Duck Dynasty Star Banned Indefinitely for Anti-Gay Comments

[Ghost5525]

No, its his opinion, He is not telling people not to be gay. Tolerance doesn't mean you have to like anyone. He is allowed his opinion, he's not stopping anyone or campaigning against them.

In fact he broke his silence and he said he loved all men and women. He is not a homophobe, you are to quick to point the finger..

And when have I forced my sexual preference on anyone javik? You make bold claims without anything to back it up.

People seem to forget that KingCracker.. that he didn't really force his opinion on anyone - people are calling this man a homophobe when he isn't ..he simply doesn't agree with the homosexual lifestyle..and he's allowed to feel that way, it doesn't make him a homophobe

[hdca18]

My only opinion on the matter is this. I am not offended by a strangers opinion of my sexual orientation, but care more about the teenagers and adolescents who struggle to become ok with theirs. It is perhaps the most disappointing that a well known television personality, has the potential to negatively influence others' views, and foster negative opinions about something that is not a choice.

[Athernar]

 ..he simply doesn't agree with the homosexual lifestyle..and he's allowed to feel that way, it doesn't make him a homophobe

 

That is by very definition homophobia.

 

Racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia are far more reaching than simply just being members of the KKK or WBC, or throwing around slurs.

 

The man views homosexuals in a negative light, that makes him a homophobe.

[KingCracker]

That is by very definition homophobia.

 

Racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia are far more reaching than simply just being members of the KKK or WBC, or throwing around slurs.

 

The man views homosexuals in a negative light, that makes him a homophobe.

No you can have gay friends but not necessarily agree with their sexuality. It doesn't make you a homophobe at all.

[Athernar]

No you can have gay friends but not necessarily agree with their sexuality. It doesn't make you a homophobe at all.

 

It's telling that you're using a permutation of the "I have friends that are black..." defence here.

 

It absolutely is homophobia.

[FloatingFatMan]

you mean further than a homosexual relationship? Because it's already been shown in Canada to at least slip to polygamy. Does it then slip to incest? I don't know. Seems crazy at the moment.. But so did legalized gay marriage 20 years ago.

 

Are you citing one or two cases, or the majority?  Unless it's the latter (and you're going to have to prove it), then your argument is invalid.

[KingCracker]

It's telling that you're using a permutation of the "I have friends that are black..." defence here.

 

It absolutely is homophobia.

Afraid not, people do say that they have black friends and do indeed have them. saying that doesn't make them racist either.

I used to have black friends, but I moved and lost touch now most of my friends are white. Am I a racist? Nope sorry.

[rfirth]

No you can have gay friends but not necessarily agree with their sexuality. It doesn't make you a homophobe at all.

 

He doesn't like city folk... it looks at them funny and calls them names...

 

I don't think he'd take kindly to a homosexual, even if they were wearing an adorable camo top... :P

He said, and I quote:

"The first thing you see coming out of them is gross sexual immorality. They will dishonor their bodies with one another. Degrade each other... ...Women with women, men with men, they committed indecent acts with one another. And they received in themselves the penalty for their perversion. They are full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."

- Phil Robertson

[Athernar]

Afraid not, people do say that they have black friends and do indeed have them. saying that doesn't make them racist either.

I used to have black friends, but I moved and lost touch now most of my friends are white. Am I a racist? Nope sorry.

 

The fact you felt the need to add the second line is also incredibly telling symptom of ingrained prejudice.

 

I advise you to research what constitutes discrimination (specifically homophobia in this case) and ingrained bias/prejudice, there are plenty of academic studies on the topic.

[rfirth]

Afraid not, people do say that they have black friends and do indeed have them. saying that doesn't make them racist either.

I used to have black friends, but I moved and lost touch now most of my friends are white. Am I a racist? Nope sorry.

 

Way to completely miss the point... People use "I have black friends" to 'prove' they aren't racist.

The corollary?

"No you can have black friends and not necessarily agree with interracial marriage.   It doesn't make you a racist."

"No you can have black friends and not necessarily agree with desegregation.           It doesn't make you a racist."

"No you can have black friends and not necessarily agree with civil rights.                  It doesn't make you a racist."

 

"No you can have gay   friends and not necessarily agree they deserve equal rights.  It doesn't make you a homophobe."

"No you can have gay   friends and not necessarily agree with their sexuality.            It doesn't make you a homophobe."

- KingCracker

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

He doesn't like city folk... it looks at them funny and calls them names...

 

I don't think he'd take kindly to a homosexual, even if they were wearing an adorable camo top... :p

He said, and I quote:

"The first thing you see coming out of them is gross sexual immorality. They will dishonor their bodies with one another. Degrade each other... ...Women with women, men with men, they committed indecent acts with one another. And they received in themselves the penalty for their perversion. They are full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."

- Phil Robertson

 

Well, Phil Robertson is homophobic. I don't think that stating P.R. is homophobic proves that KingCracker is. Unless he has an irrational aversion to LBGTQ people, he isn't homophobic. I have a co-worker who doesn't particularly approve of the lifestyle but who really does have a number of gay friends. His belief is that he shouldn't be going out of his way to passing judgement or condemn people for their lifestyle because that isn't a Christian thing to do and only God really has the right to judge people.

 

Disclaimer: I'm not religious.

 

EDIT: to add to the story a bit: the co-worker (mentioned above) and I actually stayed with a gay friend of ours this past August (in the city of Love). I was sort of expecting him to be awkward, avoid broaching certain topics, etc. But, he was cool the entire time regardless of his religious beliefs. And, it isn't as if the conversation topics didn't fall to sexuality either. I feel that goes a long way to show you can have a disagreement without being homphobic.

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

It's telling that you're using a permutation of the "I have friends that are black..." defence here.

 

It absolutely is homophobia.

 

His argument may have been a logical fallacy but so is yours: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

[thomastmc]

When people opposed interracial marriages they did it from a position of political and economic power, not morality. Gay marriage is different.

 

Yeah, and Hitler didn't kill the Jews because of their ethnicity, they just happened to be Jewish ;)

 

It just amazes me at how someone can say something so glaring false, and odds with the overwhelming facts of history.

 

Morality was absolutely used as a reason for the ban of interracial marriage. Even today, you can still find many "debates" on the morality of interracial marriage.

 

Here are the arguments against interracial marriage... Notice any similarities between these and the arguments against gay marriage?

 

Here are four of the arguments they used:

1) First, judges claimed that marriage belonged under the control of the states rather than the federal government.

2) Second, they began to define and label all interracial relationships (even longstanding, deeply committed ones) as illicit sex rather than marriage.

3) Third, they insisted that interracial marriage was contrary to God's will, and

4) Fourth, they declared, over and over again, that interracial marriage was somehow "unnatural."

On this fourth point--the supposed "unnaturality" of interracial marriage--judges formed a virtual chorus. Here, for example, is the declaration that the Supreme Court of Virginia used to invalidate a marriage between a black man and a white woman in 1878:

The purity of public morals," the court declared, "the moral and physical development of both races?.require that they should be kept distinct and separate? that connections and alliances so unnatural that God and nature seem to forbid them, should be prohibited by positive law, and be subject to no evasion.

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws."

http://hnn.us/article/4708

[seta-san]

 

Yeah, and Hitler didn't kill the Jews because of their ethnicity, they just happened to be Jewish ;)

 

It just amazes me at how someone can say something so glaring false, and odds with the overwhelming facts of history.

 

Morality was absolutely used as a reason for the ban of interracial marriage. Even today, you can still find many "debates" on the morality of interracial marriage.

 

Here are the arguments against interracial marriage... Notice any similarities between these and the arguments against gay marriage?

 

 

they could claim what they wanted to. damned be if they could find ONE part of the scripture that actually said such a thing. any 'debates' on interracial marriages are almost definitely to center around the children not feeling like part of one community or the other.. NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MARRIAGE ITSELF.

[KingCracker]

Way to completely miss the point... People use "I have black friends" to 'prove' they aren't racist.

The corollary?

"No you can have black friends and not necessarily agree with interracial marriage.   It doesn't make you a racist."

"No you can have black friends and not necessarily agree with desegregation.           It doesn't make you a racist."

"No you can have black friends and not necessarily agree with civil rights.                  It doesn't make you a racist."

 

"No you can have gay   friends and not necessarily agree they deserve equal rights.  It doesn't make you a homophobe."

"No you can have gay   friends and not necessarily agree with their sexuality.            It doesn't make you a homophobe."

- KingCracker

So?

[Athernar]

His argument may have been a logical fallacy but so is yours: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

 

I don't really think that's an appropriate labeling of such a fallacy in this case, as determining an individual's prejudices are relevant to assessing the validity of their view of what constitutes prejudice.

[KingCracker]

I don't really think that's an appropriate labeling of such a fallacy in this case, as determining an individual's prejudices are relevant to assessing the validity of their view of what constitutes prejudice.

Like I said earlier and its true, you can have gay friends and respect them even if you don't agree with their sexuality. Being tolerate doesn't mean you have to kiss their ass people are allowed to have an opinion as long as someone doesn't preach hate or do hate crimes then its all good in my book.

[seta-san]

Like I said earlier and its true, you can have gay friends and respect them even if you don't agree with their sexuality. Being tolerate doesn't mean you have to kiss their ass people are allowed to have an opinion as long as someone doesn't preach hate or do hate crimes then its all good in my book.

Thanks for helping me discover a new quote

 

"Being tolerate doesn't mean you have to kiss their ass; just not to kick it"

[Athernar]

Like I said earlier and its true, you can have gay friends and respect them even if you don't agree with their sexuality. Being tolerate doesn't mean you have to kiss their ass people are allowed to have an opinion as long as someone doesn't preach hate or do hate crimes then its all good in my book.

 

Being tolerant doesn't mean you aren't homophobic.

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

I don't really think that's an appropriate labeling of such a fallacy in this case, as determining an individual's prejudices are relevant to assessing the validity of their view of what constitutes prejudice.

 

You can't use a logical fallacy to determine the prejudices of someone. O_o that's a misinterpretation of the entire point of the particular logical fallacy as a concept anyway. The point of the friend argument as a logical fallacy is to show that the premise doesn't prove you not prejudice. It's makes absolutely no statement on whether you are or are not prejudice despite it being rather popular for people to use it as an argument otherwise.

[KingCracker]

Being tolerant doesn't mean you aren't homophobic.

If you have gay friends it does, if a homophobe had gay friends wouldn't that be like a neo nazi or a kkk member having a black friend? Disagreeing with homosexuality doesn't make one a homophobe, its when that person goes out of their way to avoid them, preach hate and or do hate crimes which makes them a homophobe.

When someone says something like " i wouldn't have a gay friend because im afraid they would hit on me" that makes them a homophobe.

[seta-san]

 

Yeah, and Hitler didn't kill the Jews because of their ethnicity, they just happened to be Jewish ;)

 

It just amazes me at how someone can say something so glaring false, and odds with the overwhelming facts of history.

 

Morality was absolutely used as a reason for the ban of interracial marriage. Even today, you can still find many "debates" on the morality of interracial marriage.

 

Here are the arguments against interracial marriage... Notice any similarities between these and the arguments against gay marriage?

 

 

1. True

2. True

3. True for judeo/christain religions.

4. depends on your definition of unnatural.

 

the only problem with gay marriage is:

a) marriage is a religious sacrament.

b) it's being administered by the state.

 

my solution is to get rid of all legal marriage. why is the government even administering something so personal? what truly valid reason does the government have to know who you regularly sleep with?

[thomastmc]

they could claim what they wanted to. damned be if they could find ONE part of the scripture that actually said such a thing. any 'debates' on interracial marriages are almost definitely to center around the children not feeling like part of one community or the other.. NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MARRIAGE ITSELF.

 

Claim what they want to? You obviously know something about claiming whatever you want to :)

 

You said people didn't oppose interracial marriage from a position of morality. Yet, that was their primary position.

 

You were spectacularly wrong, and to just ignore it is very telling of how you form your opinions.

[MindTrickz]

1. True

2. True

3. True for judeo/christain religions.

4. depends on your definition of unnatural.

 

the only problem with gay marriage is:

a) marriage is a religious sacrament.

b) it's being administered by the state.

 

my solution is to get rid of all legal marriage. why is the government even administering something so personal? what truly valid reason does the government have to know who you regularly sleep with?

 

But what is unnatural? I mean we see homosexuality even in the animal kingdom in almost ever species. Regarding your lost point, I suppose it would be for tax purposes, but that could be easily reformed.

[seta-san]

Claim what they want to? You obviously know something about claiming whatever you want to :)

 

You said people didn't oppose interracial marriage from a position of morality. Yet, that was their primary position.

 

You were spectacularly wrong, and to just ignore it is very telling of how you form your opinions.

 

let me rephrase that. no one could validly oppose interracial marriage from a religious morality... quite unlike homosexual acts which the bible calls an abomination.