Duck Dynasty Star Banned Indefinitely for Anti-Gay Comments

[trag3dy]

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

 

By the very definition of the word being tolerant would make you not homophobic. Homophobia implies negativity.

 

Saying "I don't agree with the gay lifestyle but it also has no effect on me and I have gay friends" does in fact not make a person homophobic. 

[seta-san]

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 for tax purposes, but that could be easily reformed.

 

depends. you could say that everything that exists.. even things like plastics are natural since they are part of the world.

 

others say that it has to be a creation of nature itself and not of our own intelligence.

 

when it comes to homosexuality they will point towards the genitals of the male and female... notice that the two were designed together by evolution and that they have a function together.... a function that two males or two males could never accomplish.

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

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?

 

The government doesn't administer any of the romantic/personal aspects of marriage. What it does do is provide laws for the legal aspects of marriage. There's actually no religious aspect to marriage in the legal world. It's just strictly a legal concept. So under your argument, the only change necessary is simply to change the legal terminology to some other word like "civil union" for everyone.

[seta-san]

By the very definition of the word being tolerant would make you not homophobic. Homophobia implies negativity.

 

Saying "I don't agree with the gay lifestyle but it also has no effect on me and I have gay friends" does in fact not make a person homophobic. 

 

 

you can hate something and be tolerant of it. I hate the sound of crying babies.. i tolerate it because i know that in most situations there is no way around it.

[Athernar]

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.

 

I disagree, the friend argument is exclusively used by individuals to absolve themselves of guilt for holding prejudiced viewpoints.

 

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.

 

No, it wouldn't be like that because as I said earlier - homophobia is more than just being a member of the WBC or using homophobic slurs.

 

Tolerance is a completely different subject to holding prejudiced views.

 

By the very definition of the word being tolerant would make you not homophobic. Homophobia implies negativity.

 

Saying "I don't agree with the gay lifestyle but it also has no effect on me and I have gay friends" does in fact not make a person homophobic. 

 

So tolerating someone while thinking they're going to be tortured for eternity because of their sexual orientation isn't negative?

 

Heck, "disagreeing" in general is by very definition "negative".

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

depends. you could say that everything that exists.. even things like plastics are natural since they are part of the world.

 

others say that it has to be a creation of nature itself and not of our own intelligence.

 

when it comes to homosexuality they will point towards the genitals of the male and female... notice that the two were designed together by evolution and that they have a function together.... a function that two males or two males could never accomplish.

 

If it is unnatural, what do you make of homosexuality in the animal kingdom?

[seta-san]

The government doesn't administer any of the romantic/personal aspects of marriage. What it does do is provide laws for the legal aspects of marriage. There's actually no religious aspect to marriage in the legal world. It's just strictly a legal concept. So under your argument, the only change necessary is simply to change the legal terminology to some other word like "civil union" for everyone.

yes, isn't that romantic. marriage simply as a financial/property legal frame work. or we could just get rid of the whole concept and get one more little government monkey off our back.

[trag3dy]

I disagree, the friend argument is exclusively used by individuals to absolve themselves of guilt for holding prejudiced viewpoints.

 

 

No, it wouldn't be like that because as I said earlier - homophobia is more than just being a member of the WBC or using homophobic slurs.

 

Tolerance is a completely different subject to holding prejudiced views.

 

 

So tolerating someone while thinking they're going to be tortured for eternity because of their sexual orientation isn't negative?

 

So it's impossible to not like something without being religious? I guess you may have a slight point in relation to the original topic but it's certainly not the case for all the situations in life.

[seta-san]

If it is unnatural, what do you make of homosexuality in the animal kingdom?

 

not unnatural but is not normal behavior either. There's long been a debate if homosexuality is in the genes or a choice. I believe it's neither. I believe it's a birth defect caused by incorrect hormone levels in the fetus.

 

homosexuality couldn't be genetic because the genes from homosexuality would have specifically not have been passed down. It's a gene committing suicide.

 

I also can't believe that that as many people who are gay choose it. There might be a very some number of social masochists out there but they only make up a small percentage over all.

 

So i decided on a third option. It's a birth defect.

[KingCracker]

I disagree, the friend argument is exclusively used by individuals to absolve themselves of guilt for holding prejudiced viewpoints.

 

 

No, it wouldn't be like that because as I said earlier - homophobia is more than just being a member of the WBC or using homophobic slurs.

 

Tolerance is a completely different subject to holding prejudiced views.

 

 

So tolerating someone while thinking they're going to be tortured for eternity because of their sexual orientation isn't negative?

 

Heck, "disagreeing" in general is by very definition "negative".

I dont care what views people hold as long as they don't cause a problem in society then to me its all good. If you don't like homosexuals fair enough just don't cause a problem and keep it to yourself, However he was asked his opinion so he gave it.

[Athernar]

So it's impossible to not like something without being religious? I guess you may have a slight point in relation to the original topic but it's certainly not the case for all the situations in life.

 

I'm not really concerned as far as other situations go, but when it comes to holding negative views about a group of people simply because of their race, sex or sexual orientation, that is by very definition prejudice.

 

I dont care what views people hold as long as they don't cause a problem in society then to me its all good. If you don't like homosexuals fair enough just don't cause a problem and keep it to yourself, However he was asked his opinion so he gave it.

 

And his opinion is homophobic, so he's rightfully called a homophobe.

 

You might be quite happy to be apathetic about the subject, but people usually are until they're on the recieving end.

[KingCracker]

 I'm not really concerned as far as other situations go, but when it comes to holding negative views about a group of people simply because of their race, sex or sexual orientation, that is by very definition prejudice.

 

 

And his opinion is homophobic, so he's rightfully called a homophobe.

 

You might be quite happy to be apathetic about the subject, but people usually are until they're on the recieving end.

Oh please some guy in the media says something you don't like.. the worlds going to end.. :rolleyes:

[Athernar]

Oh please some guy in the media says something you don't like.. the worlds going to end.. :rolleyes:

 

And now you completely change tack because you realise you've failed to defend your position. :)

 

My work here is done.

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

I disagree, the friend argument is exclusively used by individuals to absolve themselves of guilt for holding prejudiced viewpoints.

 

There's nothing to really disagree with. What I just told you is actually the basis for all logical fallacies: simply as a mechanism to show lack of soundness in an argument. The article you linked even says what I just told you (about the point of the fallacy) in my previous post:

 

While this line of reasoning might be true for someone who genuinely doesn't have a general prejudice, it isn't a good argument to prove it - and it certainly doesn't absolve someone who actually does hold such a belief. The underlying fallacy is that one single point of data, this one "friend", completely overrides any other bits of evidence we have to assess someone's views. This is simply not valid reasoning.

 

-http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Friend_argument

 

 

Moreover, the friend argument is just a specific example of an association fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy. 

[thomastmc]

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?

 

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

Bigoted much?

 

It doesn't surprise me that your answer is to just get rid of legal marriage rather than to deal with gays being allowed to marry.

[Athernar]

There's nothing to really disagree with. What I just told you is actually the basis for all logical fallacies: simply as a mechanism to show lack of soundness in an argument. The article you linked even says what I just told you (about the point of the fallacy) in my previous post:

 

Moreover, the friend argument is just a specific example of an association fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy. 

 

If this was any other topic I would agree with you, but in this context I believe it to be valid - as someone without prejudice (ingrained or otherwise) would not need to employ such a defence in the first place.

 

It's not some much about it being a fallacy as it is the reasoning behind it's use.

[KingCracker]

And now you completely change tack because you realise you've failed to defend your position. :)

 

My work here is done.

Not really. That has been my position all along. I defended it and I don't care what you think. You and a lot of people are to sensitive these days. 

[Athernar]

Not really. That has been my position all along. I defended it and I don't care what you think. You and a lot of people are to sensitive these days. 

 

Now you seem to have forgotten your own position.

 

To remind you, you tried to claim that homophobia only constituted intolerant homophobia, completely ignoring the existance of ingrained prejudice (which is well documented). You were unable to defend your position in this regard. :)

[snaphat (Myles Landwehr) Member]

not unnatural but is not normal behavior either. There's long been a debate if homosexuality is in the genes or a choice. I believe it's neither. I believe it's a birth defect caused by incorrect hormone levels in the fetus.

 

homosexuality couldn't be genetic because the genes from homosexuality would have specifically not have been passed down. It's a gene committing suicide.

 

I also can't believe that that as many people who are gay choose it. There might be a very some number of social masochists out there but they only make up a small percentage over all.

 

So i decided on a third option. It's a birth defect.

 

:laugh:, well a birth detect wouldn't relegate the issue to only the human species so your argument is sound on that level. But, a genetic basis doesn't necessarily imply that something needs to be passed down in a conventional sense from parent to offspring (like eye color). A biological basis could simply be that it is inherit in all members of a species and that it occurs because there are evolutionary benefits for a species that exhibit homosexuality:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13674-evolution-myths-natural-selection-cannot-explain-homosexuality.html#.Urfjb_RDu38

[thomastmc]

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.

 

When has validity ever stopped anyone from using religion to support their unjustified morality?

 

The answer is never.

 

Racism

A long history of racism, particularly in the U.S., has made some people believe there is something immoral about dating and marrying outside one's own race. At one time, many of the states had anti-miscegenation laws which banned interracial marriages. All those laws were declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967.

A number of attempts were made to use the Bible to justify those bans on interracial marriage. Vague assertions were made that God intended for the races to remain separate. Some verses (Exodus 34:10-16, 2 Corinthians 6:14, etc.) were quoted in part or otherwise out of context in an attempt to show that God opposed interracial marriage.

http://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_interracialMarriage.htm

 

What about what the Bible says about the judgment of others, and glass houses? Or, I guess that just doesn't matter because the Bible is full of inconsistent morality.

 

Is stoning a woman who's not a virgin OK, the Bible says it is.

 

Is killing someone for being heretical OK, because the Bible says it is.

 

Is killing your child for not obeying you OK, because the Bible says it is.

 

Using the Bible as a reference for what is or is not moral is especially trepid, yet it doesn't stop someone who looks for any reason they can find to justify their racism and/or bigotry and hatred.

[bradsday]

They wouldn't be worth millions if the brain dead society stopped effing watching garbage tv.

 

Not sure if anyone already beat me to this - but, the Robertson family was worth millions before this show ever aired.  They created (reportedly) the best duck call every made and built a sporting equipment company around this initial product.  The story goes that Phil Robertson handcrafted the first duck calls and peddled them to local sporting goods shops.  One day he stopped into his local Walmart to see if they would be interested.  The manager took a few boxes and put them on the shelves - when they sold those, Phil was only too happy to replace the stock.  This went on for some time, when on day Phil got a call from a Walmart purchasing executive, who wanted to place a major nationwide order.  The rest, as they say, is history.

 

In many ways, Phil Robertson is the embodiment of the "American Dream."  He is a simple man, who comes from a simple place; however, with ambition, drive, and hard work, he built a multi-million dollar company.  This company employs most of his family and a portion of his community.

[KingCracker]

Now you seem to have forgotten your own position.

 

To remind you, you tried to claim that homophobia only constituted intolerant homophobia, completely ignoring the existance of ingrained prejudice (which is well documented). You were unable to defend your position in this regard. :)

I stand by what I said end of story. If you get butt hurt by someones opinion that doesn't make them a homophobe.

[thomastmc]

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

2. True

 
I just don't think this can be overstated... And, it's extremely relevant to this conversation.

 

The opposition to gay marriage can be cloaked in verses from the Bible, and questioned in terms of legal authority and procedure, but in the end it's true motivation comes down to the age old paradigm of the senseless, ignorant, and logically bankrupt beliefs of deeply held bigotry.

[seta-san]

That 'bigotry' wouldn't exist without the bible. It's clearly known that before Rome or japan was influenced by Christianity that homosexuality was accepted. Clearly we're dealing with religious principles here stemming from the Jewish tradition and spread to Christians and Muslims

[seta-san]

seriously. This is the equivalent of state performed baptisms. Clearly not a proper government function

Bigoted much?

It doesn't surprise me that your answer is to just get rid of legal marriage rather than to deal with gays being allowed to marry.