Phil Robertson, suspended by AE

Agreed with Cedar Park here 100%. I dont care if someone likes a male apendage being shoved into their crapper. Thats their choice, and good for them. My dislike of that sexual activity does not make me homophobic. Theres a lot of things I dont like, but I do believe that people who enjoy it should be able to do it.

That does not mean I believe that it should promoted or glorified on TV. Homosexuals make up a small percentage of the population, and even if they are born that way, no one can ever convince any rational person that that is the way humans were designed, whether by evolution or by God, to mate. You are born that way, fine, but people are born with all kinds of genetic mutations. That doesnt make them normal or the way they were suppose to be, and certainly not something that should be glamorized or promoted in any way, shape or form.
 
The sad part about these stories is the message that no one should express any public opinion that can in any way be considered controversial or offensive to anyone. Our politicians have learned this lesson a long time ago. We are headed towards a sterile, white-washed public forum.
 
ho-mo-pho-bi-a
1. Fear of contempt for lesbian and gay men
2. Behavior based on such feelings
Fits you like a glove Cedar Park.....
tongue.gif
 
cmtsip: I'm among the first to step forward on this board in support of gay marriage and allowing gays to openly serve in the military.
I don't believe that the Bible, a book, written and edited by men, should be considered infallible or that the words of the Apostle Paul carry the same weight as those uttered by Jesus. But I respect a lot of people who more or less worship the Bible as a diety. I think A&E made a big mistake coming down hard on a man expressing honesty-held, common beliefs.
 
Crockett, If there is one thing people in the red states respect it is the freedom of speech..... just ask the Dixie Chicks.

hookem.gif
 
cnt??
your posted definition:
"ho-mo-pho-bi-a
1. Fear of contempt for lesbian and gay men
2. Behavior based on such feelings "

So someone who is homophobic is afraid of contempt for lesbian and gay men?

Uh wouldn't that be lesbians and gay men? wouldn't they be the ones in fear of contempt?

I think you made that definition up but didn't understand what you wrote.
 
Please show me where I showed "contempt" or "fear." You're slinging around terms with no basis in truth. Seriously, where is the contempt or fear? Back up you claims and your words.
 
CPF
According to his posted definition a homophobe is afraid OF contempt shown for lesbians or gay men.

That sounds like it would apply to the people at GLADD. They certainly are afraid of contempt shown for their lifestyle( in some cases with good reason)

His definition does not fit anything you've posted.
 
F GLAAD. They don't deserve any respect from people with other points of view. Typical attitude of most dems/libs. They have no tolerence of anyone who thinks differently than they do.
 
sorry My error
but cMt
why would someone who disliked gays have a fear of contempt for them?


that makes no sense
 
Again CMT, you provide no evidence, just accusations. Your argument is extremely weak. Your post is a perfect illustration of name-calling without factual evidence to back it up. Again, please provide some type of evidence of my "homophobic" behavior. I'd suggest that you have none because it doesn't exist. Anyway, good luck.
 
6721---MY err and I stand corrected! It should have read:
Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men and behavior based on such a feeling.... Still support Phil's rights, A&E's rights, and Cedar Park's rights!
 
cmt
Actually that is very stand up of you, to admit eht error

BUT
if as you say you support the rights it is surprising you go out of your way to try to insult what you think is CPF's ideology
 
This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever seen a business do. Cracker Barrel pulls the Duck Dynasty merchandise off its shelves to take a stand against Robertson. This is a company whose executives have never set foot in one of their restaurants and obviously have no idea who their customers are. Anyone who has ever eaten in a Cracker Barrel knows that the customers are disproportionately older, rural, and Southern (at least culturally Southern). In other words, their customers are the most likely demographic to be pro-Phil Robertson.

That's dumb enough, but once they got the complaints, they capitulated overnight. So they look bad to everybody. Christians are going to think they're politically correct and spineless, and the gays and pro-gay folks are going to think they don't stand by their principles. Stupidity all the way around.
 
When I read the Cracker Barrel letter this morning, I kept looking for some sign that it came from The Onion or another satire site. Surely they wouldnt be doing a complete 180 just a day after already doing a 180. I havent eaten there in probably 10 years, but good grief, they look like morons. I was thinking the same thing though, that their clientele is the most likely to support Phil.
 
I'm curious why it's so imperative that anyone who disagrees with this particular issue must have fear of or contempt for the practitioners. Considering I'm a Christian and frankly don't approve a lot of things people around me do, I guess I must just hate everyone? When I choose not to go out and drink with people at work, does that mean I hold them in contempt?

And an even more salient point - if I DID hold them in contempt, but they never knew it because I treated them with respect and courtesy, would it matter how I allegedly felt about their activities? I guess so long as I never explained my absence as "because I'm a Christian and don't think I should be doing it" - because apparently the only motivation for saying that would be either hate or fear.
 
This issue is about tolerance and acceptance.
I can tolerate sexual deviants and don't really care what they do, just don't care. I do care about societal acceptance of sexual deviants. Codifying marriage, discrimination laws etc is not acceptable and our society is
not on board with accepting sexual deviants are normal.
The sexual deviant organizations have done a great job of pushing their agenda and threatening businesses, politicians, media outlets and social media to discriminate against anyone with a different view of their homosexual rights movement. Problem for them is that most of society sees sexual deviancy for what it is. Like Phil.
Cracker Barrel found out, but social media outlets like Facebook continue to try and stifle free speech in this issue. Why?
I never have understood the difference in not being okay to hire or fire someone because of their race or religion, but okay to fire someone for their constitutional right or free speech away from the workplace.
Any way the problem is the acceptance issue and the sexual deviant's groups effort to silence any differing view.
 
An interesting article that raises a deeper and more fundamental issue than the "free speech" nonsense that too many are trying unsuccessfully to raise.
 
That was an interesting and well written article - I really have to learn to stop reading the comment section where it all turns into nonsense.
 
Actually yes! In fact it was eerily familiar - the thread I read ended up being a side argument about something that the article didn't even discuss. Been there, done that...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top