Duck Dynasty Plucked

[tokeprep]

I think one of the main reasons people are offended is because homosexuality was compared to a bunch of things that are choices. If you're gay, you're gay there's no choice involved, so stating 'gays should go to hell' is condemning a group of people who had no choice in the way they are biologically configured. If you want to cheat on your wife, that's a decision you make to be unfaithful (not to mention a marriage is a legally standing contract you make a conscious decision of signing). IMO, the comparison is rather insulting to gay people, so I can see why gay people would be insulted by his comments.

I wish anti-gay people understood that we're just as mystified by their sexual predilections as they are by ours. If you're straight and you feel absolutely nothing looking at a man, fine, I don't care and have no interest in convincing you, because I feel exactly the same way looking at a woman. I don't find women attractive; I don't find them sexually desirable; I didn't enjoy kissing or touching a woman (I tried, something most straight people probably can't say). I just can't fathom the interest. After accepting that I was gay, I have never seen or met a woman who made me question my sexuality at all.

I never made any choice. In high school when I realized I was staring at and thinking about men rather than women, I fought very hard against it. A couple years later, I finally admitted it to myself: "You're gay." I cried so much. All I could think about for a long time was that it was unacceptable and that I could not allow myself be gay. I tried to fixate on a girl I wasn't even attracted to; I forced myself to watch nothing but straight porn; I begged and pleaded to be normal in my prayers. Obviously it never went away. With all that fighting, I didn't have my first kiss until I was almost 18. When he kissed me it was the most incredible thing I'd felt in my life. I spent my first year in college totally in the closet even though I had a boyfriend; I lied to everyone about who he was and told myself that I was going to be with a girl after I finished school. I avoided making friends because I didn't want to have to reveal my sexuality to anyone; I didn't want to be asked about it and I didn't want to lie. When I graduated, I made good on my promise. I met a girl at a party and she took me home. It was awkward--not enjoyable at all. I never fooled around with a girl again, and I finally realized that I didn't want to lie to or hurt another person just so that I could be a coward and hide who I was.

The haters don't understand the harm they cause. They think being intolerant will erase the gays, but it just hurts everyone and creates so much suffering. How many guys are drinking themselves to death because they're closeted and miserably living a lie? How many women do they mislead into empty relationships that could never possibly be fulfilling? How many children are born into these unfortunate situations? How many people have their lives destroyed when the secret comes out? Any person who wants to force that misery on other human beings is a sadistic, heartless bastard.

People could be so much happier if everyone dropped the shit. I've talked to and met so many closeted guys who are struggling in the same way I was with their "choice." Friends, parents, fraternities, sports teams, and every other social group imaginable keep them trapped in the lie because they're afraid of being condemned, castigated, and judged for an impulse that is totally beyond their control. To be compared to a criminal or a terrorist--it's disgusting.

 

[see4]

I wish anti-gay people understood that we're just as mystified by their sexual predilections as they are by ours. If you're straight and you feel absolutely nothing looking at a man, fine, I don't care and have no interest in convincing you, because I feel exactly the same way looking at a woman. I don't find women attractive; I don't find them sexually desirable; I didn't enjoy kissing or touching a woman (I tried, something most straight people probably can't say). I just can't fathom the interest. After accepting that I was gay, I have never seen or met a woman who made me question my sexuality at all.

I never made any choice. In high school when I realized I was staring at and thinking about men rather than women, I fought very hard against it. A couple years later, I finally admitted it to myself: "You're gay." I cried so much. All I could think about for a long time was that it was unacceptable and that I could not allow myself be gay. I tried to fixate on a girl I wasn't even attracted to; I forced myself to watch nothing but straight porn; I begged and pleaded to be normal in my prayers. Obviously it never went away. With all that fighting, I didn't have my first kiss until I was almost 18. When he kissed me it was the most incredible thing I'd felt in my life. I spent my first year in college totally in the closet even though I had a boyfriend; I lied to everyone about who he was and told myself that I was going to be with a girl after I finished school. I avoided making friends because I didn't want to have to reveal my sexuality to anyone; I didn't want to be asked about it and I didn't want to lie. When I graduated, I made good on my promise. I met a girl at a party and she took me home. It was awkward--not enjoyable at all. I never fooled around with a girl again, and I finally realized that I didn't want to lie to or hurt another person just so that I could be a coward and hide who I was.

The haters don't understand the harm they cause. They think being intolerant will erase the gays, but it just hurts everyone and creates so much suffering. How many guys are drinking themselves to death because they're closeted and miserably living a lie? How many women do they mislead into empty relationships that could never possibly be fulfilling? How many children are born into these unfortunate situations? How many people have their lives destroyed when the secret comes out? Any person who wants to force that misery on other human beings is a sadistic, heartless bastard.

People could be so much happier if everyone dropped the shit. I've talked to and met so many closeted guys who are struggling in the same way I was with their "choice." Friends, parents, fraternities, sports teams, and every other social group imaginable keep them trapped in the lie because they're afraid of being condemned, castigated, and judged for an impulse that is totally beyond their control. To be compared to a criminal or a terrorist--it's disgusting.

Well said dude. And Im sorry you had to deal with bigots, being picked on is one thing, but being ridiculed constantly for something out of your control and wish you could stop but can't must be extremely difficult. It takes a person with real courage to deal with what you deal with, and Carne as well. Hope he is doing well..

 

[beenthere]

The whole cast is now sticking by Phil.
Either A&E takes Phil back, or the show is over!

Good for DD, good for free speech.

 

[Beefbisquit]

The whole cast is now sticking by Phil.
Either A&E takes Phil back, or the show is over!

Good for DD, good for free speech.

Free speech hasn't been, and will not be under attack.

Phil Robertson is free to say whatever he wants.... just not on A&E. Are you suggesting that Phil Robertson should be allowed to say whatever he wants on a privately owned TV station? That's what it sounds like you're saying.

If that's the case I should be allowed to do and say whatever I want in your privately owned home.

 

[NoDrama]

Don't worry people, your precious DD isn't going away. You don't kill the cash cow just because it stepped on your foot.

 

[travisw]

The whole cast is now sticking by Phil.
Either A&E takes Phil back, or the show is over!

Good for DD, good for free speech.

This was never a free speech issue. DD exists to sell advertising. If this lunatic says something that gets him fired from his TV job his free speech hasn't been infringed. He can still say whatever he wants, just not on that show.

If one of the millions of employees, who supports your vast empire, said something racist or homophobic to one of your clients, and your client was offended, would you shrug your shoulders and tell the client free speech or would you fire the employee?

 

[NLXSK1]

Free speech hasn't been, and will not be under attack.

Phil Robertson is free to say whatever he wants.... just not on A&E. Are you suggesting that Phil Robertson should be allowed to say whatever he wants on a privately owned TV station? That's what it sounds like you're saying.

If that's the case I should be allowed to do and say whatever I want in your privately owned home.

He didnt say it on the show. He said it during an interview with GQ magazine.

 

[beenthere]

Free speech hasn't been, and will not be under attack.

Phil Robertson is free to say whatever he wants.... just not on A&E. Are you suggesting that Phil Robertson should be allowed to say whatever he wants on a privately owned TV station? That's what it sounds like you're saying.

If that's the case I should be allowed to do and say whatever I want in your privately owned home.

This was never a free speech issue. DD exists to sell advertising. If this lunatic says something that gets him fired from his TV job his free speech hasn't been infringed. He can still say whatever he wants, just not on that show.

If one of the millions of employees, who supports your vast empire, said something racist or homophobic to one of your clients, and your client was offended, would you shrug your shoulders and tell the client free speech or would you fire the employee?

Of course it's a free speech issue.
Anytime someone is punished for exercising their free speech, it's a free speech issue.
What it isn't, is a legal or constitutional issue and that's where you are not making the distinction.
Legally, A&E can fire this guy, there's no argument there, however, DD can also retaliate against them, also legally.

 

[beenthere]

If one of the millions of employees, who supports your vast empire, said something racist or homophobic to one of your clients, and your client was offended, would you shrug your shoulders and tell the client free speech or would you fire the employee?

Dude, you mad or something?

 

[NLXSK1]

Of course it's a free speech issue.
Anytime someone is punished for exercising their free speech, it's a free speech issue.
What it isn't, is a legal or constitutional issue and that's where you are not making the distinction.
Legally, A&E can fire this guy, there's no argument there, however, DD can also retaliate against them, also legally.

I am sure there is a clause in the contract that protects A&E. So yeah, he can sue them but not over the first amendment.

The first amendment protects against government restriction of speech, not private individuals.

 

[Beefbisquit]

Of course it's a free speech issue.
Anytime someone is punished for exercising their free speech, it's a free speech issue.
What it isn't, is a legal or constitutional issue and that's where you are not making the distinction.
Legally, A&E can fire this guy, there's no argument there, however, DD can also retaliate against them, also legally.

Punished? The people at A&E have the right to run their private company as they see fit. An employee claiming homosexuals are sinners and comparing them to thieves is ground for dismissal from virtually any professional organization. Free speech doesn't secure your job after you make stupid comments, it prevents the police from showing up at your door for having an opinion.

"Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas using one's body and property to anyone who is willing to receive them"

Phil Robertson does not own A&E and has no say in what they air or who they employ. A&E has not used any coercion to stop him from stating his opinion either. The only thing they did was revoke his privilege to use their private network to do so. Explain to me why A&E has any obligation whatsoever to let Phil Robertson say whatever he wants on their network. How does Free speech afford him domain/usage over someone else's private property?

If I owned a corporation and found out that one of my employees was being discriminatory towards someone I'd most certainly fire him/her too.

 

[Beefbisquit]

lol...



Thought this was just plain funny....

 

[beenthere]

Punished? The people at A&E have the right to run their private company as they see fit. An employee claiming homosexuals are sinners and comparing them to thieves is ground for dismissal from virtually any professional organization. Free speech doesn't secure your job after you make stupid comments, it prevents the police from showing up at your door for having an opinion.

"Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas using one's body and property to anyone who is willing to receive them"

Phil Robertson does not own A&E and has no say in what they air or who they employ. A&E has not used any coercion to stop him from stating his opinion either. The only thing they did was revoke his privilege to use their private network to do so. Explain to me why A&E has any obligation whatsoever to let Phil Robertson say whatever he wants on their network. How does Free speech afford him domain/usage over someone else's private property?

If I owned a corporation and found out that one of my employees was being discriminatory towards someone I'd most certainly fire him/her too.

Of course he was punished for exercising his free speech, if you disagree, you are in denial.
I'm not arguing the legalities, just the principle.
No need for you to keep repeating the fact A&E has the right to fire him, I said the same thing in the post you quoted.
As NLXSK1 said earlier, the 1st Amendment is to protect the citizens from government not citizens from other citizens.

 

[Bombur]

Of course he was punished for exercising his free speech, if you disagree, you are in denial.
I'm not arguing the legalities, just the principle.
No need for you to keep repeating the fact A&E has the right to fire him, I said the same thing in the post you quoted.
As NLXSK1 said earlier, the 1st Amendment is to protect the citizens from government not citizens from other citizens.

If his free speech wasn't violated, how is it a free speech issue?

 

[Beefbisquit]

Of course he was punished for exercising his free speech, if you disagree, you are in denial.
I'm not arguing the legalities, just the principle.
No need for you to keep repeating the fact A&E has the right to fire him, I said the same thing in the post you quoted.
As NLXSK1 said earlier, the 1st Amendment is to protect the citizens from government not citizens from other citizens.

Just because it's a consequence doesn't mean it's a punishment. If someone I knew joined a terrorist organization I wouldn't stop hanging out with them to 'punish' them, but because I don't want to be associated with that type of organization and activity. Just because someone disagrees with something you say and doesn't want to be your friend anymore doesn't mean there's a rights violation.

I'm not sure where you get 'punishment' from. Unless you mean the fact that A&E has the power in the business relationship, and exercised their right to terminate his contract based on his actions. Although not designed to be a punishment, it would certainly be negative to Phil Robertson. I still don't think just because something negative happens to you because of something you did that it's a punishment.

I've never heard anyone refer to 'punishment' at work either. lol

 

[NLXSK1]

Just because it's a consequence doesn't mean it's a punishment. If someone I knew joined a terrorist organization I wouldn't stop hanging out with them to 'punish' them, but because I don't want to be associated with that type of organization and activity. Just because someone disagrees with something you say and doesn't want to be your friend anymore doesn't mean there's a rights violation.

I'm not sure where you get 'punishment' from. Unless you mean the fact that A&E has the power in the business relationship, and exercised their right to terminate his contract based on his actions. Although not designed to be a punishment, it would certainly be negative to Phil Robertson. I still don't think just because something negative happens to you because of something you did that it's a punishment.

I've never heard anyone refer to 'punishment' at work either. lol

It is a pretty good argument that it was not a punishment at all. Phil doesnt need the money nor publicity. A&E didnt like what they said and they suspended him. If they dont let him back on the show and continue as usual it is their own mistake.

 

[BigNBushy]

I also think it's the way he structured his comments. He compared gays to thieves... that's pretty rude to say the least. One is an act of deception done by someone against another; a crime that affects people directly. The other is just two people who love each other and like to fuck. An action that doesn't affect anyone but those two people.

It's a pretty shitty comparison, and I can understand why A&E, an 'arts channel' wouldn't want to be associated with lumping gays with thieves and animal fuckers.

I think a little different. You have to, at least in order to be fair, look at the comments from the perspective of the person making them.

What he did was say it was a sin, then went on to list other sins. In his mind, I think he did so to not be seen as rude. How many people out ther have never stolen, slept with someone not their spouse (notice, I didn't say other than your spouse, sex out of wedlock, two unmarried people is adultery in Christianity), fucked a sheep of large dog, or lied? Not that many.

The point, I think, he was trying to get across is that while homosexuality might be a sin, we're all sinners. So he wasn't equating homosexuality to theft from the sence you take it, rather from a perspective that it is a sin,and to God all sin is equal.

He grouped iit to the other sins, in his mind to 'lessen the blow' but it is this listing of homosexuality with other things that has some folks so pissed.

Its a Christian thing.

 

[Beefbisquit]

I think a little different. You have to, at least in order to be fair, look at the comments from the perspective of the person making them.

Good point, go on....

What he did was say it was a sin, then went on to list other sins. In his mind, I think he did so to not be seen as rude. How many people out ther have never stolen, slept with someone not their spouse (notice, I didn't say other than your spouse, sex out of wedlock, two unmarried people is adultery in Christianity), fucked a sheep of large dog, or lied? Not that many.

The point, I think, he was trying to get across is that while homosexuality might be a sin, we're all sinners. So he wasn't equating homosexuality to theft from the sence you take it, rather from a perspective that it is a sin,and to God all sin is equal.

He grouped iit to the other sins, in his mind to 'lessen the blow' but it is this listing of homosexuality with other things that has some folks so pissed.

Its a Christian thing.

Well put, sir. Well put. I'm not 100% sure either way what he meant by his comments. I guess that's what all the controversy is about. lol

I still don't agree that homosexuality is a'sin', (or that sin or god exist) but he is certainly entitled to his opinion.

He did seem really nostalgic about the Jim Crow days.... that's a bit 'suspect'. No one should be nostalgic for a time when an entire group of people were treated as inferior citizens, specifically for the reason that 'it was good for them, they were happy then*'. No one should be treated as an outcast, everyone should enjoy the same liberties.

*I'm paraphrasing.

 

[BigNBushy]

Most black boys had fathers back in those days. In some respects the blacks were better off when they had their own, shittier water fountains.

Not saying equality is what has harmed the black community, democrats have. But that's a different thread.

I think he said they seemed happier back then. Seems to me those are typically the kinds of comments the left abhors. Anytime you say that most slave owners didn't beat their slaves every Wednesday whether they needed it or not, buck gets really pissed.

 

[BigNBushy]

I wish anti-gay people understood that we're just as mystified by their sexual predilections as they are by ours. If you're straight and you feel absolutely nothing looking at a man, fine, I don't care and have no interest in convincing you, because I feel exactly the same way looking at a woman. I don't find women attractive; I don't find them sexually desirable; I didn't enjoy kissing or touching a woman (I tried, something most straight people probably can't say). I just can't fathom the interest. After accepting that I was gay, I have never seen or met a woman who made me question my sexuality at all.

I never made any choice. In high school when I realized I was staring at and thinking about men rather than women, I fought very hard against it. A couple years later, I finally admitted it to myself: "You're gay." I cried so much. All I could think about for a long time was that it was unacceptable and that I could not allow myself be gay. I tried to fixate on a girl I wasn't even attracted to; I forced myself to watch nothing but straight porn; I begged and pleaded to be normal in my prayers. Obviously it never went away. With all that fighting, I didn't have my first kiss until I was almost 18. When he kissed me it was the most incredible thing I'd felt in my life. I spent my first year in college totally in the closet even though I had a boyfriend; I lied to everyone about who he was and told myself that I was going to be with a girl after I finished school. I avoided making friends because I didn't want to have to reveal my sexuality to anyone; I didn't want to be asked about it and I didn't want to lie. When I graduated, I made good on my promise. I met a girl at a party and she took me home. It was awkward--not enjoyable at all. I never fooled around with a girl again, and I finally realized that I didn't want to lie to or hurt another person just so that I could be a coward and hide who I was.

The haters don't understand the harm they cause. They think being intolerant will erase the gays, but it just hurts everyone and creates so much suffering. How many guys are drinking themselves to death because they're closeted and miserably living a lie? How many women do they mislead into empty relationships that could never possibly be fulfilling? How many children are born into these unfortunate situations? How many people have their lives destroyed when the secret comes out? Any person who wants to force that misery on other human beings is a sadistic, heartless bastard.

People could be so much happier if everyone dropped the shit. I've talked to and met so many closeted guys who are struggling in
the same way I was with their "choice." Friends, parents, fraternities, sports teams, and every other social group imaginable keep them trapped in the lie because they're afraid of being condemned, castigated, and judged for an impulse that is totally beyond their control. To be compared to a criminal or a terrorist--it's disgusting.

Well said. I fooled around with my best friend in my early teens. I guess in some sort of fucked up way you could say I lost my virginity to a guy. As soon as my dick went into a female though, I never looked back.

I think the epitome of ignorance is anyone who assumes that sexuality is a choice.

Homosexuals, pedophiles, and goat fuckers all suffer from some sort of sexual malformity. All should be respected as fellow human beings, only the pedo's actually hurt anyone.