality so it would be criminal in a tongue and cheek kind of way to commit the same offense. But again, the problem with watching people have sex instead of participating is a sign of lack of access. 

I don't have stats to back up my claims but every case I have seen usually involves people in very small farm town or from social outcasts. Also I dunno if you know about the stereotype about the Welsh and beastiality? anyway, I have heard that it came about at a time when Wales was mainly filled with small isolated farms and when the ladies were scarce, horny men took advantage of the next best living option . Also country farmer doesn't equate to country hick.

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't have stats to back up my claims but every case I have seen usually involves people in very small farm town or from social outcasts. Also I dunno if you know about the stereotype about the Welsh and beastiality? anyway, I have heard that it came about at a time when Wales was mainly filled with small isolated farms and when the ladies were scarce, horny men took advantage of the next best living option . Also country farmer doesn't equate to country hick.


Something went wrong with your quote.  It makes it look like I was the one criticizing Phil.    Anyhow, I judge neither group nor to I judge anyone that thinks either activity to be sin.  We all have our hangups and different definition of what is or should be a hangup.

----------


## juleswin

> Something went wrong with your quote.  It makes it look like I was the one criticizing Phil.    Anyhow, I judge neither group nor to I judge anyone that thinks either activity to be sin.  We all have our hangups and different definition of what is or should be a hangup.


Oops, the quote has been fixed. I don't necessarily mind the judging part, I just think the judging should stop when the behaviour is biologically and there is nobody being harmed by doing it.

----------


## jmdrake

> Oops, the quote has been fixed. I don't necessarily mind the judging part, I just think the judging should stop when the behaviour is biologically and there is nobody being harmed by doing it.


Well for what it's worth even the APA can't fully agree that human sexuality is biologically based.  

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx
_What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation._

What we have in the Duck Dynasty fiasco (staged event?) is a class of civilizations between people who, without absolute proof, believe a behavior is "biologically based", and people who really don't care and take their definition from their spiritual text whether that be the Bible, the Koran, the Hindu Vedics or whatever.  You mentioned adultery earlier.  There is a strong case to be made that men aren't biologically designed to be monogamous.  Many other mammal males aren't.  (Horses and lions come immediately to mind).  I go back to what I said much earlier in this thread or some other thread.  If Phil isn't pushing for new sodomy laws, then nothing that he said is a problem IMO.  If he was pushing for some law or constitutional amendment to ban fill-in-the-blank "sin" that falls in the "victim less crime" category, then I would strongly oppose his efforts.

----------


## klamath

Why do gay rights people see red when it is compared to beastiality? Why do they think gay sex is any better than animal sex? There is NO logical reason why one is good and one is bad.

----------


## pcosmar

> My big problem was him putting the 2 on the same level.
> 
> I don't really see whats confusing about that.


Because they are on the same level.

They are sin. they are contrary to God's plan. They are deviations. Immorality.
There is no Good sin and Bad sin.

They are on the same level.

----------


## otherone

> Why do gay rights people see red when it is compared to beastiality? Why do they think gay sex is any better than animal sex? There is NO logical reason why one is good and one is bad.


I think you can work it out if you are actually interested in the difference.  It's "bestiality", btw.

----------


## 69360

> Why do gay rights people see red when it is compared to beastiality? Why do they think gay sex is any better than animal sex? There is NO logical reason why one is good and one is bad.


Yes there is. An adult can give consent. An animal can't.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Because they are on the same level.
> 
> They are sin. they are contrary to God's plan. They are deviations. Immorality.
> There is no Good sin and Bad sin.
> 
> They are on the same level.


If Pastor A stubbed his toe and uttered a profanity, while Pastor B was cheating on his wife, I'd support Pastor B being removed from his position but not Pastor A. 

Some sins are referred to as "abominations" in the Bible, and are indeed worse than other sins.  But all sins are sufficient to separate a man from God.




> Yes there is. An adult can give consent. An animal can't.


To being eaten....

See why this argument doesn't make sense?

----------


## otherone

> If Pastor A stubbed his toe and uttered a profanity, while Pastor B was cheating on his wife, I'd support Pastor B being removed from his position but not Pastor A. 
> 
> Some sins are referred to as "abominations" in the Bible, and are indeed worse than other sins.  But all sins are sufficient to separate a man from God.



*Proverbs 6:16-19*
16 There are six things which the Lord hates,
Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him:
17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
And hands that shed innocent blood,
18 A heart that devises wicked plans,
Feet that run rapidly to evil,
19 A false witness who utters lies,
And one who spreads strife among brothers.

----------


## PRB

> Why?  Why would one be a smaller sin than the other?  Because one is more acceptable in modern society than the other?  Because one bothers you more on a personal level than the other?  Does the catechism teach that homosexual acts are a small sin?  And I thought your position was that it isn't a sin at all?  I'm confused.


So raping children is equally sinful as telling a lie, even if a lie has hurt nobody.

----------


## PRB

> Yes there is. An adult can give consent. An animal can't.


Animals can't consent to being eaten either, yet the Bible says nothing about eating meat being wrong.

----------


## PRB

> Because they are on the same level.
> 
> They are sin. they are contrary to God's plan. They are deviations. Immorality.
> There is no Good sin and Bad sin.
> 
> They are on the same level.


what does that mean to us as Christians, as humans, in the practical sense? Should we treat all sinners as equal? That means a liar and a child molester is equally good and equally bad, they get the same punishment and lack thereof?

----------


## otherone

> what does that mean to us as Christians, as humans, in the practical sense? Should we treat all sinners as equal? That means a liar and a child molester is equally good and equally bad, they get the same punishment and lack thereof?


Is it Christians' job to punish sin?

----------


## PRB

> Is it Christians' job to punish sin?


of course not, that's why all government is evil and all crimes should be allowed.

----------


## otherone

> of course not, that's why all government is evil and all crimes should be allowed.


????

----------


## PRB

> ????


it's not our job to punish sin, so what is our job?

----------


## brushfire

> it's not our job to punish sin, so what is our job?


To bear fruit... Some may interpret that as they wish.  The bible does a pretty good job of defining what "fruit" is.

----------


## otherone

> it's not our job to punish sin, so what is our job?


I believe it's Man's job to protect people's Rights.  Sometimes this involves punishing those who infringe upon them.  Occasionally transgressions against Individual Rights overlap with what Christians consider to be sin.  It was my understanding that it is God's job to judge and punish those that break _His_ law.

----------


## PRB

> I believe it's Man's job to protect people's Rights.


You believe? based on what? The Bible? your own opinion?




> Sometimes this involves punishing those who infringe upon them.  Occasionally transgressions against Individual Rights overlap with what Christians consider to be sin.  It was my understanding that it is God's job to judge and punish those that break _His_ law.


how do you decide which times are those? so it's just a nice coincidence that individual rights overlap with Christian ideals of sin? You mean to tell me people can have rights without being Christian? And US can be a free country without living by Christian rules?

----------


## otherone

> You mean to tell me people can have rights without being Christian? And US can be a free country without living by Christian rules?


Obviously.

----------


## green73

> You believe? based on what? The Bible? your own opinion?
> 
> 
> 
> how do you decide which times are those? so it's just a nice coincidence that individual rights overlap with Christian ideals of sin? You mean to tell me people can have rights without being Christian? And US can be a free country without living by Christian rules?

----------


## juleswin

> You believe? based on what? The Bible? your own opinion?
> 
> 
> 
> how do you decide which times are those? so it's just a nice coincidence that individual rights overlap with Christian ideals of sin? You mean to tell me people can have rights without being Christian? And US can be a free country without living by Christian rules?

----------


## klamath

> Yes there is. An adult can give consent. An animal can't.


It is the common weak argument. Animals NEVER get to consent to anything done to them by humans.

----------


## jmdrake

> So raping children is equally sinful as telling a lie, even if a lie has hurt nobody.


How did you jump from bestiality to raping children?  Straw man argument that's really not even worth a response.  I wasn't questioning whether all sins were equal.  I was questioning why the "sin" of bestiality is necessarily worse than the "sin" of homsexuality.  For a reference, actor Richard Gere once had to go to the hospital to have a gerbil extracted from...well I'd rather not mention it.  Anyway, does that make Richard Gere any "worse" of a sinner than say Rock Hudson?

----------


## Origanalist

> How did you jump from bestiality to raping children?  Straw man argument that's really not even worth a response.  I wasn't questioning whether all sins were equal.  I was questioning why the "sin" of bestiality is necessarily worse than the "sin" of homsexuality.  For a reference, actor Richard Gere once had to go to the hospital to have a gerbil extracted from...well I'd rather not mention it.  Anyway, does that make Richard Gere any "worse" of a sinner than say Rock Hudson?


Ask PETA.

----------


## jmdrake

> Ask PETA.


LOL.  True.  But in their case I would ask how is it worse than killing animals for food or clothing?

----------


## otherone

> LOL.  True.  But in their case I would ask how is it worse than killing animals for food or clothing?


In all seriousness, from your understanding of what the bible says of sexual sin, how is bestiality different than onanism, or lustful thoughts, or sodomy?  How is homosexuality different than heterosexual fornication?   With the understanding that fornication involves two people, what type of sin is bestiality?

----------


## otherone

> LOL.  True.  But in their case I would ask how is it worse than killing animals for food or clothing?


In all seriousness, from your understanding of what the bible says of sexual sin, how is bestiality different than onanism, or lustful thoughts, or sodomy?  How is homosexuality different than heterosexual fornication?   With the understanding that fornication involves two people, what type of sin is bestiality?

----------


## jmdrake

> In all seriousness, from your understanding of what the bible says of sexual sin, how is bestiality different than onanism, or lustful thoughts, or sodomy?  How is homosexuality different than heterosexual fornication?   With the understanding that fornication involves two people, what type of sin is bestiality?


What exactly is "onanism"?  Onan practiced the "withdrawal" method of birth control.  He did it to avoid getting his dead brother's wife pregnant.  Was the "sin" withdrawal and "spilling his seed"?  Or was the "sin" violation of contract?  He got what he wanted (sexual pleasure) and he did give what he was asked (an heir for his brother).  Most people equate onanism to masturbation, but was what he did really that different from using a condom?

Anyway, if fornication requires two people and bestiality only includes one...I'm not sure which one would be Biblically worse.  Seriously, I don't know.  I guess that would put it in the same category as using a sex toy instead of a person.  I'm not sure what kind of diseases people can contract from it.  I'm guessing it could be pretty bad but I don't know.

----------


## otherone

> Anyway, if fornication requires two people and bestiality only includes one...I'm not sure which one would be Biblically worse.  Seriously, I don't know.


You wrote before:



> Anyway, does that make Richard Gere any "worse" of a sinner than say Rock Hudson?


It is my understanding that we are all sinners, on an equal footing,  and that it is not our place to judge the gravity of our sin, but Gods.  So in your example, you, me, Rock Hudson, and Richard Gere are all simply sinners.   Is this accurate, bibliclaly, or no?

----------


## Voluntarist

> If someone is a serious way came out on national TV and said
> 
> "I do not understand ginger people, they have really pale skin that looks like it will peel if you rub on it, they have really unsightly freckles everywhere on their body and the hair color is just very unnatural and creepy. I just think they should marry each other and keep to themselves, but I love them all"


A couple of Gs, an R and an E, an I and an N
Just six little letters all jumbled together
Have caused damage that we may never mend
And it's important that we all respect
That if these people should happen to choose
To reclaim the word as their own
It doesn't meant the rest of you have a right to it's use.
...
So never underestimate
The power that language imparts
Sticks and stones may break your bones
But words can break hearts
A couple of Gs - jeez, unless you've had to live it
An R and an E - even I am careful with it
An I and an N - and in the end it will only offend
Don't want to have to spell it out again


Only a Ginger, can call another Ginger "Ginger"

----------


## jmdrake

> You wrote before:
> 
> It is my understanding that we are all sinners, on an equal footing,  and that it is not our place to judge the gravity of our sin, but Gods.  So in your example, you, me, Rock Hudson, and Richard Gere are all simply sinners.   Is this accurate, bibliclaly, or no?


Sure.  I don't look down on people like Richard Gere.  I thought I was clear on that.  Sorry if I wasn't.  Again, I wouldn't be shocked if someone in one of the support groups I've been to had actually tried that.  I wouldn't think that made me any better than him.

----------


## PRB

> How did you jump from bestiality to raping children?


Because all sins are equal, according to somebody.




> Straw man argument that's really not even worth a response.  I wasn't questioning whether all sins were equal.  I was questioning why the "sin" of bestiality is necessarily worse than the "sin" of homsexuality.  For a reference, actor Richard Gere once had to go to the hospital to have a gerbil extracted from...well I'd rather not mention it.  Anyway, does that make Richard Gere any "worse" of a sinner than say Rock Hudson?


Animals have no rights, so whatever you do to animals is more acceptable than the same done to humans.

----------


## PRB

> Sure.  I don't look down on people like Richard Gere.  I thought I was clear on that.  Sorry if I wasn't.  Again, I wouldn't be shocked if someone in one of the support groups I've been to had actually tried that.  I wouldn't think that made me any better than him.


do you think of yourself as better than rapists and murderers? I sure do.

----------


## PRB

> You wrote before:
> 
> 
> It is my understanding that we are all sinners, on an equal footing,  and that it is not our place to judge the gravity of our sin, but Gods.  So in your example, you, me, Rock Hudson, and Richard Gere are all simply sinners.   Is this accurate, bibliclaly, or no?


what does that mean in practice? that rapists, liars and murderers have the same chance of going to heaven?

----------


## otherone

> what does that mean in practice? that rapists, liars and murderers have the same chance of going to heaven?


Are you God's accountant?  Ask Him, not me.  I can only be concerned with my own sin...this isn't a competition.  In regards to feeling superior to rapists or murderers....good for you! 
_Proverbs 16:18 
Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.

_

----------


## otherone

> Sure.  I don't look down on people like Richard Gere.  I thought I was clear on that.  Sorry if I wasn't.  Again, I wouldn't be shocked if someone in one of the support groups I've been to had actually tried that.  I wouldn't think that made me any better than him.


By asking us who is the "worst" sinner, you asked us to judge the character of the sinner, not the sin.  This is a slippery slope, and for some, leads to "GOD HATES ****", as opposed to "God hates sin".

----------


## jmdrake

> By asking us who is the "worst" sinner, you asked us to judge the character of the sinner, not the sin.  This is a slippery slope, and for some, leads to "GOD HATES ****", as opposed to "God hates sin".


Ummmm...you be confused.  I'm the one that made the point that bestiality doesn't seem any worse than homosexuality and, if that's the case, then people should be upset at Duck Dynasty Dude for comparing the two.  If I recall correctly he compared them to adultery too.  So he's put heterosexual illicit sex on the same par with homosexual illicit sex and human animal illicit sex.  And you are offended because......?

----------


## jmdrake

> Because all sins are equal, according to somebody.


Ummmmm.....okay.  You seem to be just making random statements for no logical reason...but okay.  I've never read the verse that says "All sins are equal" in the Bible anywhere, although I know some people believe that.  But that has absolutely no relevance to anything I've said.




> Animals have no rights, so whatever you do to animals is more acceptable than the same done to humans.


I never said animals did have rights.  In fact...you're kind of making my point for me.  People are upset at Duck Dynasty Dude for comparing homosexuality to bestiality as if bestiality is somehow worse than homosexuality.  If "all sins are the same" then why be offended at Duck Dynasty Dude for making the comparison?  If bestiality isn't as bad because animals don't have rights, then why be mad at Duck Dynasty Dude?  Seriously....

----------


## jmdrake

> do you think of yourself as better than rapists and murderers? I sure do.


Thank you.  I'm glad you do.  Richard Gere is neither a rapist or a murderer though.  At least not to my knowledge.  So I don't get your point.

----------


## otherone

> Ummmm...you be confused.  I'm the one that made the point that bestiality doesn't seem any worse than homosexuality and, if that's the case, then people should be upset at Duck Dynasty Dude for comparing the two.  If I recall correctly he compared them to adultery too.  So he's put heterosexual illicit sex on the same par with homosexual illicit sex and human animal illicit sex.  And you are offended because......?


Offended? Nah. 
But I AM confused.  Aren't you the one (in post 215) that asked us to compare sinNERS? Can you see the problem in that?

----------


## otherone

> People are upset at Duck Dynasty Dude for comparing homosexuality to bestiality as if bestiality is somehow worse than homosexuality.  If "all sins are the same" then why be offended at Duck Dynasty Dude for making the comparison?  If bestiality isn't as bad because animals don't have rights, then why be mad at Duck Dynasty Dude?  Seriously....


Bestiality is deviant behavior.  Homosexuality is not.  Homosexuality should be compared to premarital sex, as they are both fornication.  Of course, THAT comparison isn't quite as pointed, is it?

----------


## jmdrake

> Offended? Nah. 
> But I AM confused.  Aren't you the one (in post 215) that asked us to compare sinNERS? Can you see the problem in that?


You have a real reading comprehension problem.  Here's what I said.




> How did you jump from bestiality to raping children?  Straw man argument that's really not even worth a response.  I wasn't questioning whether all sins were equal.  I was questioning why the "sin" of bestiality is necessarily worse than the "sin" of homsexuality.  For a reference, actor Richard Gere once had to go to the hospital to have a gerbil extracted from...well I'd rather not mention it.  Anyway, does that make Richard Gere any "worse" of a sinner than say Rock Hudson?


Nowhere did I ask you to "compare sinners".  In fact...putting this in bold for your not reading pleasure...*I wasn't questioning whether all sins were equal.  I was questioning why the "sin" of bestiality is necessarily worse than the "sin" of homsexuality.*

I'm not saying all sins are equal.  I'm not saying all sins are not equal.  I'm saying why do some people take offense at the comparison of homosexuality and bestiality?  If you believe both are sins, and if you believe "all sins are equal", then you shouldn't mind the comparison.  If you believe both are sins, and you don't think all sins are equal, then why would you think bestiality is necessarily worse the homosexuality?  For the record I do *not* believe all sins are equal.  The Bible doesn't say that.  And Jesus pronounced particular woe against those who would cause one of His "little ones" to stumble.  (See Matthew 18:6).  So I would say child rape, according to Jesus, is worse.  But again, that's really got absolutely nothing to do with anything I was saying.  PRB was just trolling.

----------


## jmdrake

> Bestiality is deviant behavior.  Homosexuality is not.


Says you.  You're nothing but a zoo-ophobe.




> Homosexuality should be compared to premarital sex, as they are both fornication. Of course, THAT comparison isn't quite as pointed, is it?


That's the Bible according the "otherone".  Let me know when you publish it.  In the Bible that Phil Robertson reads, homosexuality and bestiality are covered in the same chapter.  And "fornication" isn't really even covered in the Old Testament.  If a man and a woman fornicated in the OT, they got married.

----------


## otherone

> You have a real reading comprehension problem.  Here's what I said.
> 
> does that make Richard Gere any "worse" of a sinner than say Rock Hudson?
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere did I ask you to "compare sinners".


????????

----------


## jmdrake

> ????????


Those "??????" really show that you are not very bright.  I wasn't asking you to "compare sinners".  I was asking you *why you already are comparing sinners*!

And in a further post you proved that *YOU* are the one making the comparisons.




> Bestiality is deviant behavior. Homosexuality is not.


See?  ^That is a comparison.  ^That is YOU making one sin worse than the other.

----------


## otherone

> In the Bible that Phil Robertson reads, homosexuality and bestiality are covered in the same chapter.


Got it.  Now I know why you believe $#@!ing a person and $#@!ing an animal to be the same.

----------


## jmdrake

> Got it.  Now I know why you believe $#@!ing a person and $#@!ing an animal to be the same.


You realize that the OP in this thread is about GLAAD attacking Phil Robertson for not being a "real Christian" right?  You realize that Christians typically base their beliefs on the Bible right?  No, I guess not.  Anyway, your hatred of bestiality is based on....?  (I'm wondering since you've made it clear that the Bible isn't your standard.)

----------


## otherone

> Those "??????" really show that you are not very bright.  I wasn't asking you to "compare sinners".  I was asking you *why you already are comparing sinners*!
> 
> And in a further post you proved that *YOU* are the one making the comparisons.
> 
> See?  ^That is a comparison.  ^That is YOU making one sin worse than the other.


Dude.  You are the one comparing sinners.  I'm the one talking about BEHAVIORS.

----------


## jmdrake

> Dude.  You are the one comparing sinners.  I'm the one talking about BEHAVIORS.


  Sure.  I bet you're dumb enough to believe that.

----------


## otherone

> You realize that the OP in this thread is about GLAAD attacking Phil Robertson for not being a "real Christian" right?  You realize that Christians typically base their beliefs on the Bible right?  No, I guess not.  Anyway, your hatred of bestiality is based on....?  (I'm wondering since you've made it clear that the Bible isn't your standard.)


I couldn't care less about GLAAD or Phil Robertson.  What I hate are self-deceiving hypocrites that make a pretense of "loving the sinner but hating the sin", yet when you scratch the surface they are just plain 'ol bigoted.   Let me ask you...who's the worst sinner....the *** or the hypocrite?

----------


## jmdrake

> I couldn't care less about GLAAD or Phil Robertson.  What I hate are self-deceiving hypocrites that make a pretense of "loving the sinner but hating the sin", yet when you scratch the surface they are just plain 'ol bigoted.   Let me ask you...who's the worst sinner....the *** or the hypocrite?


I don't know.  You have a pretense of not hating the person who loves (really loves) animals but hating the behavior.  So I guess you'll have to look in the mirror on that one.

----------


## otherone

> Sure.  I bet you're dumb enough to believe that.


You didn't ask what was the worst sin, you asked who was the worst sinner.  Big difference.

----------


## otherone

> I don't know.  You have a pretense of not hating the person who loves (really loves) animals but hating the behavior.  So I guess you'll have to look in the mirror on that one.


LOL.  I make no claims of piety.  I can hate whomever I choose.

----------


## jmdrake

> You didn't ask what was the worst sin, you asked who was the worst sinner.  Big difference.


A sinner is a person who sins.  It's like saying "Who sings the best" as opposed to "who is the best singer."  No difference whether you want to pretend there is one or not.  And the bottom line, which you want to ignore but I won't let you, is that I wasn't saying one was a bigger sinner or the other.  I was saying I didn't think one was worse than the other.  You are the one to say one is worse than the other.  You are projecting your on anti animal-loving bigotry onto me.

----------


## jmdrake

> LOL.  I make no claims of piety.  I can hate whomever I choose.


Ah.  So you're just trolling then.  Thanks for letting me know.

----------


## otherone

> A sinner is a person who sins.  It's like saying "Who sings the best" as opposed to "who is the best singer."  No difference whether you want to pretend there is one or not.


Thanks for owning that.  At least PRB was upfront about his self-righteousness.  You took a little coaxing to admit your pride.

----------


## jmdrake

> Thanks for owning that.  At least PRB was upfront about his self-righteousness.  You took a little coaxing to admit your pride.


Trollin trollin trollin....keep those posts a flowin...act like you be knowin...troll onnnnnn.....

From what I can tell PRB is on your side of the argument, whatever that is.  So you're shooting down one of your own trolls.

----------


## otherone

> From what I can tell PRB is on your side of the argument, *whatever that is*.


In a nutshell:
_James 2:10
For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it._

----------


## jmdrake

> In a nutshell:
> _James 2:10
> For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it._


Yep.  That not the same as saying all sins are equal though.  But again this is all irrelevant as you are the one that's wanting to weigh one sin (bestiality) as worse than another (homosexuality).

What you miss, in taking a verse out of context, is verse 11.

_11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law._

The point is, you have broken the same 10 commandment law regardless of which commandment you break.  The ultimate wages of all sin not repented of is death.  But some sins were capital crimes in the OT and others were not.  No sin is a capital crime in the NT, the law of liberty making one free from the law of sin and death.  That said, some sins, like causing children to spiritually stumble, earned extra condemnation from Jesus.

----------


## otherone

> But again this is all irrelevant as you are the one that's wanting to weigh one sin (bestiality) as worse than another (homosexuality).


Where?  I only claimed that one is no more a sinner than anyone else.

----------


## otherone

> What you miss, in taking a verse out of context, is verse 11.


Bible Forum

So just what did the apostle James really mean when he said the following;

"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all." James 2:10?

Let's look at the REST of what James wrote to get a better understanding.

Now if James, and the other writers of the bible, provided no other scriptures, it would appear that salvation was unattainable. Why? Because God is coming back to punish "sinners", and to sin is to break God's laws. If we took the above verse for face value only, along with a few others like; "For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.", or "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" it would be useless for ANYONE to have hope for salvation.

But thank God James, and the others writers, explained what they were saying. Let's start with James;

[8] If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:

So the very first thing James tells us to do is to KEEP A LAW! Knowing that NO ONE is perfect, why would James start off by telling us to keep a law? If he thinks that by breaking just one law you break them all, why would he start off by telling us to keep a law? Does that make sense? No it does not! Let's continue;

[9] But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.

Now James tells us, although you may love your neighbor, if you still have respect to persons, you have still committed a sin. So although you keep the one law of, loving your neighbor, if you break ANY OTHER LAWS, you are still a sinner. So it does not matter WHAT law you break, if you break ANY law it is AS IF you have broken them all. James goes on to explain this in the following verse;

[10] For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

Now let's read the next verse to see how James explains this;

[11] For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.

First off notice what commandments James is referring to, but more importantly, WHO it was that gave the commandments. The "he" here is none other than Jesus, and James explains to us if a person does not commit adultery, but yet kills, he is a sinner. The same would hold true for the following;

If a person goes their entire life without killing or stealing, but they are constantly bearing false witness against their neighbor, it would be no difference than if they had spent their entire life killing or stealing. Though they kept SOME of God's laws, yet broke just one, it would be AS THOUGH they broke any of the others, NOT that they broke them all!

What James is saying here is that there are no small sins nor big sins. There is no such thing as a little "white lie"! A LIE IS A LIE!! And as far as God is concerned A SIN IS A SIN! Let's read the above verse again;

[10] For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

So is James saying you are literally braking ALL of Gods laws if you break just one? No he is not! James is saying just what he explained in the verses that followed verse 10 above; A SIN IS A SIN!!!

Now let's look at what James says next. For some reason THESE verses never seem to be quoted with the rest;

[12] So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.

So here we see James endorsing keeping God's laws. Again, why would he tell us to do so? He tells us why in the NEXT VERSE;

[13] For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.

Because if you know to do what God says and DO NOT, God will have NO MERCY on you when it is time for judgment!!

Now let's look at just a few more endorsements for keeping God's Laws;

Matt.19
[17] And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
[18] He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
[19] Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

John.14
[15] If ye love me, keep my commandments.
[21] He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

John.15
[10] If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

1Cor.7
[19] Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

1John.2
[3] And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
[4] He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

1John.3
[22] And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.
[24] And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.

1John.5
[2] By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.
[3] For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
2John.1
[6] And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.

Rev.14
[12] Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

Rev.22
[14] Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

From the very beginning of man's life here on Earth God has asked only one thing of him; TO OBEY HIM! And from Gen. to Rev. the same theme is preached; Obey God and keep his commandments.

But there will be those of you that listen to some that try to tell you it is useless to even try to keep God's laws, because THEY don't understand (1) verse!

Please go and re-read what James is telling us.

- He IS NOT saying if you break one law you are breaking ALL of God's laws!

- He IS NOT saying it is useless to try to keep God's Laws!

Think about it.....I'm sure there are those that will never murder someone, and will die NOT having done so. That person that died, and NEVER murdered anyone DID NOT break that law. So he DID NOT break ALL of Gods laws.

There are some that have NEVER stolen one item in their life. THAT person did not break THAT law, so he DID NOT break ALL of Gods laws.

But if the person that never murdered, or the one that never stole, was a constant liar HE IS A SINNER!

Did they break ALL of God's laws? No they did not! But breaking just one of them is THE SAME as breaking ANY of the others! Why? Because a SIN IS A SIN!!

I pray there will be those that use common sense and see that, just because you do not keep God's laws perfectly DOES NOT mean you are not to try to keep His commandments.

Pray and ask God for understanding and wisdom.


.

----------


## jmdrake

> [URL="http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/227132-So-What-Did-James-Really-Mean"]Bible Forum


LOL.  You're quoting Bible forums and you don't even believe the Bible?  Needless to say I'm not even bothering with your trolling tripe.  You are the one making a difference between sins in this thread, not me.  That said, Jesus clearly condemned some sins more than others.  You're a hypocrite and a troll by your own admission.  Enjoy!

----------


## jmdrake

//

----------


## jmdrake

> Where?  I only claimed that one is no more a sinner than anyone else.


You claimed bestiality is "deviant" behavior and homosexuality is not.  I'm saying that from a biblical standpoint they are in the same category.  And you've yet to give any real reason why you are saying one is worse than the other.  You took the exact opposite position of "one is no more a sinner than anyone else."

----------


## TER

The word translated as sin in English is, in the Scriptures, amartia, which in Greek literally means "miss the mark".  Thus, when we sin, we are missing the mark.  This is the biblical understanding and correct interpretation.  

Some sins miss the mark much greater then others and are more dangerous and difficult to erase.  Some sins are extremely hard to stop doing and to eventually repent of.  There are white lies and then there is rape and murder and these sins vary in severity and consequence.

 That we all sin and miss the mark is a given, and that is why God came down so that He might restore the mark and reveal to us the mark which is Christ Jesus.  

We then must listen the Him and learn from Him and imitate Him, and follow His commandments, so that we too might live in Him and living in Him, become sons and daughters of the Most High.  

Prayer, fasting, and almsgiving is the prescription given to us by our Great Physician, and the medicine He gives is His Holy Spirit.

----------


## jmdrake

> The word translated as sin in English is, in the Scriptures, amartia, which in Greek literally means "miss the mark".  Thus, when we sin, we are missing the mark.  This is the biblical understanding and correct interpretation.  
> 
> Some sins miss the mark much greater then others and are more dangerous and difficult to erase.  Some sins are extremely hard to stop doing and to eventually repent of.  There are white lies and then there is rape and murder and these sins vary in severity and consequence.
> 
>  That we all sin and miss the mark is a given, and that is why God came down so that He might restore the mark and reveal to us the mark which is Christ Jesus.  
> 
> We then must listen the Him and learn from Him and imitate Him, and follow His commandments, so that we too might live in Him and living in Him, become sons and daughters of the Most High.  
> 
> Prayer, fasting, and almsgiving is the prescription given to us by our Great Physician, and the medicine He gives is His Holy Spirit.


_You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to TER again_

----------


## PRB

> Thank you.  I'm glad you do.  Richard Gere is neither a rapist or a murderer though.  At least not to my knowledge.  So I don't get your point.


My point is, I might have my own non-biblical reasons to believe some sins are worse than others, even if I can't compare every single one to every single one, but I'm not afraid to say I am better than murderers and rapists, even if I'm a liar or cheater on my spouse.

Are you glad I do because you believe some sins and some sinners are worse than others, even if the Bible might not say so?

----------


## PRB

> Are you God's accountant?  Ask Him, not me.  I can only be concerned with my own sin...this isn't a competition.  In regards to feeling superior to rapists or murderers....good for you! 
> _Proverbs 16:18 
> Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.
> 
> _


Thanks for admitting you don't know. I hope you get what YOU want though

----------


## PRB

> Thanks for owning that.  At least PRB was upfront about his self-righteousness.  You took a little coaxing to admit your pride.


 I agree with jmdrake, I don't think the distinction between sin and sinner are more than semantic. I think people who say "hate the crime and sin, not the criminal and sinner" are just being overly polite to avoid offending the person they're judging. A person is what he does, if he wasn't, he'd be schizophrenic or not in control of his person/body/behavior, in which case, responsibility is pointless. You must assume a person has autonomy, choice, and free will to assign guilt, blame and credit.

----------


## jmdrake

> My point is, I might have my own non-biblical reasons to believe some sins are worse than others, even if I can't compare every single one to every single one, but I'm not afraid to say I am better than murderers and rapists, even if I'm a liar or cheater on my spouse.
> 
> Are you glad I do because you believe some sins and some sinners are worse than others, even if the Bible might not say so?


Again, what does that have to do with my point that nobody has articulated a legitimate reason why bestiality is worse than homosexuality? 

Edit: Rape involves violating the will of another person.  Pedophilia involves violating the (possible) innocence of a child.  I think most people would agree that animals don't actually have rights.  If you don't have a right to object to being killed and eaten then you don't really have a right to object to anything else.  As far as being "glad" about what you believe, believe what you want.  The Bible clearly put some sins in different categories, James 2:10 notwithstanding.  

_Matthew 18:6 NLT New Living Translation

But if you cause one of these little ones who trusts in me to fall into sin, it would be better for you to have a large millstone tied around your neck and be drowned in the depths of the sea._

I don't know how anyone can read ^that and think all sin is the same in the eyes of Jesus.

But again, what does that have to do with the point I was making?  You can believe that all sin is the same and believe that homosexuality and bestiality are on the same level.  You can believe that different sins are of different weight and *still* believe that homosexuality and bestiality are on the same level.  Or you can believe that different sins are of different weight and that homosexuality and bestiality are on different levels.  The question I've raised repeatedly, and haven't gotten a straight answer yet, is why anyone things homosexuality and bestiality are or should be on different levels?  From a personal standpoint, I'm not interested in either but don't judge anyone who engages in either.  From a biblical standpoint, both seem to be condemned at least in the Old Testament.  From a legal/liberty standpoint, I wouldn't want anyone put in prison for either.

----------

