'Duck Dynasty' star makes anti-gay comments; GLAAD slams

[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.