'Duck Dynasty' Under Fire Following Star's Incendiary Anti-Gay Remarks

[JoeB131]

[

New American Standard Bible
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."Jeremiah 1:5

That would imply personhood before conception... which is interesting.

 

[Iceman]

obviously you are....

About what? Why would I be mad Phil Robertson is getting his show back? I don't even watch it.

The only thing I get amusement out of is the Gay Lobby failing, again.

the gay lobby did not fail.....you not understanding how the entertainment business works just proves my point...the gay lobby had no more to do with the out come then Robertson's fans..

Glaad had nothing to do with pressuring A&E to suspend him?

DD fans and their backlash had nothing to do with getting him back on?

What world are you living in?

Look, just take your licks and admit your side lost. There is honor in that, if you are interested.

 

[gallantwarrior]

As I pointed out 'normal' and 'natural' are subjective terms: abstract concepts. No one can say definitively what is natura or normal. Social mores tend to dictate these things, culture by culture. Nowadays, the majority of our culture says homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle deserving of respect. That is the current social perspective of the majority of modern day culture in the West and it is spreading throughout the world. Being anti-gay is a minority perspective, at least in the West, nowadays. Accept it. You can think it isn't normal, but it is a perseronal, minority opinion. The rest of the world does not have to see it your way.

So, we're seeing the normalization of homosexuality according to social standards. There are still no conclusive studies to date that indicate it is natural.

 

[bodecea]

The biological purpose of sexual relations is to reproduce. Homosexuality does not allow for that, and thus is a biological defect, as it hinders the individual person's ability to reproduce and thus continue thier genetic line.

Its up to society to decide if a behavior is allowable or tolerable, but biology says its something screwy.

Not to mention the obvious fact that the bung hole is the place where shit comes out

Stephan Cohan's book Masked Men discusses the definition of masculinity in the movies, especially those movies which are so stridently heterosexual that they raise doubt about what is really going on. Cohan argues that the Howard Hawks western Red River is a gay love story between John Wayne and Montgomery Clift. Clift later starred in films like Suddenly Last Summer in which his gay sexuality was actually a thematic element.

If Red River is a gay love story, how about Sands of Iwo Jima? In both of these films, women come on to John Wayne and he pushes them away. In Wayne's personal life he was not the swaggering macho man he presented himself to be. Dominated by his mother as a child, he married dominating women as an adult. He even claimed to be the victim of spousal abuse.

Is is possible that the "chemistry" between openly gay Montgomery Clift and macho man John Wayne reflects post-war ambivalence about alternative sexuality? Red River ends with an embrace between John Wayne and Montgomery Clift, while Joanne Dru, the female whom they have both spurned, scolds them. This is a departure from the book the film is based on. In the book, Clift gets the girl when Wayne dies. In the movie, the boys get each other.

"The Celluloid Closet" is a great movie for that kind of info.

 

[gallantwarrior]

do 2 male ducks mate for life? do 2 male lions have sex to the exclusion of the females? It is not NATURE. And it is MY opinion. I"M not "relgious" necessarily either. It's my opinion, it's common sense. We are all entitled to our own opinions. Or are liberals the only ones whose opinion matter? If you don't LIKE my opinion that mating for life with teh same gender and a man putting his member in another man anus, TOUGH! Get over it. I couldn't care less. I don't NEED to provide proof. YOU provide "proof" to ME that animals of the same gender actually are having sex, and not some sort of dominant posturing crap. YOU are entitled to YOUR opinion and I to mine. But you liberals can't stand any opinion that isn't your. YOU the most intolerant!!

In fact, you like the way animals live? They eat their young, the males kill the babies to make the mother go in heat faster, the ones who aren't at the top of the food chain get killed and eaten. And so unlike you libs, they are self-reliant. If they don't hunt, they don't eat. They alone are responsible for themselves, not some "animal government." If one of them does see another same gender goings on, they are within their rights to stop it if they so desire. There is no political correctness in the animal world. They animals live under a creed that no liberal can grasp. You'd never make it as an animal. You can ACT like animals, but that's the extent of it.

There has been some evidence of homosexual activity between female dolphins.

I have witnessed a domesticated goose and several ducks gang raping a Mallard drake on the shore of a country club lake, I've seen dogs humping each other...and there are the Bonobo chimps.

List of animals displaying homosexual behavior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Main article: List of mammals displaying homosexual behavior

Selected mammals from the full list:

Bison[16]
Brown Bear[17]
Brown Rat[18]
Cavy[18]
Caribou[19]
Cat (domestic)[20]
Cattle (domestic)[21]
Chimpanzee[22][23][24][25]
Common Dolphin[26]
Common Marmoset[27]
Dog[28]
Elephant[29]
Fox[30]
Giraffe[3][31][32]
Goat[16]
Horse (domestic)[33]
Human[34][35][36]
Koala[37]
Lion[34]
Orca[26]
Raccoon[38]

The argument that homosexuality is therefore natural (occurs in nature) is undeniable. This does not make it normal.

The act of sex is for pleasure and reproduction Animals do not use sex for pleasure only for reproduction and to show they're the dominant male in the pack or herd.

The females will also use mounting behavior to show dominance. Usually when they start to come into heat, and not nearly as frequently as males. The kids will mount each other, too, in order to establish dominance among their peers. But understand, anthropomorphic depiction of animal behavior is used to lend legitimacy to unnatural human sexual behavior. It makes them feel better about themselves if they can claim that animals do it too.

 

[daws101]

[

New American Standard Bible
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."Jeremiah 1:5

That would imply personhood before conception... which is interesting.

in fiction any thing is possible

 

[gallantwarrior]

What is ignorant? That you are angry? No, that is evident by your posts.

obviously you are....

About what? Why would I be mad Phil Robertson is getting his show back? I don't even watch it.

The only thing I get amusement out of is the Gay Lobby failing, again.

It's always refreshing to see the bully get beat down.

 

[daws101]

About what? Why would I be mad Phil Robertson is getting his show back? I don't even watch it.

The only thing I get amusement out of is the Gay Lobby failing, again.

the gay lobby did not fail.....you not understanding how the entertainment business works just proves my point...the gay lobby had no more to do with the out come then Robertson's fans..

Glaad had nothing to do with pressuring A&E to suspend him?

DD fans and their backlash had nothing to do with getting him back on?

What world are you living in?

Look, just take your licks and admit your side lost. There is honor in that, if you are interested.

nice rationalizing and no, the backlash was good pr and nothing else.
and again no because "my side" brought to light his homophobia and bigotry....so nothing important was lost...
the real question is what world do you live in?.....obviously not this one .

 

[daws101]

As I pointed out 'normal' and 'natural' are subjective terms: abstract concepts. No one can say definitively what is natura or normal. Social mores tend to dictate these things, culture by culture. Nowadays, the majority of our culture says homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle deserving of respect. That is the current social perspective of the majority of modern day culture in the West and it is spreading throughout the world. Being anti-gay is a minority perspective, at least in the West, nowadays. Accept it. You can think it isn't normal, but it is a perseronal, minority opinion. The rest of the world does not have to see it your way.

So, we're seeing the normalization of homosexuality according to social standards. There are still no conclusive studies to date that indicate it is natural.

conversely there are none that say it's not....just a shit load of superstition and bias..

 

[gallantwarrior]

As I pointed out 'normal' and 'natural' are subjective terms: abstract concepts. No one can say definitively what is natura or normal. Social mores tend to dictate these things, culture by culture. Nowadays, the majority of our culture says homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle deserving of respect. That is the current social perspective of the majority of modern day culture in the West and it is spreading throughout the world. Being anti-gay is a minority perspective, at least in the West, nowadays. Accept it. You can think it isn't normal, but it is a perseronal, minority opinion. The rest of the world does not have to see it your way.

So, we're seeing the normalization of homosexuality according to social standards. There are still no conclusive studies to date that indicate it is natural.

conversely there are none that say it's not....just a shit load of superstition and bias..

A shitload of convenient extrapolation, anthropomorphic projection, and yes, bias. And how often have the libturds here claimed that you cannot prove a negative.

 

[daws101]

Not to mention the obvious fact that the bung hole is the place where shit comes out

Stephan Cohan's book Masked Men discusses the definition of masculinity in the movies, especially those movies which are so stridently heterosexual that they raise doubt about what is really going on. Cohan argues that the Howard Hawks western Red River is a gay love story between John Wayne and Montgomery Clift. Clift later starred in films like Suddenly Last Summer in which his gay sexuality was actually a thematic element.

If Red River is a gay love story, how about Sands of Iwo Jima? In both of these films, women come on to John Wayne and he pushes them away. In Wayne's personal life he was not the swaggering macho man he presented himself to be. Dominated by his mother as a child, he married dominating women as an adult. He even claimed to be the victim of spousal abuse.

Is is possible that the "chemistry" between openly gay Montgomery Clift and macho man John Wayne reflects post-war ambivalence about alternative sexuality? Red River ends with an embrace between John Wayne and Montgomery Clift, while Joanne Dru, the female whom they have both spurned, scolds them. This is a departure from the book the film is based on. In the book, Clift gets the girl when Wayne dies. In the movie, the boys get each other.

"The Celluloid Closet" is a great movie for that kind of info.

seen it, a real eye opener!
it would give these homophobes a coronary!

 

[thanatos144]

As I pointed out 'normal' and 'natural' are subjective terms: abstract concepts. No one can say definitively what is natura or normal. Social mores tend to dictate these things, culture by culture. Nowadays, the majority of our culture says homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle deserving of respect. That is the current social perspective of the majority of modern day culture in the West and it is spreading throughout the world. Being anti-gay is a minority perspective, at least in the West, nowadays. Accept it. You can think it isn't normal, but it is a perseronal, minority opinion. The rest of the world does not have to see it your way.

So, we're seeing the normalization of homosexuality according to social standards. There are still no conclusive studies to date that indicate it is natural.

conversely there are none that say it's not....just a shit load of superstition and bias..

Everything shows homosexuality is not normal

tapatalk post

 

[thanatos144]

Stephan Cohan's book Masked Men discusses the definition of masculinity in the movies, especially those movies which are so stridently heterosexual that they raise doubt about what is really going on. Cohan argues that the Howard Hawks western Red River is a gay love story between John Wayne and Montgomery Clift. Clift later starred in films like Suddenly Last Summer in which his gay sexuality was actually a thematic element.

If Red River is a gay love story, how about Sands of Iwo Jima? In both of these films, women come on to John Wayne and he pushes them away. In Wayne's personal life he was not the swaggering macho man he presented himself to be. Dominated by his mother as a child, he married dominating women as an adult. He even claimed to be the victim of spousal abuse.

Is is possible that the "chemistry" between openly gay Montgomery Clift and macho man John Wayne reflects post-war ambivalence about alternative sexuality? Red River ends with an embrace between John Wayne and Montgomery Clift, while Joanne Dru, the female whom they have both spurned, scolds them. This is a departure from the book the film is based on. In the book, Clift gets the girl when Wayne dies. In the movie, the boys get each other.

"The Celluloid Closet" is a great movie for that kind of info.

seen it, a real eye opener!
it would give these homophobes a coronary!

Phobia is being afraid of something. I am not scared of homosexual bullies.

tapatalk post

 

[daws101]

So, we're seeing the normalization of homosexuality according to social standards. There are still no conclusive studies to date that indicate it is natural.

conversely there are none that say it's not....just a shit load of superstition and bias..

Everything shows homosexuality is not normal

tapatalk post

bullshit!

 

[daws101]

"The Celluloid Closet" is a great movie for that kind of info.

seen it, a real eye opener!
it would give these homophobes a coronary!

Phobia is being afraid of something. I am not scared of homosexual bullies.

tapatalk post

bullshit! if you weren't then why do you make it your business to be in their business?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

He did you f****** idiot thou shall not murder

tapatalk post

Again, where did he specifically say that about fetuses?

Quite the contrary, the bible calls for pregnant women to be killed if they violate God's other laws, therefore the bible did not see the fetus as a person.

God sometimes approves of killing fetuses.

And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. -- Numbers 31:15-17
(Some of the non-virgin women must have been pregnant. They would have been killed along with their unborn fetuses.)

Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. -- Hosea 9:14

Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb. -- Hosea 9:16

Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. -- Hosea 13:16

The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. ...
And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. -- Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28

Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. -- Genesis 38:24

New American Standard Bible
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."Jeremiah 1:5

So it’s your position that the bible is evidence justifying the state denying a woman her right to privacy.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Again, where did he specifically say that about fetuses?

Quite the contrary, the bible calls for pregnant women to be killed if they violate God's other laws, therefore the bible did not see the fetus as a person.

God sometimes approves of killing fetuses.

And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. -- Numbers 31:15-17
(Some of the non-virgin women must have been pregnant. They would have been killed along with their unborn fetuses.)

Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. -- Hosea 9:14

Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb. -- Hosea 9:16

Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. -- Hosea 13:16

The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. ...
And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. -- Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28

Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. -- Genesis 38:24

New American Standard Bible
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."Jeremiah 1:5

So it’s your position that the bible is evidence justifying the state denying a woman her right to privacy.

Why don't you ask Joe after all he was the one who used the bible

 

[Cecilie1200]

How can we as a nation have a bi-line of "All men are created equal" if we restrict the rights of individuals based on color, religion and sexual orientation?

The same way we restrict rights based on mental disease or defect. Sexual orientation is a right but behavior is not and we restrict behavior all the time.

That is progressive when trying to legislate morality..

As opposed to all the other things we legislate BESIDES moral behavior . . . oh, wait, that's the ONLY thing we're attempting to legislate is moral behavior.

Frigging leftist idiots.

 

[Cecilie1200]

"How can we as a nation have a bi-line of "All men are created equal" if we restrict the rights of individuals based on color, religion and sexual orientation?"

I always thought that was said to be ironic since that same document mentions slaves as only being 3/5ths a free person. I think they meant "All affluent white men." Notice women at that time couldn't vote or do much of anything else in addition to acknowledging slaves.

::sigh:: I'm so tired of hearing this "I can't be bothered to really think about the Constitution" piece of crap line. The Constitution says NOTHING about personhood or equality under the law as regards slaves (OR women, for that matter). It talks only about how to calculate the number of Representatives a state gets in the House. And rather than somehow being a denigration of slaves or black people or whatever you're thinking, this was actually the ANTI-SLAVERY position, designed to keep slave states from having more power in the federal government.

Jesus.

As for "all men are created equal", that has nothing to do with affluence, color, who you choose to ****, or anything else. It has to do with the laws as written being applied to everyone equally. That does NOT mean that you get a special law that makes the government equate your behavior with someone else's very different behavior. It means that EVERYONE engaging in THIS particular behavior in THIS particular way gets the law applied in the same way. That means that, rich or poor, THIS is the definition of murder for which you will be tried if sufficient evidence is provided and THESE are the sentencing guidelines which will be applied if you are convicted.

And it means that EVERYONE meeting THESE specific criteria will be considered married, and everyone who DOESN'T will not be. Please note that the criteria do not anywhere say a damned word about "being in love", because no one gives a shit but you.

Oh, and FYI, women were denied voting rights by STATE laws prior to the 19th Amendment, not by the Constitution. Be nice if people would bother to READ the damned thing before presuming to talk about it.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I see that the discussion is still about the Bible. I've read it..three times. It's dull, but violent and x-rated.Personally, I prefer Steven King.True, he is a hack writer, but one does feel the urge to turn the page to see what happens next. I do think that putting a Bible in hotel rooms is a good idea. It is a great cure for insomnia.