Duck Dynasty...

LuckyAngel07 · December 2013

Choosing to be a prostitute or a stripper is a lifestyle. Choosing to be swingers or sleep with multiple partners is a lifestyle. These are choices made consciously and with intent.

How is that equal to simply following your biological wiring? I was born with an attraction to men. I have never had the slightest urge to want to do any more than hug even my absolute closest girl friends. That is just how I grew up. How is it different for someone who is born/grows up with an inherent attraction to those of the same sex? They're just following their biological wiring like the rest of us.

Is it a "lifestyle" because they choose to be happy with someone of the same sex rather than sacrifice any hope of having the kind of romantic connections that straight people take for granted by forcing themselves into a passionless relationship with someone of the opposite sex? I mean, is that what ever gay person is supposed to do in the light of the Bible? Give up their chance at a passionate and loving relationship just because they were born to be attracted to someone who happens to have the same reproductive organs they do?

aggiebug · December 2013

I completely understand what you are saying lucky. I get it I really do. I just also understand how someone can love the people with all their heart and sole and still believe the way they live their life is wrong.

Does that mean they shouldn't live that way? Some, sadly, believe that but many do not. Does that mean they can't be Christian? Not in the slightest.

cloudymeatballs · December 2013

Spewing what hate??? And I am now ignorant because we are thinking differently here? Wow.
Obviously. You are didn't you know it?

Apparently! Ridiculous! I don't see a problem with people expressing their opinion. I think its great he was honest. I thinkI guess so. Sorr

cloudymeatballs · December 2013

.

cloudymeatballs · December 2013

Funny how you hear of the majority of people backing Phil on this, right? And if he doesn't go back on that show, A&E looks like they screwed themselves.... And it is really sad on here that this was a simple thread for opinions on the whole deal and here I am being called a bigot and ignorant, just because I do not agree with some of you. I never called anybody any names or said your opinions were wrong. Just disagreed with some. So just wow...

nfp147 · December 2013

cloudymeatballs said:

Funny how you hear of the majority of people backing Phil on this, right? And if he doesn't go back on that show, A&E looks like they screwed themselves.... And it is really sad on here that this was a simple thread for opinions on the whole deal and here I am being called a bigot and ignorant, just because I do not agree with some of you. I never called anybody any names or said your opinions were wrong. Just disagreed with some. So just wow...

So, a majority of people agree that someone should be able to express themselves freely, but you are upset that someone called you a bigot?

cloudymeatballs · December 2013

Yes I am. Obviously I am not liked here. That's cool. I just it is pretty ridiculous that I said how I felt about something yet I'm the bigot yet you all cant seem to see both sides of things?? Whatever. You can call me whatever you like, that's fine. She seems like the one with the problems here. Very one sided

cloudymeatballs · December 2013

.

PandPMeant2B · December 2013

Butting in to offer a new spin.....

Is anyone disappointed in GQ for publishing Phil's remarks? Curious to hear some opinions on this as well.

LuckyAngel07 · December 2013

Cloudy, no one disliked you before, so saying "I'm disliked here" is a little much.

You expressed something that a few people seriously disagreed with. We're not all always going to agree with each other; we come from too many differing backgrounds and experiences. I know it's hard not to get emotional and defensive when your views are the ones being heatedly disagreed with, but saying someone else has problems because of her response to your views is pretty low.

Take some deep breaths, and leave the discussion for what it was. A very opinionated and heated disagreement over a controversial topic. Not everyone can agree to disagree, but it doesn't brand you for life with everyone either.

LuckyAngel07 · December 2013

PandPMeant2B said:

Butting in to offer a new spin.....

Is anyone disappointed in GQ for publishing Phil's remarks? Curious to hear some opinions on this as well.

GQ saw an opportunity to make quite a bit of money by publishing content they knew was going to cause controversy. This is what every publicist and publicity rag out there does to sell issues. Unfortunately, in this day and age, that's what constitutes good business on the part of the media.

lfk2013 · December 2013

*butting in*

Opinions are like butts - everyone has one. Yeah, it can be frustrating when someone's views rely on religion and less on personal experience, but that shouldn't lead to name-calling. If what he said was a breach of contract, the A&E had every right to fire him. But, since I've never watched the show and have no desire to, if he did talk about blacks or other ethnicities the same way he talked about homosexuality in a derogatory manner, then why wasn't there an uproar then? Why are the two so different?

*butting out*

hardlyhannah · December 2013

Chiming in - I think it is interesting that everyone is focusing on the anti-gay comments that he made and kind of skipping over the fact that he said black people were better off before pre-civil rights...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/19/phil-robertson-black-people_n_4473474.html

LuckyAngel07 · December 2013

hardlyhannah said:

Chiming in - I think it is interesting that everyone is focusing on the anti-gay comments that he made and kind of skipping over the fact that he said black people were better off before pre-civil rights...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/19/phil-robertson-black-people_n_4473474.html

True! I think that's just what most people latched onto.

I also think that his experience with how blacks lived/were treated/what they thought was so extremely limited based on where he lived, he has no real idea what their lives were like on a large scale. He spoke based on his very very limited experience and exposure. So I took it with a major grain of salt and moved on.

cloudymeatballs · December 2013

No worries. Everybody have a Merry Christmas..

cloudymeatballs · December 2013

No worries. Everybody have a Merry Christmas..

lfk2013 · December 2013

cloudymeatballs.

amandaf6383 · December 2013

cloudymeatballs said:

Everyone should be able to have whatever feelings they want on their own! That is fine! So Phil shouldn't be able to have HIS feelings either??

He can have all of the stupid and ignorant feelings he wants, all day long. He and his family are welcome to chat about how awful those damn gays are; HOWEVER, as a public figure, and quite honestly, a BRAND, he should've known better than to speak about it in public. No company in its right mind would keep such a liability.

And you better believe that I started spewing that shit in MY office, I would be walked out immediately. Your free speech can't infringe on the rights of others to live their lives.

cloudymeatballs · December 2013

amandaf6383 said:

cloudymeatballs said:

Everyone should be able to have whatever feelings they want on their own! That is fine! So Phil shouldn't be able to have HIS feelings either??

He can have all of the stupid and ignorant feelings he wants, all day long. He and his family are welcome to chat about how awful those damn gays are; HOWEVER, as a public figure, and quite honestly, a BRAND, he should've known better than to speak about it in public. No company in its right mind would keep such a liability.

And you better believe that I started spewing that shit in MY office, I would be walked out immediately. Your free speech can't infringe on the rights of others to live their lives.

I'm done here.... Have a wonderful day.

lilliesandvino · December 2013

If erring on the side of equality and acceptance means I have problems, then I will wear that label proudly.

srcr2011 · December 2013

To me, it's not even a matter of agreeing with homosexuality or SSM or not (even though I don't agree with SSM). It's simply the fact he is fired for voicing his opinion and belief to GQ, and NOT A&E at the time of the interview. I think that if he can be fired from A&E for voicing his opions and beliefs to GQ that are not the same as A&E's (since he represents A&E and A&E pays him and A&E is not run by the government, they can do what ever they want) then Chick-fil-A should be able to fire those who do not agree or believe in one man one woman marriage (Is Chick-fil-A run by the government??). But of course we would never see that happen. What happened to Phil is basically discrimination, they discriminated him for his beliefs!

lilliesandvino · December 2013

If you do anything that could potentially hurt your employer's reputation or bottom line, you can be fired. Period.

nightmare_of_beauty · December 2013

Didn't A&E fire Dog the Bounty Hunter for using the n word in a recorded conversation with his son?

LooneyLife · December 2013

lilliesandvino said:
If you do anything that could potentially hurt your employer's reputation or bottom line, you can be fired. Period.

Agreed. Which makes it all the more hypocritical that they hired him in the first place. His views have been publicly preached long before A&E started the show. It was convenient for them to ignore them because they had the potential to make millions. Now they've got their millions and are ready to distance themselves. Such is business.

Both sides will move on with their big bucks and be no worse for the wear. Sadly, the only people truly affected by this are those people/groups that were disparaged by his remarks.

MH1006 · December 2013

LuckyAngel07 said:

hardlyhannah said:

Chiming in - I think it is interesting that everyone is focusing on the anti-gay comments that he made and kind of skipping over the fact that he said black people were better off before pre-civil rights...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/19/phil-robertson-black-people_n_4473474.html

True! I think that's just what most people latched onto.

I also think that his experience with how blacks lived/were treated/what they thought was so extremely limited based on where he lived, he has no real idea what their lives were like on a large scale. He spoke based on his very very limited experience and exposure. So I took it with a major grain of salt and moved on.

Did he not also speak about homosexuality based on his very very limited experience and exposure? Cause that's the impression I got.

Also, calling someone a bigot is a bold and unsavory accusation. Telling said person that they are over reacting and to "take deep breaths" is just wrong.

cloudymeatballs · December 2013

Also, calling someone a bigot is a bold and unsavory accusation. Telling said person that they are over reacting and to "take deep breaths" is just wrong. I hear ya on this. But I am just going to keep quiet. This is what we are supposed to do. Don't you know that??? I am being called a bigot here, yet my saying she has some probs for her being unable to see both sides makes me pretty low. Right on! I'm taking deep breaths.. Gotta calm down...

cloudymeatballs · December 2013

...

LuckyAngel07 · December 2013

MH1006 said:

hardlyhannah said:

Chiming in - I think it is interesting that everyone is focusing on the anti-gay comments that he made and kind of skipping over the fact that he said black people were better off before pre-civil rights...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/19/phil-robertson-black-people_n_4473474.html

True! I think that's just what most people latched onto.

I also think that his experience with how blacks lived/were treated/what they thought was so extremely limited based on where he lived, he has no real idea what their lives were like on a large scale. He spoke based on his very very limited experience and exposure. So I took it with a major grain of salt and moved on.
Did he not also speak about homosexuality based on his very very limited experience and exposure? Cause that's the impression I got. Also, calling someone a bigot is a bold and unsavory accusation. Telling said person that they are over reacting and to "take deep breaths" is just wrong.

No, he spoke about his beliefs about homosexuality based entirely on what the Bible says, which, despite his beliefs that it is the unerring word of God, was written by men just as flawed as you or I.

The interview quoted him as saying the black he saw on a daily basis working in the fields of poor and rural northern LA seemed happy with their lot in life (more or less). The fact that he'd generalize that to ALL blacks living under pre-civil rights laws is the problem. He had no clue what others dealt with, so how could he say they were all happy living that way?

BTW, I didn't call anyone a bigot or stupid or ignorant or any other name. But Cloudy kept posting agitated remarks and I was just trying to restore a semblance of peace so we could keep having a discussion and not have it turn into all-out emotional drama.

Then again, once you stepped in, what else could we expect.

srcr2011 · December 2013

lilliesandvino said:

If you do anything that could potentially hurt your employer's reputation or bottom line, you can be fired. Period.

So, you agree, Chick-fil-A should then fire those (who are are for SSM) who could hurt their reputation for standing against SSM?!

**I dont believe ANYONE should get fired for their belief or opinions**

lilliesandvino · December 2013

I think it's best to remember that all actions have consequences. And I would hope that someone who supports civil rights would not work for a company whose beliefs contradict that.

Duck Dynasty...

Re: Duck Dynasty...

Choose Another Board

Search Boards