Phil Robinson was suspended for giving his honestly held beliefs, in answer to questions in an interview by GQ magazine( not on the show).His and his families beliefs and actions are the very reasons the show is such a big hit and money maker for A&E.This is the one show you don't have to be ashamed to let children watch.This would be like NASCAR suspending Jimmy Johnson for driving fast on the track. A&E should be ashamed of itself, and I hope it has to undergo a very big backlash over this.
Mike

I knew it was coming. Sooner or later someone from a ragsheet magazine (I put an 'r' in its place) was going to trap and corner one of those guys and get a kick out of seeing them fall.

My level of disgust with political correctness and aberrant behavior knows no bounds. Deviants can say whatever the hell they want about mainstream(and I mean it in it's correct sense here) church attending, working, productive Americans and that's okay with those deviants and the so-called "mainstream news media".
When payback time comes with these jerks as it surely will it's going to be a real B**ch
I am a practicing Christian and biblical adherent so to me homosexuality is an abomination and abortion is legalized murder so I guess Dave can go ahead and suspend me for stating this.
Jim

Tell you what, Paisan, if Dave does that (and I doubt that he will) he can suspend me as well- as I am with you 100%- homosexuality and pedophilia are both "INFAMITAS" IN MY BOOK TOO, and as a Catholic I feel that abortion is murder of the unborn, and I am 100% against it-- Phil was just calling a "three legged duck" a "queer", and also a spade a spade- good for him--I'm gonna buy a few of their fine duck Commando calls on my next visit to Cabelas--

I'm so disgusted I can't find sufficient words.

Exactly where in the hell does the pink panty brigade get the idea they alone have a right to free speech anyway.

If they want to spear plums behind closed doors...I couldn't care less.....but if they publically open their yaps to whine about someone who is exercizing his free speech then the gloves come off.

No pole smoker or dyke has a greater freedom of speach than me, Phil or anyone else.....and they have less than NO right to tell anyone else what will or will not believe.

I bet most of the frilly panty types whining are also aetheists....because they can't be Christians.

Bloody ridiculous.

I don't share all of your beliefs guys, but I sure get annoyed when idiots invoke hypocritical PC BS and do what they did to Phil. His approach to life....his beliefs.... are what has been making all those pricks money.

The rest should walk off the show. Wouldn't be surprised if they do...They may have learned a thing or two from Phil over the years.

For whatever it's worth:
RWTF: My suspension remark was tongue in cheek I doubt if Dave would ever suspend me for my Christian beliefs.
I just wrote a memo to A&E condemning their actions. I would recommend the rest of you do the same. I agree and hope the rest walk off the show as well. I have never been a regular viewer but if the show comes back to normal I just may become one.
I would also like to see guest appearances on their show of Jeff Foxworthy and Ron White. Let them do one of their routines there. That ought to rattle the deviants cages a bit!

Here's the email I sent to A&E:

I am not a regular viewer of Ducks Dynasty but was appalled to learn that you had suspended one of the stars for stating his Biblical beliefs.

And as I understand it; this wasn’t even as part of their program but as part of an interview.

To the best of my knowledge this is still a free Country with freedom of religion and your networks attempt to curtail someone due to their religious beliefs is just plain wrong.

I’ve long suspected that we’re dealing with a dual standard with your network, one for mainstream Christianity and another for other beliefs including deviant ones, and I guess your actions confirm this.

I have been a long time viewer of other A&E programs but will no longer do so in the future.



Jim XXXXXXXX

IMO: IF YOU DON'T VIGOROUSLY OBJECT TO THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR WHICH IS A REAL PROBLEM FOR CHRISTIANS YOU HAVE BECOME PART OF THE PROBLEM.

Phil stood his ground before when they complained about the talk of God and Guns

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2...re-Done-Filming

On May 9, Greensboro, NC country station 93.1 The Wolf reported that after receiving complaints over prayers to God and the frequent use of guns on air, Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson said, "God and guns are part of our everyday lives [and] to remove either of them from the show is unacceptable."

and again to cut Jesus out of the show

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/flashback-ae-tried-cut-jesus-duck-dynasty-family-prayers


They A&E might cave,here is a petition.

http://www.truthrevolt.org/petition/stop-aes-anti-religious-bigotry

and FB page (593K "likes")

https://www.facebook.com/Philrobertsonsupport?fref=ts

Thanks for that link...I got my signature on the petition.

Shades of Paula Dean; I quit watching the 'Food Network' over her. PC is becoming a pain! Duck Dynasty is A&E's number one show. I guess A&E must be afraid of losing their Gay Lesbian Bi-Sexual Transvestite audience for the show...Geo

The Pope has the same beliefs and he is man of the year.

A red neck hunter says it out load and he gets fired.

And these two salami smugglers still have their show on A&E,why fire Phil and yet let theses two stay ?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/...nce-for-man-ass

"I'm not sure when the left started to get the vapors over blunt sexual expression, but apparently part of the issue here is the rather blunt way the "Duck Dynasty" patriarch expressed his preference for a woman's vagina over a man's anus.

Well, if that kind of thing is wrong, especially when you are an A&E reality star, why haven't A&E reality stars Chris Morelli and Tad Eaton been suspended for expressing the opposite preference in the same explicit way:

An openly gay couple on A&E's "Storage Wars: New York" is NOT offended by the homophobic comments made by fellow A&E'er and "Duck Dynasty" star Phil Robertson -- telling TMZ, they just feel bad for him

for the link. I just signed it.

Maybe Pope Francis is an OK guy, only time will tell, but almost all his predecessors who got to wear the snazzy white hat and the red slippers ure turned a blind eye to all the priests who were butt-&^%$ing altar boys until who laid de rails.. My Church has a big black eye that all the beef steaks in Omaha will never cover up or cure-- sad SOB's- they thought if we ship a pedophile priest out of our Diocese, the problems of sodomy will go with him, like a Biblical scape-goat- WRONG-castration is the only sure cure for a pedophile, whether he wears a collar, or not!!

I don't know how they think they can kick only Phil off the show- it's not a fictional show that can have characters written out at will. Where do they think they will film it?He either owns or has major interest in everything, except the homes of the others.I doubt the other cast members will show up for filming with out him, or will write anything else to support the show.They have enough money that they won't starve.All in all,it's stupid of A&E to do this, it is in effect canceling their most profitable show.
What is A&E's email address?
Mike

Funny how the "alternate Lifestyle" community is in an uprorar of the factual yet benign description of what homosexual men like and do.
I have had numerous discussions with people "allegedly far more tolerant than I" about the homosexual lifestyle which I don't agree with. They always insist that it is just "their preference" or a "lifestyle choice" and nothing else. I then ask the in very descriptive terms if what gay men do is just a different lifestyle they get very offended and tell me that my description is disgusting.;but it is nothing more than graphically describing what they do. Typical liberal minded people. they want so badly to accept everyone yet when the ones who they feel should be accepted are described in real terms, they don't want to hear it.
They preach tolerance about this. but to them tolerance means acceptance which it is not.
or they label us that don't approve as homophobes. that is a misleading moniker meaning that we have a fear of homosexuals. I do not far them, I don't approve of them. But what they do as consenting adults behind closed doors, have at it.
they allow homosexuals in the military now. since that happened, there is at least one fighting to allow transgender in the military. where will it stop?

But I cant have my beliefs without being branded an intolerant icacist gay basher.

Complaining about liberal network execs just helps YOU feel good.

The way to make THEM feel stupid is to complain to the show's sponsors.

I guarantee you that the CEO of a big corp sponsor can get a LOT more done that all of you put together.

A&E has a link for "feedback for new shows"

http://www.aetv.com/

here is phone,fax and email;


Their number is : 1-212-210-1400
Fax: 212-210-1308
email: feedbackaetv@aenetworks.com



Here is the petition again;

http://www.truthrevolt.org/petition/stop-aes-anti-religious-bigotry

Because, the left/progressive's must stop free thinking and free speech by free men to rule them.

Right on, Bob.

"But what they do as consenting adults behind closed doors, have at it."

My view, too, Brian and no one every accused me of being an intolerant, racist, gay basher.

As I stated earlier I am not a regular watcher of this show. With that in mind can anyone on here provide a list of their major sponsors and links to contact them?
I agree that's the major way to get A&Es attention $$$$$!
Jim

http://clashdaily.com/2013/12/ae-list-advertisers-hit-network-hurts-wallet/

Sensodyne: 1-866-844-2797

T-Mobile: Twitter @TMobile / 1-877-453-1304

Samsung: (PR department) samsungpr@edelman.com / Twitter @samsungtweets / 1-800-726-7864

Motorola: Twitter @motorola / 1-800-734-5870 / 1-847-523-5000

Walgreens: Twitter @walgreens / 1-800-925-4733

IHOP: 1-866-444-5144 / Twitter @IHOP / 1-818-240-6055

Macy’s: (PR Department) anne.keating@bloomingdales.com, 212-705-2434 / @Macys / 1-212-494-3000

Nokia: Twitter @Nokia / 1-888-665-4228

Microsoft: Twitter @microsoft / 1-800-642-7676

Verizon: Twitter @verizonwireless / 1-800- 837-4966

Bass Pro Shops: Twitter @Bass_Pro-Shops / 1-800-494-1300 or 1-800-227-7776

Progressive Insurance: 1-440-461-5000 / Michele_L_Moore@progressive.com

You can also contact A&E directly at feedbackaetv@aenetworks.com.

Live and let live just isn't enough any more. Any pc cause has to be elevated to in your face status.

I wonder if the duck crew could just pack up and jump networks. Goofs up this season a bit, but I think ole Phil is a big part of the show's success. I haven't watched much of the show myself, but thanks Dave K for the various contacts.

Thanks Dave:
I for one will get going on this tomorrow and I hope the rest of you will as well.
Jim

My best friend is the supplier of The Duck Commander's crew with the choke tubes that he manufactures and sells. They have a business arrangement, and have for several years. He has spent several days with Phil and his family hunting, eating Miss Kay's cooking, and shooting the breeze. He tells me that Phil is not fake, at all. He is the real deal, living what he believes, and speaking out for it, too. Phil and Kay really do live by the Ouchita River in a remodeled, and added on to, doublewide trailer.

I support him in his beliefs and believe the same myself. He has set an example for us to speak out and not be silent. I intend to follow his lead and contact A & E and all their major sponsors that DaveK posted. Thanks, Dave.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke

Amen, and amen.

SRH

Amen

I have e-mailed A & E with this message:

Please know that I am appalled at your decision to suspend Phil Robertson from the Duck Dynasty television show. I understand that you based that decision on his statements to GQ magazine concerning his beliefs about homosexuality. This is an obviously blatant attempt to pander to the homosexual agenda and at the same time stifle free speech.

I have been a regular viewer of your network for several years but, will not be any longer until your decision is reversed and a public apology made to Mr. Robertson. I have contacted your major advertisers and sponsors and made my views known to them as well about this, and stated my position in boycotting their companies and products because of their association with your network.

Please reconsider this blunder on your part and make the proper corrections.

Sincerely yours, Stan Hillis

Also have e-mailed all the others on the list that I could. I don't do Twitter so I may have to call the others tomorrow.

SRH

Please take time to read this.

You will be made to care.

http://stevedeace.com/news/national-politics/you-will-be-made-to-care-2/

SRH

Good Job Stan,

I will be doing the same thing tomorrow...and on the phone...I want to hear their response. I will also email all of those that Dave listed.

This anti God atheist PC agenda that has blossomed needs to see just how big the brick wall is that it will soon run into...!..

Best,

As expected, the family will stand by Phil and no go on if A@E continues this assault on freedom of speech.

http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/12/brea...ons-suspension/

"We want to thank all of you for your prayers and support. The family has spent much time in prayer since learning of A&E’s decision. We want you to know that first and foremost we are a family rooted in our faith in God and our belief that the Bible is His word. While some of Phil’s unfiltered comments to the reporter were coarse, his beliefs are grounded in the teachings of the Bible. Phil is a Godly man who follows what the Bible says are the greatest commandments: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart” and “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Phil would never incite or encourage hate. We are disappointed that Phil has been placed on hiatus for expressing his faith, which is his constitutionally protected right.We have had a successful working relationship with A&E but, as a family, we cannot imagine the show going forward without our patriarch at the helm. We are in discussions with A&E to see what that means for the future of Duck Dynasty. Again, thank you for your continued support of our family."


If you want to buy Duck Commander items be sure to purchase direct ( http://duckcommander.com/ ) not through the A&E link.

The Duck Commander Site also has the update on the Robertson Family Statement.

Fact is I think the entire TV show is stupid....just another reality TV show designed to portray Americans as dumb stupid swamp/hill billies.

I did watch it a few times until they did the fake turkey hunt....Then I've never watched it since.

Same with those idiot crock hunters from Louisiana.....they also did a fake turkey hunt and I've never watched it again.

Whether Duck Dynasty is "stupid" or not is immaterial.

The fact is, these bearded bozos and their show have done MORE to promote the 2nd Amendment and hunting in the general public's mind than the NRA.

This world turns on "media," and Dynasty is good media for shooters.

(go hunt turkeys on your own... like Storage Wars)

Exactly !

It has NOTHING to do with the show,if you like it or watch it.

"The fact is" they,the left with complicit media-in this case A@E, wants to silence anyone who does not agree with the progressive agenda !

These so-called "bozo's" have gone from dirt poor to very wealthy on their own initiative long before this show was ever even thought about by some network bozo. THey are all far smarter people than the idiots at any of the networks are.

They don't need this show or what piddly ammount they get from it....they made far more from their real business.

THis is all about libtards who are jealous someone else is a success when they themselves aren't.....and feel a need to knock them down....unless of course its one of their own...then thery worship them.

Bob, Dave and BHD, you have summarized the situation perfectly. Both as to who the Robertson's really are and what is going on at A&E.

While some reading this thread or any other commentary about this incident may slough it off as just another dumb reality show featuring hillbillies, that stance both ignores the hugely important issue of free speech as well as represents an utterly mistaken view of who the Robertson's are. If you watch the show, there is NOTHING about the way Phil Robertson conducts himself that suggests "dumb" or "stupid".

Last winter, in the aftermath of the Newtown shooting (and earlier as a result of the Colorado theatre shooting), we had a number of discussions about the issue of "anti-gun = good, gun = bad" and the brainwashing of the North American population that the media in general, Hollywood and the educational system has conducted over the last 40 - 50 years and is continuing to conduct in an effort to change popular culture's views of gun use and ownership.

I suggested at the time that, ultimately, any defense put up to stop the enactment of restrictive and coercive anti-gun laws is doomed to failure, because the powerful influence of the educational system and popular media is too hard to combat over time.

Duck Dynasty is a perfect example of how we (I mean the larger pro firearms population, not just us here on the board or even the NRA) need to re-group from part of our defensive efforts and try to find vehicles in the media that can change the direction of popular culture.

Now of course DD is not perfect and it does play into stereotypes (at least for those who don't watch or haven't been paying attention). But like the multitude of vehicles for anti gun messages we have been bombarded with over the last 40 years, it's no one show/event/person that changes cultures direction. It is an accumulation over time.

IMHO, for those reasons alone, every gun owner should be supporting Phil and the rest of his family.

Doug's post should be chiseled into a mountainside or put on a billboard or something for all to see!!! Because its comin.

A@E is 50% owned by DIS (Disney)-the other 50% is Hearst Publishing.

http://www.streetinsider.com/Corporate+News/Duck+Dynasty+Anti-Gay+Backlash%3A+A%26E+Parent+Walt+Disney+%28DIS%29+Shares+Unaffected/8996006.html

DIS CEO is Bob Iger

http://thewaltdisneycompany.com/about-disney/leadership/ceo/robert-iger

Investor Relations

http://thewaltdisneycompany.com/investors

Contacts;

http://thewaltdisneycompany.com/contact-us/shareholder-services

Disney Investor Relations
c/o Broadridge Corporate Issuer Solutions
P.O. Box 1342
Brentwood, NY 11717

Phone:1-855-553-4763
Fax: 1-215-553-5402

Email: disneyinvestor@broadridge.com

Who in heck is Phil Robinson and Duck Dynasty? One is free to say whatever they want but it should be obvious to anyone with tiny amount of common sense that there might be repercussions to what they have stated.

You probably meant who in the heck is a-n-e, and are they responsible for their actions. Regardless of ideology, don't they have a responsibility to their bottom line, sponsors, owners, employees, etc. etc. Libs like to play the shake down game. Wouldn't have been smarter to have a decent pr firm craft up a 'sincere' apology on their website, and made a 'considerable' donation to the alphabet coalition.

Except this is the USA...and you can't fire someone for proclaiming they are a butt pirate.

And its discriminatory to fire someone for proclaiming they are Christian.

Incidently Phil Robinson and his family are self made multi-millionares. Most if not all of them are college graduates....with minimums of 4 year degrees.

This was all before that reality show concept ever crossed anyones mind.

Phil Robinson probibly makes more money from is real job (not the tv show)than the network moron that fired him dreams of making.

Michlle Malkin has a good read about GLAAD (the thugs behind the A@E "shakedown"):

"GLAAD has worked tirelessly to marginalize and suppress the free speech of Christian leaders, Christian businesses and conservative talk-radio hosts dating back to their infamous Dr. Laura boycott 13 years ago. The group's mission is not about equality or defending against "defamation." It's about silencing critics,"

GLAAD: Lethal Enforcers of the Left's Tolerance Mob
http://townhall.com/columnists/michellem...n1766200/page/1

"For the civility police, the operational motto is always: "Do as we say, not as we do, in the name of social justice. Amen."

"It's not enough to live and let live. You must repent and genuflect before the self-serving gods of selective progressivism."

" Nail, meet head. GLAAD's counterculture warriors know full well: It's a small leap from forcing Phil Robertson, the Boy Scouts and Rush Limbaugh out of the public square to forcing wedding photographers and cake bakers to serve gay customers against their will and mandating that Catholic medical providers and Hobby Lobby violate their religious conscience and cover abortion pills in order to stay in business.

These GLAAD tidings have everything to do with repression and nothing to do with rights.

I don't know how many of you watched Megyn Kelly (Fox) interview that twerp from GLAAD last night. I could tell it was all she could do to restrain herself from verbally teeing off on this deviant.
These people are even more bizarre than I expected and this came across clearly.
We MUST keep the pressure on to insure that the 1st Amendment right doesn't become "discretionary" and selective which is what these deviants are arguing.
Jim

If you really don't know who they are, your interests would be better served by doing a little research (there is a search engine named Google that can help) before you voice opinions.

Phil knew full well the implications of making the statements he did. Do you have the impression he is crying about all this fallout? When you have the courage of your convictions it does not matter what the repercussions are, you say and do what needs to be said and done, because it is the RIGHT THING. Those who shrink from the task because of the potential consequences are cowards, and not even fit to speak on the subject.

SRH

Well said agree 100%!

Right on target Stan. Since I can't give you any more stars in your profile here's five more. *****

If Phil Robertson was "politically correct" he wouldn't have 14 million viewers...DUH
And any first year college marketing student would know this. Six months from now we'll see how A&E likes shooting themselves in the profit foot.
But, this is not the underlying problem....the problem is the moronic liberal brain farts; e.g. Phil gets suspended for stating his religious beliefs and convictions(because it pissed off some gays)
The former president of Iran, Amajinadad(can't spell the idiot's name) routinely had homosexuals put to death and the liberals at Columbia University had him as a guest speaker.
Thought for the day: If Phil had quoted the Koran in his assessment of homosexual behavior would A&E have suspended him?

Why is it OK with A&E to commit the actions , but not OK for Phil to describe the actions "championed" by them.
Mike

I didn't sign onto the petitions favoring Phil's position. While I think it is foolishness to deny the Biblical admonition that homosexuality is a sin, I can't agree with Phil's statement that they're going to Hell for sure. Personally I don't feel qualified to express a public opinion on who's going to Hell and who ain't.

The Christ I pray to is one of redemption and I believe all who accept His Grace are welcome to whatever Kingdom there may be. Phil's Old Testament opinion is not my own.

The law differentiates crimes that are malum in se (sins) and malum in prohibitum (like leash laws for dog owners). Changing norms in our society dictated the reversal of sodomy laws and we opened the door to the gay revolution. Like it or not we have it now...Geo

P.S.: I know better than to mention my own personal values here but I just did anyway.

Quote:
:Changing norms in our society dictated the reversal of sodomy laws and we opened the door to the gay revolution. Like it or not we have it now...Geo"

This law change does NOT change the Bible which maintains homosexuality is an abomination.
I and I suspect ALL practicing Christians subscribe to this belief.
So What's next? Change the laws about bestiality? Change the laws to permit "Mercy" killings. You are entitled to your own "personal values" and I have told the Gays I know in the past that they are entitled to their "personal values" as well and I could care less what the do in private. However when what they do is made public and they attempt to advocate their practices my stance would dramatically change.
This is just ONE more issue where the Country is deeply divided and I don't expect there will be any changes in these major rifts in the short term if ever.
Jim

Additionally: I don't have any problems talking about my personal values. I was raised to be my own man and to develop a spine and to stand up for what I believe in. If this offends anyone here or anywhere else that's just too damn bad!
Phil R. didn't have to state what he stated. He could have danced around just like the majority of spineless pansy's do all the time. If I was spineless I'd have probably developed a career reporting the "news" on MSNBC!

Yes Jim we've all noticed that you stand up for what You believe in and that you do not appreciate anyone who holds any different opinion. You do not have to agree with me and I do not have to agree with you. I do not condone homosexuality but I'll stand with what I posted...Geo

You're wrong Geo:
I have no problem what-so-ever with opposing views if you can back them up with facts. I have a real problem with Libtards like King Brown who make statements they can't support with facts then obfuscate or try to take the discussion in a different direction.
I can and will back up with facts anything I state on this forum. If you don't condone homosexuality as Phil R clearly doesn't then what's wrong with standing up and saying just that?

The only reason we have a Communist idiot occupying the White House is the refusal of most to stand up and state the truth about this liar and cheat.
Here you want some Obama facts(accomplishments) Many of which would probably have gotten a White Conservative impeached. I for one am sick and disgusted with those who just stand by and watch this Country being destroyed by a combination of communism and lack of moral values.
Your "not signing petitions" is tacit approval of GLAAD and all it stands for. Complacency like yours has resulted in the mess we have today.


He has an impressive list of accomplishments:
First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.
First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.
First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States.
First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.
First President to spend a trillion dollars on ‘shovel-ready’ jobs when there was no such thing as ‘shovel-ready’ jobs.
First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.
First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.
First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S. , including those with criminal convictions.
First President to demand a company (BP after the oil spill) hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.
First President to tell a CEO of a major corporation (Chrysler) to resign.
First President to terminate America‘s ability to put a man in space.
First President to cancel the National Day of Prayer and to say that America is no longer a Christian nation.
First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.
First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke-out on the reasons for their rate increases.
First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory.
First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN (and others)).
First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.
First President to actively try to bankrupt an American industry (coal).
First President to fire an inspector general of Ameri-Corps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.
First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office.
First President to surround himself with radical left wing anarchists. (How quickly we forget Alger Hiss, et al.... Oh, he was a commie, not an anarchist? What difference, at this point, does it make? Besides, who ever heard of an anarchist who wanted to be coddled by the nanny state cradle to grave?)
First President to golf 73 separate times in his first two and a half years in office, 102 to date. (This must have been going around for a while. Last I heard, it was over 150 times, and that was some time back.)
First President to hide his medical, educational and travel records.
First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.
First President to go on multiple global “apology tours” and concurrent “insult our friends” tours.
First President to go on 17 lavish vacations, including date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends paid for by the taxpayers.
First President to have 22 personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.
***

Jim's entitled to his facts; none should take them away from him. Mandela was a Communist. South Africa is a Communist state. It's committing genocide against whites. Obama is a Communist. He is also an idiot. He did NOTHING to earn the Nobel Prize. .Jim has "a real problem with Libtards like King Brown who make statements they can't support with facts. . ."

Ah, Jim, I love you! Doesn't matter what you say. You sail close to the wind on fair speech. You're not mean. You treat the Bible and the First and Second Amendments as articles of faith, literally. Eminent theologians and jurists interpret them differently in different circumstances. But all well's even there because Christians are called to be faithful whatever the consequences!

What on earth has Obama got to do with Phil Robertson's quotes in GQ and his problems with A&E, Jim? I have to admit I have no idea what GLAAD is, but if you say I'm tacitly or otherwise approving of whatever it is I expect you'd be wrong about that too.

I think (that's an opinion) that Phil was wrong to pass judgment on homosexuals and others that they were going to Hell and leaving out the part about redemption. How's he know?

That may be the belief of his denomination (Church of Christ), but it is not my belief. Hard to argue religious matters because it's all based in Faith...Geo

Geo.,

Phil's statement is not an Old Testament "opinion" only. I don't see how the following New Testament scripture can be interpreted any other way.

I Cor. 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. NKJV

God's grace is there for all who will accept His cross for themselves and walk in His ways. But His saving grace does not extend to those who willfully disobey his statutes and commandments. Among those things He says is sin are those in the above verse written by Paul to the Corinthians. Notice there are others there, besides homosexuality, but 4 of the 7 mentioned there are sexual sins. It seems the Corinthians had a special tendency toward those.

I think where we often are guilty of hypocrisy is our propensity to point a bony finger at homosexuals, condemning their sins, and overlook our own sins. Though God especially called homosexuality an abomination, He never meant that other sins were less serious. All sin separates us from Him, and His saving grace only comes through forgiveness, and forgiveness only comes through repentance, actively denouncing and turning away from those sins in our lives.

Christ is our Redeemer, absolutely, and redemption can come only through Him. But, the kicker is that until we turn from our sins and ask forgiveness, that grace and redemption does not include us. The idea that Christ died for all, and that God is a loving God that would never condemn anyone to hell, including practicing homosexuals (and thieves, idolaters, extortioners, and adulterers) is a lie promoted by the Enemy to salve man's conscience.

I agree with Phil. If you believe the Holy Bible is the inspired word of God, that it is inerrant, and does not contradict itself, you must believe that practicing homosexuals are bound for a terrible eternity away from the presence of God, in hell. However, as long as there is life in a body there is hope for conviction of sin, repentance, and reconciliation. But, when the body and soul separate, at death, it is too late. There is no changing the soul's destination at that point. God doesn't change to suit the times. James 1:17 ...... "with whom (the Father) there is no variation or shadow of turning".NKJV The God who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah is the same God we serve today, and the same one we will stand before to give account of the deeds of this life.

Sobering thought.

All my best, SRH

Stan,
I appreciate your well thought out and Biblical post. I agree that the Bible comes down hard on sin, as it should if it's the Word, but I still believe that up until that last moment of life all sin may be washed away in the blood of the Lamb. Sodomy although particularly odious and un-sanitary is no exception.

What about the dietary strictures? If God is bound by the pronouncements of those who wrote down the Old Testament and may not change with the experience of His people, is my particular love of good bacon a sin? Not in my mind; HE is with us now and He knows that all that was ascribed to having been His word is His to change.

Old Phil is a born again sinner according to his own book. Why would he think that his redemption is unique? I don't think he really does!...Geo

Spoken and posted like a true agnostic King I would have expected nothing less from you.
Also of course posted like a true Libtard who can't refute anything I or anyone else posts as facts.
Crawl back into you dream world while you still can.

Oh and BTW: Please note that there has been NO ATTEMPT to refute what I posted above about Obama by King Brown and any of his minions.

Sitting here in the dark with my iPad. In the middle of an ice storm and the power is out. I expect it will be for a while.

I found your post quite interesting Stan. I'm curious, and I'm really not trying to start something, just explore it, but as you noted, four of the seven sins mentioned are of a sexual nature. What is with the focus on sex?

Geo.,

We agree that redemption is possible up until that last moment of life. But, repentance and forgiveness is still necessary for it to occur.

Glad you asked about the dietary structures.

Act 10:10-15 is especially pertinent I think. "Then he became very hungry and wanted to eat; but while they made ready, he fell into a trance and saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth. In it were all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air. And a voice came to him, "Rise, Peter, kill and eat".
But Peter said, "Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean."
And a voice spoke to him again the second time, "What God has cleansed you must not call common."

God, on that day, pronounced all animals and birds as cleansed for our consumption. I loves me some bacon, wropped 'round a duck breast!

All my best, SRH

You're as good at dancing around the facts as the expert King Brown. If you don't know what GLAAD is you're basically ignorant in regard to the Duck Dynasty situation and shouldn't be posting on this subject to begin with. Go get educated and then come back and post.

My opinion:

If, in that last millisecond after he pulled the trigger and before the bullet entered his brain, Hitler repented he was forgiven.

If he can be forgiven who can't be?

When Phil states the Bible condemns homosexuality he is right. It also condemns gluttony, drunkeness, lust, adultery, fornication and greed. Not going into details but I have found some of those states irresistable during my fifty eight years. Jesus doesn't seem to talk about homosexuality. Jesus does spend a lot of time talking about taking care of the poor, the widows, the children. Hypocrisy seems to particularly bother him.

Phil had a right to say that the Bible states that homosexuality is a sin. A&E had a right to fire him. I have a right to contact Bass Pro and some others on the list and tell them how I feel about Phil being fired and their continued advertisement on A&E

End of my opinion.

Corinth was noted for sexual sins, canvasback. In ch. 5 Paul addresses it specifically. This entire book is one of the letters from Paul to the new church at Corinth, and addresses particular problems there. There were even temple prostitutes.

Some would say that since it was written to the church at Corinth it doesn't apply to us today. If it didn't, the Holy Spirit would not have seen fit to include it in the Bible we have today. It's no accident that it, and many other letters (epistles), are there for us. Again, James 1:17 is vitally important .......... "with whom (God) there is no variation or shadow of turning". What applied to the new believers at Corinth in the first century applies to believers today.

Thanks, SRH

The support from this administration has never made it easier to bash Christianity, so I'd think Phil's wading through a time where his enemies are emboldened.

I think though that the first comment kind of answers the second. If Phil were asked a question, and answered how he thought (opinion), why is it now concluded that he passed judgement on anyone.

His words can be interpreted any way any one might see fit, but you'd think Phil 'knows' because his opinion works for him, and apparently a bunch of other folks.

[/quote]You're as good at dancing around the facts as the expert King Brown. If you don't know what GLAAD is you're basically ignorant in regard to the Duck Dynasty situation and shouldn't be posting on this subject to begin with. Go get educated and then come back and post. [/quote]

What you're good at Jim is dancing away from the issue we're discussing. You do not say anything about Obama in the facts you present that I do not agree with, but what does that have to do with Phil Robertson's predicament.

I actually agree with most of what you post Jim, but I draw the line at your bigotry. You may not dismiss me from any discussion I choose to participate in on this forum. I still have no idea what GLAAD is and I'm not bothering to investigate...Geo

I'm frankly have been surprised there has been any disagreement with Phil's statements on this forum. I would have thought as a fellow hunter and Christian which I believe most of us are on this would have been a "no brainer" .
I guess I've learned to not take anything for granted.
Jim

George, GLAAD is the main lobby group for gays, lesbian, transgendered etc.

Stan, I get that perhaps Corinth was a bit of a seedy place. But I am talking about in a broader sense with religion in today's society. And here's what I mean:

Pretty easy to get a bunch of strong opinions here about the abomination of homosexuality. But I don't hear much about.....say.....adultery. Which may involve the sex act but at its heart is a lie, a betrayal of the worst kind to most people. It would be much easier for me to be outraged at the behaviour of an adulterer than that of two homosexuals in a committed relationship.

To me there is a pretty strong level of hypocrisy when I hear/read the outrage about homosexuals and hear little about the outrage of adultery. Where is the public shaming of those who engage in that behaviour.

Only way to find out for sure about the stuff we're discussing is to die and have it all revealed. I ain't that curious...Geo

I'll bet my last tube of face paint that Phil agrees that, as long as there is life, there is the possibility of repentance and reconciliation.



No more chances for these babies, tho'. They were reconciled to a grill, and to my palate.

SRH

Jim, I don't take the Bible literally. I do however believe in the Christian ideal of "do unto others...."

I don't share Phil's beliefs, except his right to free speech and religious freedom. Both principles America was founded on. I am outraged his employer has singled him out for espousing his religious viewpoint, one held by tens of millions of other Americans.

And yet, I love to hunt and I love these doubleguns. I suspect my view is as common on this board as yours.

Oh Stan! Just saw that post. That looks like a great day!

I agree completely. That's the hypocrisy I mentioned in my earlier post. Sin is sin. Any sin separates us from Him, and we ALL have sinned. Christians aren't perfect, as the old saw goes, they're just forgiven. There's a difference in sinning because we in a moment of weakness fail to walk in His strength and sin, compared to blatant sin where we refuse to acknowledge that a persistent behavior on our part is sin, and in rebellion, we continue in it. None of us, after coming to the knowledge of His saving grace and accepting His sacrifice for us will maintain perfection and never sin again. But, we abhor those things that He abhors, and strive to live a life that is pleasing to Him who died for us.

Paul said it best in Phillippians 3:12-14 "Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me. Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended, but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus."

SRH

Okay Stan, I like that. So here some variations that gets back to my original question about the issues of sex being sinful.

I am assuming "fornication" in that context is about sex between non married people. Why does God even care about that. If, as you suggest, the Bible is to be taken literally, as came up in the discussion about bacon with George, it can't be about the possibility of children, because that can be dealt with today. In the sense of two people, living together, having children, just not being "married" according to church practice.

Why would God care about homosexual sex? It's not producing kids and doesn't hurt anyone, except perhaps those involved. Those people could be honest, kind, charitable, productive and loving. Why does God give a crap about the form of sex they engage in?

James,

One thing leads to another, it never ends....then the queers want to adopt children and raise them which twists the minds of the young and the fertile minded children......

Then the queers want to change the children's fairy tales to read something different than Momma Bear and Pappa Bear which further twists the young fertile minds. It goes on and on and on and on.....

Bottom line is, all this slowly decays society as we know it.

God created us and was smart enough to see down the road, all the way down the road, because he made the road, all of it....."Man shall not lay down with Man, and Woman shall not Lay down with Woman"...........PLAIN AND SIMPLE............

As a Christian I was always taught that you don't question God's Word. As a child of God you just trust Him and do what He says. Just like when you were a kid and your Mammy and Pappy told you not to stick your finger in a light socket. Bet you did it anyway right? Bet you felt it all the way down to your next generation too. Should have trusted your Pappy right?

If you're discussing God in the context of Christianity, he's the architect. He should care because maybe he figures square pegs don't fit in round holes. The situation of questioning God caring seems more in the context of an equal to jaw with on missfires.

Craig and JRB, i suspect that over the last 1500 to 2000 years there have been quite a number of committed Christian theologians who thought long and hard about God's words. About what exactly they meant, in what context they should be taken etc. As George said, I won't know until I'm dead, but God gave me a brain to use. So I use it. I don't think He'll be mad about that.

Unquestioning acceptance of what men in positions of religious authority say.....not for me. How did that work out for all the abused kids.

Doug, so does adultery and fornication.......decays society I mean. I would suggest way more than homosexuality. In NA we have an epidemic of cheaters, divorce, lack of commitment and all the lying and familial dislocation that goes with that behaviour. Yet that's pretty well accepted as the norm. Oh well we say as we shrug our shoulders when we hear about one more person who screwed their family by their behaviour.

Where is the outrage about that? Where is the talk of unnatural, against the word of God, abominal behaviours, the slippery slope? I suspect the children of adulterers and liars are far more likely to be adulterers and liars (learned behaviour) than the adopted children of gay couples growing up to be homosexual themselves.

I mean, don't get me wrong. It seems pretty unnatural and revolting to me. But is current Christianity's support of the biblical ban about the act itself or about the behaviour outside the bedroom that normally seems to be the issue. I think lots of them behave like assholes. And I don't like it. Their public behaviour. But I could care less what they are doing in their bedrooms. And BTW, there are a lot of heterosexuals who are at least as annoying and at least as destructive to our social mores.

My posting is a bit disjointed tonight. Transformers are regularly exploding all around my neighbourhood and the power (therefore heat) has been off for quite some time. And it's wintertime in Canada. Ohhhh just had a very large tree come down. Ice buildup.

Didn't you guys hear ?

Queers can't help they're queer they were born that way.

Funny how in the last 10 or 15 years homosexuals want to be known as a race of people and our stupid elected officials want to grant them these rights so they can get their vote.

Maybe Darmin was right....

That kind of twisted thinking is why we're where we're at today....

Why not let murders and rapist adopt children it's no different.

Glad you joined the discussion jOe. Always great to have your keen insight added to any subject here.

James,

There is outrage in any circle of believers, including right here on MisFires.

From crooked governments to lier's, cheats, fornicators, adulterers, child molesters, murderer's etc., the list is endless......our laws in NA are basically taken directly from the Bible, no great revelation.....

As we drift further and further away from God and his commandments man becomes a wanderer, just like Rome in it's plethora of wicked ways, endless.....and you know the result. People today are drifting, not believing and choosing the wrong road, being intelligent, you know the end result.

As man slides down the slippery slope to his own demise God watches. Man always says he wants proof, Man says he has no faith but wants tangible visions and ironclad revelations, therefore he chooses many actions that are against God and mankind will pay dearly when the time comes.....

All those that don't believe will be the first to cry and whine when the end comes.

They will cry and whine just as in the days when God sealed up Noah's Ark.

Unless of course you are Muslim...

I believe the Koran allows for homosexuality but not adultery...along with beast'iality as long as you don't consume the animals flesh.

jOe, I believe that is just wishful thinking on your part. Or perhaps you were being funny. Hard to know.

Here I think is the nutshell version. Both decay society, but are championed by progressives. As mentioned, one's a new normal, the other one is under full court press to elevate a small part of the tail to wag the whole dog. Who gets to dictate the definition of tolerance.

I think many folks are ok with the libertarian 'don't ask don't tell/live and let live' concept. But, the progressive mindset has an agenda. One would think a homosexual with a mind could rationalize with their maker, if they recognize one. Why curtail the liberties of others with differing opinions, when those liberties were endowed by a creator.

On a side note. Any animal in a position of authority that abuses kids is morally wrong and a crime. There is no necessary 'religious' adjective.

As I'm typing this the rest of the family is getting ready to attend church in about 1/2 hour. unfortunately we are one of the few families in our neighborhood who attend church regularly.
A visiting pastor from Great Britain told us that less than 10% of the population there attends church on a regular basis a statistic I personally find appalling.
IMO: We will continue to decline as a society until many more people decide to get God and moral beliefs back into their lives. Keep in mind that tearing down religious beliefs has been a long term goal of the communists since the beginning.
Jim

Sorry to be so tardy in replying, James. Been kinda busy this morning.

Great question, BTW. As I considered my reply to it lots of things came to mind. Each has validity and substance, IMO.

One could reply that it is a command of God, and that I have no right to question it, just obey. I disagree. We are told to work out our salvation "with fear and trembling". Part of that, to me, is questioning. When we question God, in a reverant way, and seek to better understand his ways, He honors that, I believe. Why someone wants to know is key. If it is to pattern our lives more like Christ, then go for it.

One could also use the example given for marriage, throughout Scriptures, as being modeled after Christ and His church, the church being called the bride of Christ. Revelation 21:2 ....... "as a bride adorned for HER husband" (italics and caps mine).

But, I consider this an understandable and compassionate reason God cares about homosexual sex (and condemns it). He created man, we don't create ourselves. We procreate, not the same thing. He, and He alone, gives life. All the millions that will ever be spent trying to create life will never be successful. It is God given. As that Creator, He loves His creation (man) with a love that we cannot fully comprehend. God loves us all, every one. God loves the vilest sinner with a love that caused Him to send His Son to a cruel death, to shed royal blood as a propitiation for the sins of those He loved (loves). We have a hard time differentiating between the sinner and the sin. He doesn't. God hates the sin ....... he hates homosexuality, adultery, pedophilia, and He hates greed, selfishness and bitter gossip. All are harmful to us as humans.

Notice that all sin, every one that is listed and identified in the Scriptures, is harmful to human beings, either physically, mentally or spiritually. God's relentless love for man required Him to make known to us the things that would harm us. Homosexuality IS harmful to man. These participants that appear to be happy and "gay", are anything but. Their lives are not clothed in the true happiness God desires for us, again, because He loves us that much. Just research the suicide rates, the drug use, the alcoholism rates among homosexuals. Keep in mind it is hard to find accurate data now, because the truth about them is not in keeping with political correctness. But, it's there.

So, in summary, God cares about sexual sin because He, in His infinite wisdom as Creator and Healer, knows that it is not in the best interest of His greatest creation, us. Once we grasp the magnificence of that undying love for us, we want to return it, which is the greatest motivation for obeying His commandments. Simply, we trust Him, and in faith, obey. True happiness follows.

Hope your power will soon be restored. You're in my prayers.

SRH

Sorry, I am 24 hours into the power outage. No way to charge anything so must really conserve iPad and iPhone charge. Will be back when pier comes back. They are saying it may be a day or two more. Christmas plans are up in the air. Getting cold here.

Entire region is dark.

What part do you think is untrue ?

Homosexuality is rampant in the middle eastern countries....didn't you see the documentaries about the little boys in one of the Arab countries that are forced into a life of being a sex slave for men ?

The part about it being okay for Muslims to have sex with their animals as long as they don't eat them is in the Koran.

Doesn't matter if God cares or not.....Mother Nature cares.

Kinda reminds me of Deliverance...

Or certain parts of Tennessee.

Here you go straight from the devil incarnate himself:

Quotes from Islam's Most Famous Spokesman: Ayatollah Khomeini

Khomeini's book, Tahrirolvasyleh, vol. 4, Darol Elm, Gom, Iran, 1990, Source: Homa

"A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate; sodomising the child is OK. If the man penetrates and damages the child then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however, does not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girl's sister."

"It is better for a girl to marry in such a time when she would begin menstruation at her husband's house rather than her father's home. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven."

"A man can have sex with animals such as sheeps, cows, camels and so on. However, he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village; however, selling the meat to the next door village should be fine."

The Little Green Book: Sayings of Ayatollah Khomeini, Political, Phylosophica, Social and Religious, with a special introduction by Clive Irving, ISBN number0-553-14032-9, page 47 Source: Homa

"If one commits the act of sodomy with a cow, an ewe, or a camel, their urine and their excrements become impure, and even their milk may no longer be consumed. The animal must then be killed and as quickly as possible and burned."

The Little Green Book, Source: Harwood's Mythology's Last Gods, 175

"Eleven things are impure: urine, excrement, sperm...non-Moslem men and women...and the sweat of an excrement-eating camel."

Kinda reminds me of Deliverance...

Or certain parts of Tennessee. [/quote]

Did that part really come across like you meant it to, joe?

SRH

Now see what happens when you argue Christianity with Stan? And you ruined Christmas for all the other Ontarionites too!

And they want a civilized person to convert to being a Muslim.

Stan

First thing you didn't do was quote all that I said...you can take the part that you quoted anyway you want to.

Fact is I don't pretend to know what God cares about...but I do know that Homosexuality is not natural.

In case the Canadians weren't paying close attention.....again



Now it's easy to see why being a Muslim is so appealing to infidels...

Okay to sodomize a child....(I'd personally cut the head off any Muslim that did this).

They get 4 wives...(heck if I ever get rid of this 1 I'm not looking for another).

They get a permanent spot in heaven if they get their daughter married off when she starts menstruating...

If they have sex with their animals and accidently have orgasm then all they got to do is sell it out of town...to another beast'r.

If by chance they hit the wrong hOle...they have a way out from that.....just kill the animal and burn it quickly.

And these people breath the same air that we do...

jOe I'm giving you fair warning - stock up on candles and batteries. A power outage is headed to Tennessee.

No disagreement here jOe. And I think even the fudge packers know this as well. We consider homosexuality a treatable mental illness at our church and have a group set up to do just that. Naturally this outrages the hard core Gays.
Jim

According to your federal government and to the American Psychological Association and to the insurance companies, homosexuality is no longer an illness or disease. It is also no longer considered to be abnormal behavior, although from a purely statistical standpoint it is clearly abnormal. When I got my first degree, a long time ago, it was covered in Abnormal Psych. Things have changed, mostly for political reasons.

So much here since I last looked.

Not below freezing in the house yet but pretty close. Second night of no heat or power. Was going to have my 86 year old father fly in to join us for Christmas but if it's not back on in the morning, may have to cancel that. Spent the afternoon splitting wood for some elderly neighbours so they can stay warm.

jOe I said it was either a joke or wishful thinking because it's pretty clear the Koran and Islam do not condone homosexuality.

Jim, I would be curious to know how many people your church group has cured of that treatable mental illness.

I can't be right all the time.

I could be wrong about them condoning it....but not about them partaking in it.

jOe if some all powerful deity cares about homosexuality and it being unnatural I can guarantee it is not Mother Nature. The reality of science indicates that many, many species, mammalian and others, engage in what may be described as homosexual behaviour. Sexual activity with another of the same sex. It is in no way limited to humans.

And in humans, around the world, in every culture known, there is a consistent percentage of men's who prefer to engage in homosexual activity over heterosexual activity, about 7%. Don't know the number for women. So while it's a minority, and a minority I choose to have little to do with, that kind of consistency, regardless of culture, religion or societal pressure, suggests a naturalness (i.e. Born with, not learned or adopted) that all the treatment programs in the world are unlikely to change.

Now I happen to be the kind of person who believes that to solve any puzzle or problem, one must start with a true statement of facts. And it strikes me that by describing homosexuality as unnatural or as a disease to be treated, we are not recognizing what is actually happening. And if I want to minimize the influence of the deviance affecting our society that a number of you are referring to here, then I need to start with a true understanding of what homosexuality is. Not by pretending it is something else.

Cue stick hitting hornets nest.

jOe, no argument about them partaking.....it is a disgusting and accepted part of their culture. But it's not an Islamic thing. It's something else.

Something can be normal or natural without being a majority. It is a normal occurrence in human populations that a small percentage of men prefer homosexual relations to heterosexual relations.

Mike, I'm blaming you. Weather guys here say it was a storm system that came up from Texas.

James,

Certainly wish you a Merry CHRISTmas and hope the outage is over with and power restored for ya'll soon.

Joe,

The part of your statement I left out has nothing to do with the first part, IMO. That's why I left it off, not to take it out of context. The way to know what God cares about is pretty simple Joe, read His word. He states plainly what He cares about.
We certainly agree that homosexual behavior is not natural. I guess people's definition of "natural" differ.

Going to finish up shopping today. Big rains on the way, can't work in the fields.

All my best, SRH

The gay rights ship left port long ago. I think they should leave Phil alone and let him participate in the show.......... blue collar people need show to watch too.

PS. I do find it amusing how some Christian folks follow some rules and choose to ignore others.

You gotta read the news more often....they re-instated Phil yesterday and the show continues with ALL of the same cast and family............of course having multiple competitive networks offer to pick the show up, probably helped a bit.

Cracker Barrel also apologized for removing their Duck Dynasty goodies from their chain of stores and said "it was a big mistake".

And Phil will not back off his original comments, he stands by his convictions.

So with all of this, one for the Conservatives/Christians and zero for the queers/lesies and weirdo's........

Yep, Christians are hypocrites. But don't worry, we got room for one more.

No more or less than any other group out there is....Jew, Muslim, bhudist, etc....and particularly the atheists.....name ANY group and you will find hypocrits...in fact I I don't think there exists a human beyond the age of an infant that isn't a hypocrit in some way, shape or form.

The sole question is how big of one.

Where did you read that, Doug? I can't seem to find it reported this morning, and would like to get up to speed on it.

Thanks, SRH

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2528043/Duck-Dynasty-family-seen-today.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...c-comments.html

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/12/22/cracker-barrel-screwed-up-big-time/

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2013/12/22/other-networks-eager-to-air-duck-dynasty/

http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2013/12/23/lt-gov-duck-dynasty-important-to-la-tourism/

I still don't see where A&E has reinstated the show. Someone posted on this thread (I thought) that the show was going to be on the Outdoor Channel but now I can't find the post. It is worth pointing out the Cracker Barrel has reversed itself and is restocking its shelves with Duck Dynasty / Duck Commander products.

I do not understand what the big deal was in the first place. Vast majority of people that watch this show have views similar to PR so it's not like he offended anyone. While I have never seen episode I assume it's similar to Swamp People which interested me for grand total of two viewings.

When using logic to work through an issue, maybe this is problematic. If your 7% figure is so, why are the rights of the other 93% selectively switched off.

There are so many things that 'a small percentage prefer'. I wonder if there are some folks in prison that feel what landed them there is 'normal'. How about soiled goat brokers, selling tainted burgers to the next town. Is that disgusting, or honestly just a preference for some percentage of people.

Not directed at you cback, but I think it's the same teachers who tell our kids, guns are bad. There's a climate, not of sticking up for the minority, but punishing those outside of the social engineering plan. I think it runs from folks not even knowing why they feel bad for knowing that homosexuality is not normal or natural to them, all the way to public 'tar and feathering'.

I have no problems with homosexuals they do not take food out of my mouth nor I from theirs. People like PR and their opinions do not bother me at all because each year there are fewer and fewer like him around.

Huh, I missed the part where fans of the show fired Phil R.

To me it's simple if one does not agree with PR they do not have to watch the show that is what remote was designed for.

Someone said neoconservatives were the selfish ones. Could it be the progressive libs that will selfishly cling their guns and bi....oops, their food.

Did you give the remote to just a handful of ideologs.

What I've read is that DD has 9 new shows already "filmed" and that they include Phil and will be aired on A&E each week as usual. What the network has done is say that Phil may not appear in any more new shows for an indefinite period. If A&E has backed off that position I have not seen it.

For what it might be worth I did read that Phil has made a public statement acknowledging that of course all sinners, just like himself, could find salvation through the Lord's Grace and Redemption. My guess is that he told the reporter that in the first place and GQ just didn't bother to put it in their magazine.

Accordingly, I have signed on to Phil's petitions...Geo

There are selfish people on both sides of the isle. I do not understand why some object to gay marriage. Do heterosexuals in places like NH dump their spouses of opposite sex to marry gay people?

I got a problem with homosexuals because of what they put in their mouth....

Once they get "rights" and become married then they start the process of taking money out of your pocket.



It's evident you been listening to our lying News Media...

I think you are way, way wrong about the numbers of people "like Phil Robertson" when it comes to opinions on queers and queers getting married I think the majority is like Phil.

If I said on here what I think the USA should do with all the queers I'd get banned from the site.

The Duck Dynasty supports A&E

The Duck Commander supports the Robertson's Business and NOT A&E

Absolutely it is!

This proof that consumerism trumps communism.

And the cheesy food at Cracker Barrel...

I don't have a problem with gays or Moslem goat f**kers for that matter as long as they carry out their "activities" in private. When they come out in public it's another matter entirely .
The atheists position,or at least one of their positions, is no public display of religion. I see no difference in this albeit discriminatory position by atheists than in normal people's views that they'll essentially ignore abominations such as homosexuality as long as their done in private. After all atheists ignore the private practice of religion.
Jim

Just because something occurs naturally in a given population does not mean that it is "normal." Statistically, homosexual tendencies are abnormal. Politically, those tendencies are now considered acceptable, and have been deemed for legal purposes to no longer be abnormal. But, statistically, they are still abnormal.

The human race must give thanks for that.

Otherwise we'd have all ended up...

Well... up somewhere that didn't allow propagation of the species.

(with the possible exception of Africa)

I couldn't agree more about the potential offence to their viewers.....there was none! Although I would suggest the lifestyle portrayed in the two shows is quite different.

I think this ties into some of Craig's comments that came after this post from Jaegermeister. As in, no one watching the show is offended. PR espoused a view held literally by millions and millions of Americans.....by and large most "born again" Christians as well as many, many Roman Catholics who choose to actually follow their church's teaching. And it is a relatively small number of professional agitators, GLAAD, and others, who kick up a fuss and demand change.

So while I personally could care less what they are doing in their bedrooms, I hate what they are doing out in our society....agitating for change that results in our society being dominated by politically correct GroupThink, with no room for dissenting opinions.

Well, without getting too far into the semantics of it, I get your point. I'm sure you get mine as well. But I'll spell it out for others.

If, in an extremely high percentage of cultural and societal groups, there is always a small percentage that choose to engage in this behaviour, than it is normal for that percentage to behave that way. And the corollary would be that if you had a population where there were no men with homosexual tendencies or that 50% of men had homosexual tendencies, those would be abnormal populations.

Craig, if I appear to be arguing on both sides, it's because I am. I don't care what consenting adults do in private vis a vis their sex lives. Gay, SMBD, whatever. Just keep it behind doors and with consent.

What I hate is exactly what you bring up here....the social engineering of the left, who have adopted the gay thing as one of their "issues" so I don't come at this from a "religion says it's bad" perspective. I come at it from the "I can't stand the idiot left and their social engineering". Guns, gays welfare etc. they are idiots about it all.

It's the left I have problem with, not gays.

Quote:
"Craig, if I appear to be arguing on both sides, it's because I am. I don't care what consenting adults do in private vis a vis their sex lives. Gay, SMBD, whatever. Just keep it behind doors and with consent.

What I hate is exactly what you bring up here....the social engineering of the left, who have adopted the gay thing as one of their "issues" so I don't come at this from a "religion says it's bad" perspective. I come at it from the "I can't stand the idiot left and their social engineering". Guns, gays welfare etc. they are idiots about it all.

It's the left I have problem with, not gays.


I think canvasbacks well stated position above is what the majority on this board would agree with. I certainly subscribe to this.
Jim

As do I, my friend. The "social engineering" these Lefties like to promote flies in the face of the old wisdom of- "If it ain't broke(n) don't try to fix it-leave it be"!!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...r-marathon.html

And a very sad day for American Military Veterans, the U.S.A., the Military and especially the U.S. Army.....sickening to the majority, but this is how it starts...........We have Bill Clinton and his liberal allies, who never served, to thank for starting these disgraces......

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...Fort-Bragg.html

Doug that is about the most disgusting, revolting thing I have read. They think they have the right to be open about it BUT it is MY right to NOT be exposed those loathsome animals.

Yup-- I watched with disgust as old Slick Willie the Draft Dodger as our C-in-C put out the wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns every 11 Nov. of his Fubared 8 years in office. The only thing that sorry sack of lying sheise ever did that had an positive effect on our economy was to boost the hardware and lumber yard sales of roofer's knee pads to little Polack cuties-

Francis,

Yup, that's a fact...they used to throw queers out in my day with a medical discharge, look at how they do it now......thanks to Slick Willie and his 'don't ask, don't tell' b.s.

Queers in fox holes, queers in submarines and queers on all the bases, and some people think it's all o.k.......wonderful.....

Finally someone else who has the guts to come out and call them QUEERS. Here's another five stars for you Doug.--->*****

Queers need luv'n too....

Too bad they didn't ask Uncle Sye his thoughts on [censored]'s.

And I'll add a tumbler of Bourbon and Branch- well said, Sir, well said indeed. We had 2 "peter puffers" in our recruit platoon at MCRD San Diego in 1960- they both got weeded out damn quick on a Section-8 discharge- just as bad as a dishonorable discharge as far as any future employment chances were back in those days- Today, thanks to candy-assed numbnutz like the Clintons and O-Bammmys, the "Don't ask, don't tell" scenario prevails. What a legacy from "Slick Willie" we inherited. All reinforces my thinking- No man should ever be elected POTUS of Our Country unless he has an Honorable Discharge from a branch of our Military- no exception!!!

Maybe Ol'Willie had thoughts of helping thin them out...

Quote:
"A&E, which describes itself as "supporters and champions of the LGBT community" has yet to revisit its decision to suspend Robertson due largely to the backlash it has experienced from Robertson supporters. The future of the show remains uncertain. His family, who comprise the rest of the show's cast, has signaled that they cannot imagine going forward with the show without him."

I pulled the above quote from Newsmax. As far as I'm concerned I think the Robertson family ought to pull out completely from A&E(NO pun intended) since this Libtard network is already in breach of contract and would be within their rights to move the show elsewhere.
Jim

Come on, Jim. While I agree with your feelings, how do you know that they are "in breach of contract"? That's a stretch.

SRH

Latest news break....

The great Rev'erand Jesse Jackson has proclaimed that Phil Robinson only said that because of his "White Privilege".

Man that feller has a head on his shoulders....kinda makes me wish I was black.

Stan:
I'm not a lawyer but when you tell one of the stars of a program to take an indefinite hike you can be pretty sure there's a breach of contract. Just go back and look at what happened with the Charlie Sheen scenario. Also keep in mind that Phil's comments were made outside the context of the show.
Anyone else think the contract wasn't breached here?
Jim

jOe, jOe, jOe....

No matter how bizarre you got, I always thought more of you than this.

(but not that much more...)

Yea...

I've always thought you're a damn idiot that thinks he's funny.

A&E caved !

Huge defeat for the radical gay groups that started this fight and preach tolerance but have none ! !

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/a-e-welcomes-phil-robertson-667647

"Less than two weeks after his anti-gay remarks prompted an "indefinite hiatus" for the reality patriarch — and a strong fan backlash — the network says he will remain on the series."

"So after discussions with the Robertson family, as well as consulting with numerous advocacy groups, A&E has decided to resume filming Duck Dynasty later this spring with the entire Robertson family.'

Glad he's back, but that does not make the show any less dumb.

Lessons From the 'Duck Dynasty' Controversy

CNS News, by Ben Shapiro

A&E's indefinite suspension of "Duck Dynasty" star Phil Robertson over his comments regarding homosexuality, and the subsequent backlash, is an important cultural moment in American life.

For the first time in decades, traditionally religious Americans have come out of the closet en masse to speak out against anti-religious bigotry from proponents of gay rights. This, in turn, has made many on both the right and left uncomfortable: uncomfortable with a loud and proud segment of religious believers standing up for the expression of Biblical views, and uncomfortable with the notion of such religious believers being allotted a seat at the political and cultural table.

Hollywood hates conservatives and kowtows to GLAAD. It's been an open secret in Hollywood for years that the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation routinely prescreens many television shows and movies, vetting them for anti-homosexual biases.

This began in the 1980s, when NBC actually invited the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force to provide input on programming. CBS has changed the writing of its shows to add gay characters after receiving a flunking grade from GLAAD. Anti-religious bigotry runs rampant on television, which is why A&E tried to cut "Jesus" from the Robertson family prayers. It is no surprise to find that GLAAD called A&E before A&E dropped Robertson.

Too many conservatives are uncomfortable with religious conservatives. A shocking number of conservatives simply want the "Duck Dynasty" controversy to go away. Many of them think talk of the Bible is uncouth, and that conservatives should ignore cultural battles, instead focusing on economics. The truth, however, is that the conservative movement is animated in large part by Bible believers — and by ignoring that constituency and great good it represents, coastal conservatives do the entire movement a disservice.

The attempt by the media to portray Robertson as homophobic is a deliberate misreading of religious Americans. The media set up a dichotomy in which you are either pro-homosexuality or someone who wants to brutalize homosexuals. This is not the view of the Bible, which makes clear that sin is common and ought to be condemned, but that human beings have the capacity for repentance. The left masks its distaste for the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality in a straw man argument that Bible believers are violent bigots. They are not. Citing the Bible doesn't make you a bigot against human beings — it makes you a bigot against sin, which is a good thing. Emphasis added by Jim M.

It has been decades since conservatives used their market power in the way leftists routinely do. With both Chick-fil-A and "Duck Dynasty," they are learning that the market is the best way to act out their beliefs.

In the end, the "Duck Dynasty" controversy is a lesson in leftist intolerance. In leftist America, babbling for 11 hours about the moral imperative of killing unborn 21-week-old children is a virtue, while citing Corinthians is sin. Traditionally religious Americans must take note of this clash of values and recognize that the culture war is indeed a war for the spiritual soul of the country. An anti-Biblical America is a worse America.
***
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants

Sadly the Aids virus did not wipe this pestilence from our country....

This past week (from 6 AM Sunday 12/22 to 6AM 12/29) out of the maximum 168 hours available A & E put on 38 hours of Duck Dynasty reruns. DD made up just under 23% of their entire schedule. Ratings probably were better than expected, given the media circus. No doubt many people who wouldn't be caught dead watching a "reality" show tuned in to see what the big whoopdeedo was about.

If anyone thinks A & E's announcement to back off was anything but a purely financial decision, you don't understand how the TV business works.

Glad to see you enunciating good Christian values this time of year. Clearly a lot of joy in your heart.

I've never watched an episode of Duck Dynasty, and probably won't start now. But I am glad to hear that A&E reinstated Phil Robinson based upon the economics of pressure from the majority of Conservatives who, for too long, have allowed a minority to dictate what we see and hear. I hope that 2013 was a turning point in permitting Liberal minorities to have an inordinate amount of power by using lies, intimidation, and hypocrisy. Think of a certain member here who frequently references mythical Republican misogyny, but who has never once lamented Liberal Democrat attacks upon Sarah Palin or any other Conservative woman.

I find myself smiling every time I think of how this recent change by A&E happened AFTER the sleazy race hustler Jesse Jackson weighed in. I would love to have seen his face when he got the news! I'd also like to have seen the look on the face of our gay president Obama!

http://dcclothesline.com/2013/07/07/washington-insider-obama-member-of-chicago-gay-mans-club/

This quote below, from a longer article by Ben Shapiro is the clearest and most concise explanation I am aware of regarding the Christian view and Christian teachings about homosexuality. It adequately refutes the B.S. and outright lies that have been presented by the so-called “Mainstream News Media” on this subject. Their portrayal was an attempt to condemn all Christian conservatives in this country by the far left liberal atheists and actually an attempt to condemn Christianity as well.

My wife and I have both friends and relatives who are Gay and we don’t subscribe to the opinion that they are automatically condemned to Hell.

I also think the left wing (Obamanites) lost far more credibility here. I’m surprised that Obama didn’t stoop to proclaiming that if he had a son he would look nothing like Phil Robertson but that would have been a stretch even for him.

Jim



Quote:
“The attempt by the media to portray Robertson as homophobic is a deliberate misreading of religious Americans. The media set up a dichotomy in which you are either pro-homosexuality or someone who wants to brutalize homosexuals. This is not the view of the Bible, which makes clear that sin is common and ought to be condemned, but that human beings have the capacity for repentance. The left masks its distaste for the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality in a straw man argument that Bible believers are violent bigots. They are not. Citing the Bible doesn't make you a bigot against human beings — it makes you a bigot against sin, which is a good thing. “

Is that why he kinda skips when he walks ?

Citing the Bible on homosexuality doesn't make one a bigot. It may be offensive to some.That's life, isn't it? My guess, Jim, is most members have relatives or friends who are gay and don't condemn them to hell. Many Christians don't believe in heaven and hell anyway. Many Christians, taking different meanings from the Bible, split off to their own houses of worship. One size doesn't fit all, as in most things.

I hear a lot of talk these days among friends of faith about Pope Francis. To say there's "interest" in him is under-statement. His "Who am I to judge?" about homosexuality always seems to segue easily into, "Well, if he isn't to judge, who is? Not me." There's more style than substance to Francis so far concerning Church teaching but he's already proclaimed loving each other---empathy and action particularly toward the poor and disadvantaged---is Christ's message and the Church's mission, and to ease up on all that other stuff that we want to be busy-body about.

He's spot-on to a skeptic like me.

King, re Francis. I couldn't agree more. Especially your last line.

Here's what I know about homosexuality. Having had a cousin who died of AIDS in the eighties, having gone to school, worked with and had friends who were gay, I know there is no one who CHOOSES that life and that attraction. It is too hard an existence to imagine people do this if it were possible they could take an alternate road.

I going to make the statement here that we appear to be in agreement. The Bible calls homosexuality an abomination. However the Bible also states that while you can as an individual or group condemn homosexuals as sinners it is up to God to pass judgment on those that practice it.
I have only the vaguest of notions regarding what the new Pope has stated but I get the impression he is not ready to pass judgment on homosexuals either. If this is the case it's a major shift within the Catholic church.
Jim

CAUTION: Know that some here are skeptical about the meaning and purpose of our Second Amendment, and would intentionally attempt to LULL others into complacency. Therefore we can make judgements about their veracity and credibility on other subjects based upon their propensity to use lies and hypocrisy to disseminate the Libtard agenda.

Pope Francis has merely stated the obvious. He is not God and he does not have the final say in judgement of any souls. He has not said, in any way, shape, or form, that the Bible is wrong about homosexuality. He has not changed Catholic Church teaching on the subject. He is accepting the sinner, but not the sin. King Brown is reading something into his statement that simply is not there. This comes as no surprise to me.

Note also how King has "segued" this argument into his frequent glib talk on "empathy and action particularly toward the poor and disadvantaged." We often hear of his "generosity of spirit", but so often with Liberals, their outpouring of generosity comes from picking other people's pockets through taxation. It is a proven fact that Conservatives are typically more generous than Liberals when it comes to reaching into their own pockets to donate to charity. Read the recent news about Jane Fonda's charitible trust which gave out zero dollars last year. Compare Mitt Romney's charitible donations, both in dollars and percentage of total income, to Obama's. It is also a proven fact that Capitalism has done more to lift the poor from poverty than any Liberal Socialist system.

Homosexuality may well be entirely an involuntary behavior. But then, so is kleptomania, alcoholism, drug addiction, pedophilia, and many other deviant conditions. But so far, none of those deviant behaviors are being mainstreamed into society and portrayed as normal. None of us would want young impressionable children to see those other deviant behaviors portrayed as normal every time we turn on the TV. The Libtards are ramming this down our throats, and proclaiming that anyone who does not accept their sick agenda is intolerant and deserving of punishment. As usual, they are 100% wrong.

Keith, no argument about Francis merely stating the obvious. However, it is an obviousness that seems to have eluded the entire upper echelons of the Roman Catholic Church for all of my lifetime.

I don't approach this from a distance. Every year I ever went to school I was in a church run / associated school. RC from kindergarten to grade 5, Anglican from then on. Chapel every day. Religious studies, priest and nuns as teachers.

IMHO Francis is turning the RC Church away from what I would call theological navel gazing / corruption to one of service to their fellow man. He has a long way to go, he just started and there are no doubt vested interests of privilege that would like to thwart him. He is a Jesuit....one order within the RC organization that I have the highest regard for.

Not everything King says is part of a leftist plot. His advocacy for helping the poor is fine and as it should be, as long as no one, and I haven't heard it from King, is suggesting that the left do more than the right in the area of charity.

A stopped clock is right twice a day. So may it be with King now and again.

IMHO, completely correct as well.

I don't agree....only behavior that's "totally involuntary" is insanity.

For someone to choose to be queer means there's something bad wrong inside their head.

jOe, if you think insanity, by definition, a malfunction of the brain's processes for whatever reason, is involuntary and I agree, than if something is "bad wrong inside their head" doesn't that also suggest homosexuality is not a choice but also an involuntary behavior.

It's the new normal, it's all around us, it's in the news, so it must be so. Didn't cback tell us that homosexuality may be somewhere around 7%, according to one study. Why isn't the argument, conservatives are correct, this is not a majority, few people need to idolize the gay position to get through life, so the position doesn't deserve mainstream force feeding. But, hang on, conservatives seem to agree that tolerance of the private life is ok. Why again does the argument start with, this is normal and proper, so all else is bigoted.

Similar, the pc thought imposition about the Pope. Has Christianity, Catholicism in particular, recovered and become mainstream acceptable. Or, have secular progressives twisted partial quotes into progay propaganda. You do know the secular progressive Christianity bashers are falling back in line when stories come out that the Pope is 'shocked' to learn about gay adoption pushes.

Spot on, eh, jump on board, the man of the year, I mean my (generic for left wing) agenda looks to be inching forward.

James, from my point of view, the Catholic Church has a long history of service to the poor through missions, teaching, and monetary collections which build churches, schools, hospitals, etc. But the Mission Statement would still ultimately be devotion to God. I see no evidence that anything is any different since Francis became Pope. I sure don't expect to see any Gay marriages in the Catholic Church. I absolutely agree that the Church has been tainted by corruption, but that has always been corruption by men who infiltrated the Church for their own evil intent. Both Pedophiles and Homosexuals have found convenient cover beneath the robes of Priests. Some would say that is evidence that Satan has used men to attack Christ's Church, and that has been predicted in the New Testament. I disagree with any attempts to cover up crimes and perversions, but I also disagree with attempts to use these crimes committed by a small minority to punish and bankrupt the entire Church.

King, like many liberals, has many times referenced the greed of Capitalism, and touted his own "generosity of spirit". Sorry you hadn't noticed that. I merely made the observation that Liberals are very generous with other folks money, and always wish to soak the rich through more taxation, to give to the poor. But they are demonstratably not so generous with their own money. This makes them feel better about themselves. And more self-righteous. King's advocacy for the poor is not always fine, because so often, the Liberal cures have been worse than the disease, and led to unintended consequences. But Liberals seem to have a problem with admitting when they are wrong and instead wish to double down on their failed policies. Inevitably, a tipping point is reached, and massive failure results. See Greece, Spain, Italy, and other countries and cities where Socialism has led to decline, failure, bankruptcy, and chaos. I never said King is always wrong. But he has continued to spew nonsense and misinformation so many times, long after being proven wrong... merely ignoring facts presented by me, you, Jim, Doug, DaveK, J.R.B., craigd, and many others... dancing around the truth and piling on more Liberal crap.


You and I agree 99% of the time, but we diverge on this. A stopped clock should be fixed or tossed in the trash. It is useless. I could make excuses for him too, but that would just just encourage him. Then we end up with Cock and Bull stories where he tries to rewrite history as he did in his recent "Newton" thread.

All true, but remember- even a stopped clock is right twice every 24 hours. Burger King makes a few valid points, then he dresses them off with a big baffle of BS-- and sends them South from Canada to us here in America to digest--better he should be sending us Molsons and Labbatts instead, ey??

Sadly truth be known....more so than not.

I guess so, Craig. Rush says he's a Marxist.

None of that Upper Canadian stuff gets in the house, Fox. Here it's Alexander Keith's IPA. Big taste.

Fox, it's spelled "eh". But points for effort! I like a little Canadianism now and then from my American friends.

Keith, I am selectively responding to bits of your post, just for the sake of efficiency. I haven't time to write a both long AND coherent response.

Any other organization of man, in Western society, exposed for both the crimes against children and the efforts to shield the perps from the law, over many, many decades, would long ago have been bankrupted by civil suits and most would have said good riddance. The RC church, while not quite receiving a pass, has come pretty close.

I believe people and organizations should be responsible for their actions. That is at the heart of my Libertarian/ Conservative views.

So far, in my lifetime, I don't think the RC Church and the Anglican/Episcopalian Churches, have paid a sufficient price for the actions of, while admittedly a minority, a significant portion of their leaders. If proper compensation to the thousands and thousands of abused children bankrupted the RC Church I would say fine. You can always start again building up those assets.

I am of the Roman Catholic faith, and we will never know two well guarded secrets about the Church-- (1) How many pedophiles are hiding in the robe and garb of the Priesthood- (2) All the true wealth the Church controls-- we would have better odds guessing the length of the Holy Father's "Unit"-- as recalling one of George Patton's bon mots-- "A rifle that won't fire reliably in combat is as useful as a pecker on the Pope"--

This is typical of the esoteric discussions here.

What started as the Duck Dynasty/A&E issue has now been taken into a lofty discussion of the Papal penis.

And by none other than the renowned genius of... RWTF.

(bravo, Einstein)

Keith, the Pope is a leader. The best leaders are those that lead by example and inspire. The worst are those that demand adherence to rules and edicts that they themselves ignore or flout.

Francis, so far, is leading by example in a new direction. The simple fact that he rejected the lavish accommodations of the Papal suites and instead choose to live in a relatively simple apartment speaks volumes to the outlook and direction of his papacy. His choice of vestments also reflects that effort towards simplicity, a movement away from the self-aggrandizing traditions of the Vatican and towards a devotion to God and good works.

Only time will tell, but in the few short months since his election, it is clear this man is a different type of Pope.

No other animal displays homosexual behavior except humans. It’s a choice plain and simple and it violates both natural laws and religious teachings but as the Catholic Church has said recently we are not to judge. But that doesn’t mean we have to accept it with open arms either. People want to act queer well go act queer over there and stay away from me because I don't want to see it.

Actually Treblig, there are plenty of examples in nature of homosexual behaviour among animals other than man. It typically is understood to be used as a form of dominance. But that reasoning is just man's guess.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

I would also ask you if you made a "choice" to be heterosexual. Or was that just the way you are? As a young man at school did you look around at your classmates and choose who you were attracted to, or were you just attracted?

Wrong. There is plenty of scientific data documenting homosexual behavior and pairing in lots of species other than humans. Here's one for you:

Your argument doesn't hold water, as usual. A particular species, to be applicable shouldn’t we see this type of behavior among certain lions, among some tigers and elephants as we are to believe that some humans are heterosexual and some are homosexual? To point out one species and say here we have homosexual behavior within this specific species is not justification what it probably is our own observation is either outright wrong like you are Replacement AGAIN or tainted by some other outside motivation.

You are so full of crap that you apparently can't see straight. How's this, Numbnuts?



Might be a good idea, when you don't know what you are talking about, to just STFU.

Keith, the other deviant behaviors you reference all involve harm to other people. Homosexual activity between consenting adults harms no one.

IMHO, and as I mentioned earlier in this thread, most seem to confuse homosexuality with the liberal agenda. Several of our most prominent and successful federal cabinet ministers in our Conservative government are homosexual. It has nothing to do with their political outlook.

What most homosexuals are looking for is NOT to become the lifestyle icons of the Western world, but to be left alone, free from discrimination, to lead a life of their choosing. Similar to all of us. And equating their behavior with pedophilia, kleptomania or addictions fails the logic test. Our battle should be with the left, not with homosexuals. As Jim, Pope Francis, King and others have suggested, let God sort that one out.

No you’re full of crap shithead!!!
Quit trying to justify abnormal deviant behavior with some specified species of song bird, that no one has ever heard of, if it occurs in nature like you idiots think it does then it would happen across the gamut of species NOT One specific species. That's domination and elimination of a rival not sexual behavior. To assume that what they are doing is sexual in nature is grasping at straws with a predertermined agenda from an tainted point of view.

You get it now dumbass!!!

For those who haven't checked out the link in my post above:

"Homosexual behavior in animals is sexual behavior among non-human species that may be interpreted as homosexual or bisexual. This may include sexual activity, courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting among same-sex animal pairs. Research indicates that various forms of this are found throughout the animal kingdom.[1][2] Close to 1,500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, have been observed engaging in such behavior and this is well documented for 500 of them.[3][4]"

Because you used the plural of "idiot" I have to assume you are including me as a target in your agitated rant. Sorry if the truth causes you such difficulty but I can't help you with that.

As is often the case where ignorance rules, you make our case for us. If you think we are "grasping at straws" to assume the behavior has a sexual component and is not just one of dominance, than the corollary is true, you are also grasping at straws to assume it is only about dominance.

The fact is we don't really know why any of the behavior exists. We only know it does.

And as a side note, the proffering of an example of behavior, as Replacement did, is, to most of us, not an exhaustive compilation of all known incidences of that behavior, but just what was described....an example.

What I get is that you are blinded by ideology and appear to have no scientific training or education. I base this assumption on your apparent inability to source or to digest actual data about animal behavior, and on your unwillingness to admit that your assertions are incorrect when you are confronted with data that contradicts your opinion. There is nothing "tainted" about scientific data. It is what it is, even though it may not fit your preconceptions. This behavior does occur across a broad gamut of species, but you are too uninformed to be aware of that little detail. You specifically asked about this behavior among lions, I gave you a quote about lions, and then you go off on another tangent. This is natural behavior among animals, and man is an animal. As I have previously stated, natural does not equate to normal in a statistical sense. You really need to learn how to think and to evaluate data.

Happy New Year. When it comes to the birds and the bees, the 'animals' that have shown to have various homosexual pairings probably get it right more often than not. These aren't extinct species, are they. Interesting, if someone can get two same sex worms to wiggle up to each other, that's a break through, and the opinion of the majority of humans is demonized.

I wonder though how many of those lower order critters attach emotion to the issue and lobby for more. Or, is the frolicking gay life style of a tiny percentage of nonhuman animals tolerated by the majority, right up until something bigger eats them.

Noooo, there is never ever any politics in science, none what so ever. And Science with a predetermined agenda, is not science, its called social engineering hiding behind the name science to give it more credibility.

And ain’t it something that when the homosexuals started this current theory of theirs that “It isn’t my fault I was born this way” not too long ago as a matter of fact, and religious organizations began questioning this New theory of theirs by pointing out that if they were born this way and its a natural occurence then why do we not see it in other animals and across the spectrum of animals. Then all of a sudden all of this so-called scientific data started appearing about so-called homosexual activity observed in animals. Ain’t it something. No…. there’s no adverse political pressure within the scientific community its all facts. Just like the lead argument and the global warming argument......its all facts determined by scientific data.


Your facts, your data......not mine.

Craig, just as you suggest and just like humans, the animals get it "right" most often. Although I don't think anyone is describing the observations of these behaviors as a "breakthrough"....just observations. Do you think it's a breakthrough? And I'm not hearing the scientists and naturalists involved demonizing the majority of humans for their sexual preferences. These seem to be imaginary scenarios your fertile mind is concocting.

As for your second paragraph, you are probably right....like any other behavior in the wild, it is tolerated until the participants are eaten. The thing is the rest of the animal kingdom isn't busy making moral judgements...just trying to stay alive. And it wasn't long ago that standard scientific and religious thought held that no animal had emotions. Tell that to any dog owner.

Treblig, the incidence of observation of homosexual behavior in animals doesn't coincide with the championing of homosexuality by the Left over the last 30 years. It coincides with the dramatic increase in rigorous scientific research of our natural world that started in the mid 1800's and continues to this day.

And it isn't the theory of homosexuals that they were born this way. It is the theory of human behaviorists. Homosexuals have quite understandably adopted it.

Not everything is a gigantic plot designed to screw you over. Your assertions remind me of the arguments put forward by the diehard supporters of AGW. This may be hard for you to see but from where I sit, it is you that has the political agenda and are scrambling to try to justify it.

For the record, I'm all for social engineering if the engineering is designed to make successful societies, filled with responsible and productive people who contribute to their own and others well being and to the society at large. Your founding fathers engaged in a remarkable bit of social engineering and created arguably the greatest country and society that has ever existed.

What none of us like or approve of is social engineering that promotes an unsustainable social model and that unfairly burdens one group while relieving others from responsibility for their actions.

I think minuscule statistical aberrations are all around us. It is interesting to me how only certain ones can be quickly and confidently cited and how the majority of 'science' that is not easily revised, takes the minuscule role.

Treblig, you obviously needed a better education. What you refer to as "social engineering" has been practiced by humans since the days of the cave man. The institution of marriage and monogamous heterosexual pairings would be one of the earliest examples of social engineering. Helped to keep the male members of the tribe from killing each other over the females and helped the tribe to grow and prosper. I don't think the liberal agenda had much to do with that.

I really don't object to what the gays do with their genitals as long as all parties are adult and consenting. I object to the creation of special laws for another class of "victimized" citizen. If someone kills me because they don't like handsome people the Feds don't care. But if someone kills a homosexual because he/she is gay that is a hate crime, the suspect subject to Federal prosecution.

The next Lefty push after fifty state gay marriage (maybe before) will be hiring quotas for gays (euphemistically called diversity), state and Federal government business will be set aside for gay owned businesses, (historically underutilized businesses), and conservative churches being sued for civil rights violations by the Justice Department for firing openly gay employees.

As gay marriage becomes universally legal it will be interesting to see what the outlaw branch of the Morman faith has to say about gay marriage, religious freedom and polygamy. If all the marriageants are adults and consenting who are we to say they can't have multi-party marriages. Then we have another new class of special citizens with special legal protection. Of course the Muslim faith, in some interpretations, allows for four wives.

Gives me a headache thinking about it all.

Personally Mike, I think you are on the right track here. The problem is the enactment of special laws. But I see that as a problem of the leftist agenda, not homosexuality. As you note, those types of laws have been and will be enacted for all sorts of groups.

Craig, all I can say is where do you get the idea that the "majority" of science, that not easily revised, takes the miniscule role? That's not how I read it.

But what I am reading is a blind reluctance to acknowledge a reasonable and observable fact and a bunch of dancing and twisting to try to explain it away. Does that remind you of anyone?

Next they will expand it to satisfy the NAMBLA wing of the Democrat party. And reduce the leagal age of concent to the date of birth.

They will also bestow "special protected status" on members of the Democrat party so they can prosecute anyone who disagres with them of hate crimes.

And the argument, "Don't blame me I was just born this way." And off we go again to get the "scientists."

Just like they pulled with "Global Warming".

Don't confuse science with politics. There are corrupt scientists just as there are corrupt politicians, but those would be abnormal behaviors among scientists. Maybe not so abnormal among politicians.

You guys are hilarious. Displaying all the knee jerk reactions you so despise in leftists but it's okay in support of your own vision of the world.

BHD, you know it's only a matter of time before homosexuality is going to be mandated and you WILL have to engage in it, right?

I am editing this to add the LOL, because some of you may not get the sarcasm.

I should probably point this out:
My wife's gay cousin is one of triplets. His two brothers are both straight. Now just how does this synch with the "Don't blame me I was just born this way." argument many of them and the "learned" medical profession use?
Jim

I'll only participate in it if I get to pick the person who will be on the recieving end....and how.

ERGO Obama bent over a table where I can put sand and rock salt in the crisco when he gets a taste of what he's done to so many others since he got elected (or stole the election) whichever way you choose to accredit his being in office.


Other than that I'd choose celibacy first.....

lol

I know Jim, its deviant sexual behavior that I personally loathe. But there ain’t a damn thing I can do about it but I sure as hell will not accept it as anything but sexual deviant behavior.

My apologies to the other esteemed members of this Board, namely, Replacement and Canvasback. My loathing got the better of me.

Jim, re: one of triplets.

Let's call it a birth defect. That can occur in any child. It's somewhat random in the sense that in many instances we don't know what caused it to occur. Being part of triplets doesn't eliminate the possibility of something going wrong.

I see it as more of an addiction. Gay people are addicted to homosexual sex (deviant sexual behavior), some otherwise normal people get addicted to porn, S&M, or swinging. Then there are alcoholics, drug addicts, compulsive over-eaters, gambling addicts...

Certainly some people are genetically predisposed to alcoholism or drug addiction. But predisposition does not necessarily translate into addiction or alcoholism for that person. Same for deviant sex.

That is as I see it. I am usually right but I have noticed most people don't know that.

Treblig, your apology is unreservedly accepted. I certainly am capable of getting caught up in the heat of the moment and saying things I wish I hadn't. It's one of the things I like about these on line conversations. Just a little easier for me to consider what I am saying. In person I tend to speak first, think later. LOL

All the best this Christmas season and for the coming New Year.

Mike, I've noticed you are usually right. But I just thought it was because you were agreeing with me!

I'm still waiting for an answer in regard to my wife's triplet cousins.(See prior post) These 3 individuals are genetically identical however 1 is gay and the other 2 are straight so please explain "I was born this way" to all of us!!
Jim

Jim, see post 350725

Been away for a couple hours, actually working. Apology accepted. Thank you.

Interesting that the argument of "They were born that way" is an accepted explanation for their deviant behavior and is an accepted reason and promulgated by the left/ homosexuals/ liberals but if you say that about certain ethnic groups and their proclivity for criminogenic behavior you get slammed as prejudiced/bigoted etc! By saying that certain groups are born with criminogenic tendencies will get you crucified.

James:
Are you implying that the gay triplet is the result of a birth defect? This is the 1st time I've ever heard this put forth as an explanation. Please understand I'm not discounting it out of hand but I'd certainly be interested in more information on this subject.
Jim

Brian:
Quote:
"Interesting that the argument of "They were born that way" is an accepted explanation for their deviant behavior and is an accepted reason and promulgated by the left/ homosexuals/ liberals but if you say that about certain ethnic groups and their proclivity for criminogenic behavior you get slammed as prejudiced/bigoted etc! By saying that certain groups are born with criminogenic tendencies will get you crucified."

Left wing hypocrisy knows no bounds .
Jim
_________________________

Is the proclivity for criminal behavior in certain ethnic groups innate or is it learned behavior? I would suggest it is most likely a learned behavior, children consciously and sub consciously emulating the behavior they see modeled.

That is why so many of us here believe in the value of a two parent family, modeling good behavior and imparting to our children a moral and ethical code to see them through life.

If it was innate, why would we bother. Because, of course, if criminogenic behavior is innate, so must be productive, non criminal behavior.

And BTW, how would that criminogenic behavior catch up to our changing legal codes over the centuries. For as a society evolves, what was once fine....say settling an argument with a duel or "having" the bride on her marriage night if you were her feudal lord, is no longer acceptable and is now illegal.

Jim, I didn't mean to call it a birth defect as we typically understand birth defects. I was trying to put forward the idea that something is different about that specific child, despite similar DNA. For example, I have a friend who has a profoundly handicapped child. That child's DNA was set at the time of conception. The medical explanation for my friend's daughters condition is that something happened at the time of birth that caused issues in the brain.

My point being that her brain is not operating as is mine or yours but she still has the same DNA make-up as she had before....her problem didn't change that.

Although this doesn't explain the gay triplet, a working theory that is being explored is that some types of stress during pregnancy results in a statistically higher rate of homosexuality in the child.

As I said before, no one really knows why some people (and animals) behave this way. We only know at this point that they do.

No danc'in around for me cback. I fully agree that there are scientific studies showing various non human organisms attempting to mate or court.

I don't think I'm off base at all assuming that there are mountains more studies, facts, history, etc., etc. showing the typical way to propagate a species is through heterosexual reproduction.

I'll repeat what I think is interesting. What you see as my blind reluctance and dancing around is curiosity. What causes folks to conclude that spotting a minuscule fraction of a percent of homosexual behavior in the animal world is proof of normality.

It's a big wide animal world out there, that may be proof enough that heterosexuality is the norm. How again do tiny fractions of a percent of observable animal behavior equate to the proof that all humans should accept human homosexuality without question. That seems more of a reach, dance, skip and a hop.

Really doesn't matter to me. Live and let live in the privacy of ones own affairs. But, how does catching two male dogs humping on video equate gay pc influence. Heck I know there're a bunch of leg hounds out there, that doesn't make the unlucky recipient an advocate for beastiality.

I'd ask as I've asked before, who gets to choose. Why are folks, let's say some priests, who might be attracted to boys because of some stress mom had during pregnancy....not normal. I think extreme, but there are many other examples. Many many other examples, and all might have support of a study or two.

We had neighbors with identical twin sons. One had a learning disability, one did not.

Identical twins and triplets do not have identical fingerprints.

Cloned horse and dogs do not have the same color patterns (spots) as the DNA donor.

The triplets didn't have identical experiences after they were born.

Craig, to your first post above...perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying initially. And perhaps you, me.

I never meant to suggest that it is "normal" as in widespread within the animal world, as a percentage of the total sexual activity. I was initially responding to an assertion, patently incorrect, that it does not occur. Didn't suggest it was common or normal. Only suggested it has been observed in a wide variety (1000 plus) species of animals.

But be that as it may. I think you make great leaps of inference that aren't supported by anything when you make comments like:

"But how does catching two male dogs humping on video equate gay pc influence. Heck I know there're a bunch of leg hounds out there, that doesn't make the unlucky recipient an advocate for beastiality."

I just don't see what that comment has to do with what we have been discussing.

As to your second post above, what do you mean "who gets to choose?" My point, if I had one, that that queers probably don't get to choose. they just are. So there is little point in imagining we could "cure" them and there is little point in imagining that whatever ails them might be "catchy" if we (or adopted kids) spent too much time around them.

Now before the board goes wild, I do not support gay couples adopting. But it's not because I fear the child will become homosexual.

I suppose Pedophiles should be the next protected class as well since "they were born that way" too.

First my Bona Fides:

I think the Bible condemns homosexuality

I think Phil was in his rights to condemn it.

But it is not the government's business to police what two consenting adults want to do in the bedroom.

When an adult, priest or otherwise, molests a child that is rape and it is criminal. The child is not mature enough to consent. The pedophile is preying on the inexperience and lower status of the child, the pedophile is an authority to the child. Any adult that molests a child is a criminal.

I doubt if you'll get much disagreement with your position here Mike.
The problem is that while I firmly believe this is the same opinion you stated above that the vast majority of Americans hold it will get scant play from the "mainstream news media" which is under extreme leftist control in this Country.
Until we forge ahead and re-take control and drive these scum, as led by Obama, back under the rocks they surfaced from we will continue to have to contend with their evilness.
Jim

Honestly cback, I think a dog humping a human leg is some built in instinctive 'thing' that some dogs do. I think it's somehow wired in with the mating ritual, but it certainly won't help the pup procreate. There's gotta be some study of leg hounds out there that burned good taxpayer money in the name of science.

Anyway, very well could be that the homosexual human does not get to 'choose'. What I was getting at is, who chose for you (meaning anyone of pc correctness) to so vigorously defend this particular topic. It's not that it's right wrong or indifferent, there's a cultural reflexive support for the topic when it's admitted to be such a tiny part of the real world.

Mentioned before, why don't 93% of all humans with a pulse just jump up and say homosexuality is wrong. Then, the discussion starts to see if maybe there's a place in society to be tolerant of the few who're 'not hurting anyone'. Equality doesn't stop at one gay guy is the equal of one straight guy. The argument is, the '7%' is the equal of the 93%.

Quote:
"Mentioned before, why don't 93% of all humans with a pulse just jump up and say homosexuality is wrong.:

Because the overwhelming percentage of the majority consists of those who don't want to get involved. They would rather stay on the sidelines and not put themselves in the position where someone would take them on and disagree with them.
Let's face it: In todays society most people would rather stay out of the line of fire in controversy. We have a nation of wimps and if this doesn't change we'll have a nation of small minorities calling all the shots.

FOR CHRISTS SAKE AMERICA WAKE UP!!

Call them what you want but they are still QUEERS and a queer's rights end when they violate MY rights. My wish and RIGHT is to NOT be exposed to the filthy pigs.

Actually BHD, the most commonly accepted explanation for pedophilia right now is childhood experiences ie abuse.

Bullshit. They still know the difference between right and wrong.

First to Jim's post. Jim, I knew the overwhelming majority here would be as they are and that my position would be the difficult one. But it's not that hard to stand up and voice an opinion, especially when one can feel it's well founded on research and facts rather than prejudice and hatred.

Craig, it was the part of your comment that connected the recipient of the humping into advocating for bestiality that I thought was a ridiculous stretch. Because it is.

Why me? Because I want to, that's why.

Because blind ignorance is just that...blind and ignorant, whether it comes from the left or the right. It seems both Jim and Stan can hold true to their Christian beliefs, condemn the sin and have compassion for the man. Something many professed Christians on here seem to have difficulty with. Yet that is also at the core of what Christ asks us to do. Not all of what He asks, but pretty central.

Why me? Because we spend a lot of time here bashing ignorant and stupid thinking by the left, with good reason. I like to bash stupid thinking from wherever it comes. As you said before, while we all may exhibit some level of hypocrisy, I try to keep mine to a minimum.

I got a PM today from someone, in essence congratulating me for taking on this subject here and indirectly suggesting I may not be the conservative I seem from my posts. My response was that I think anyone who truly contemplates their own life and how they can both best fit in and contribute to society has difficulty being either a stereotypical conservative or liberal. They are outdated labels. Along with black and white, life is shaded. It has nuances.

What I do know is if I am ever called to account by my maker, I'll be able to, figuratively, stand tall, look him in the eye and feel confident I lived a good life. I don't crap on people because I can. I crap on them when they deserve it.

JRB, like many people, you confuse causality with acceptance or forgiveness.

You also seem to have some difficulty understanding what a "right" is.

Knowing the area you live, North Dakota, I also suspect that you rarely encounter, in your day to day life, the horrific-ness of a queer, except perhaps on TV. So, while it demeans the concept of rights to suggest that you have a right not to be exposed to queers, I expect that "right" is rarely infringed. Anyone who is queer typically gets the hell out of Dodge as soon as they can.

The first time that right of mine was infringed upon was in 1978 when I took my WOMAN out for a drink after supper and we saw two queers going at it. The only thing that kept me from puking and my temper reaching the berserk level was my WOMAN getting me the hell out of there.

Well, were they buggering each other at the bar or holding hands? I mean just how bad, how horrible was it for you. Where on the 1 to 10 scale of disgusting queer behavior was it. Good thing your woman was there to stop you. 1978....34 years ago. Made quite an impression on you, didn't it. Maybe beneath all that good Scandinavian berserker business you were a bit fascinated? Come on, you can fess up now.

Jeebus, you sound like the Taliban.

Personally, I have never been keen on watching any pair of people going at it in public. Hetero or queer. That's why we invented the phrase "get a room". But boors come in every persuasion. Maybe it's boors you don't like and you have them confused with queers.

I know I'm getting silly now but this is getting ridiculous.

That crock of horseshit doesn't even deserve a reply and I'm not a Scandy either. I'm a Saxon German that dates blonde Scandy WOMEN.

JRB, sorry if my sense of humour offended you. Not my intent.

But where do you get the idea you have a right not to be offended. That is really one of the most leftist statements I have ever read here.

A right not to be offended???

How can you in good conscience, align yourself on this site with those who advocate government getting the hell out of our lives, and at the same time suggest you have a right not to be offended?

I don't get that.

Most all acts of what some view as homosexual acts in the animal world are not done for pleasure but for other reasons such as to show dominance.

The difference is homosexuality in humans is that it's purely performed for perverted pleasure....no other reason.

Next thing you know gay people will want a government check for being defective....

"Addicted to homosexual sex"....Sounds like a great starting act for a stand up comedian...

Is it like smoking crack ?....I hear tell smoking crack only takes one time.

Mike just how would you purpose this perverted addiction got started ?

That could go for you as well...

Male lions live in same sex groups because they have no choice.

Not because they are a bunch of queer lions.

Disappointing to me, not for myself, but for the 'discussion'. That's a bunch of baggage hung around my opinion. Prejudice and hatred, ridiculous stretch, blind and ignorant, stupid thinking, I guess you get the point.

I've repeatedly said I fully respect the right of privacy, and I fully acknowledge that reports can be found in scientific literature of apparent homosexual behavior in the animal world. You may also notice that I elected not mention any reference to Christianity, except for the obligatory Catholic priest joke.

More important to me, I respect that you took the position because you 'wanted to'. I think you could tell that I did not think that your 'well founded research', as presented here, quite met, what I felt is proof of the validity of the gay position. I also gotta say that I don't think you were able to prove the various things that 'disappointed' me in the first paragraph.

Now on to silly stuff. Maybe you missed the part where I called my 'example' extreme and yes I'll go along with ridiculous. But, if your point was well founded on research why can't I contend that if a dog can simulate copulation on a human leg, that some fool out in the great beyond can't 'legitimately' conclude that extra species sex must be ok.

All I was asking is why the passionate defense, and I accept your answer that you wanted to. Sorry I pushed the wrong buttons, but my feeling is some pc obligation is ingrained in the issue, not just fact and logic.

"Protests Flare Against Rose Parade Same-Sex Marriage Float"

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/...Dream-Come-True

Some people are not happy that history will be made this New Years’ Day when the first same-sex couple 2597 on a float at the Rose Bowl Parade.

I can imagine that float having a Freddy Mercury look-alike with a flagpole up his butt.

Craig, maybe it's a distinction in my own head but....

What I referred to as my silly stuff was a direct response to what I consider to be ridiculous assertions made in posts by others. Knee jerk reactions to the subject. I felt your example of leg humping dog / beastiality fit the same mould.

I didn't raise Christianity, the Pope, gay sex, being offended 34 years ago, hating people, the biases of science or any of the other subjects. I simply responded to the posts of others.

If you are disappointed in the words I choose to describe some of the posts in this thread and the thought processes behind them, I would encourage you to re-read them. Perhaps they are not applicable to your posts, but when you weigh in and quickly imagine a scenario that connects homosexuals to beastiality, because that is what you were doing in a subtle way, it seems impartiality is not the direction you are coming from.

I'm not writing in a scientific journal here. The research that has been done is not difficult to find. Google any of the subjects brought up and begin to explore. I'm writing from a life long interest and curiosity about all sorts of subjects and a willingness to explore new ideas. It's the same process that has brought me to many of the very conservative/libertarian views I hold.

I provided one simple link to respond to the " no other animal engages in homosexual behaviour" assertion. Someone else provided addition information. That evidence was roundly rejected and the thread quickly degenerated into a few posts of name calling before getting back on track. I'm not going to convince any one here, no matter what I post. But perhaps some of you may wander off and dig a little on your own. Or hear what Jim and Mike and you have said about what goes on behind closed doors or hate the sin, not the sinner.

As for some deep seated need for PC from me, I'll just say I doubt it. I have explained my conscious reasons pretty fully I think. You can accept them or not.

James,

We have laws which protect the general public from offensive acts in public, what part of that don't you understand....?....It is your right, in this country, to not be offended by unnatural and indecent acts in public. Appears to me you are twisting words to promote "your tolerance"........?..........

Some choose to TOLERATE, SOME CHOOSE NOT TO........simple....Why even have a structured society...?....With laws on behavior......?

Example: Would you be offended if someone took a shit in the isle on a public bus, is it your right to not view these acts.....?

Example: Would you be offended if a pair of queers, fairies or lesies were pounding it out at a child petting zoo as you visited with your kids.....?......Is it your right not to view these acts........

What is YOUR level of tolerance.....?....I, for one, am sick of tolerance on many issues, queers, fairies, fags and lesies are one of them.......!

I really don't understand what part of this tolerance you don't comprehend and it is about as far from left thinking as anyone can get......

You choose tolerance, many do not, plain and simple.....I personally will not deal with queers, fairies or lesies in my daily life.....whether at a restaurant, a golf course, a car dealership or anywhere else.......I will walk away every time....You can choose to tolerate these fruit balls, but I sir will not, any time, any place......and I certainly will not promote or embrace any legislation that allows these unnatural acts to prevail........

You can have the floor.......

Craig, I have to ask, what do you mean by the "proof of the validity of the gay position"?

That it exists?
That it should be celebrated?
That I am advocating the gay position?

I'm not advocating it. I'm simply pointing out it exists and that it may not be a choice, as others here have asserted. That odd behaviour of this type exists within just about all human populations and in many other animal populations. I never said it was widespread, important, valuable or pleasant. I don't condone it.

jOe recently asserted, in response to Replacement providing information about the lions, that it can only be an issue of dominance. How does he know that? Where is the research? Where has any naturalist ever said categorically that homosexual behaviour in groups of animals is only an issue of dominance.

We have been so quick to call out others for loudly proclaiming some half assed leftist theory and derisive of them when they either resort to sputtering invective, disappear or do their best to obfuscate and change the subject. I believe I'm simply doing the same here.

Morning Doug.

I think you may have missed my earlier post to JRB when I said I find it offensive when any couple is "going at it" in public. My distaste is not limited to queers.

But my distaste for it, is not a right. I suppose if enough of you got together, rose up in indignation and changed your constitution by adding a new amendment, the right not to be offended by two men holding hands, then it would be your right. Until then it's is, as you say, your right to remove YOURSELF.

JRB makes no effort here to be specific about what that couple, back in 1978, were doing that so offended him. As such, it is very difficult to know if the public decency laws in effect in the jurisdiction he was in were being violated. I have to assume they were not being violated, otherwise he would have had recourse besides just leaving. So I am guessing that, by the standards of the community he was in, the behaviour met the legal bar.

Please tell me again about JRB's right or your right not to be offended. Rights are what we earn Doug. You know this as well as anyone. They are earned with a gun, with fists, with consensus. Within America, of late it has typically been consensus that has gained rights.

Craig just suggested I am being motivated by PC. If there has been any PC put forward here, it is the completely fallacious idea any of us have a right not to be offended. Not being offended is at the heart of the whole PC movement. The irony is stunning to me.

Doug, prior to responding to Craig most recently, I re-read the entire thread. Please read my post to Craig.

I am not advocating changing laws to benefit queers.
I am not suggesting their behavior is one I condone.
I have been clear that I find public displays of affection between queers or anyone offensive.
I would find shitting on a bus offensive and I would find a hetero couple porking at the petting zoo offensive as well.

I have been responding to assertions made by others.

It seems to me that since the subject of homosexuality came up here, everyone took off their thinking caps. And much as I hate to say it, that includes you. You did not carefully read JRB's post or my response.

The problem with his post is he describes his own extreme reaction (nearly berserk, dragged away by his WOMAN) but not the offending behavior. So I goofed on it by imagining a relatively minor and very likely completely legal incident which causes him to have an extreme response. Get the humour there?

Had JRB described witnessing an incident of fellatio or anal buggering in a public place, pretty darn sure I would have been pretty sympathetic to his disgust. Like most other forms of behavior, it is a continuum and the question is to where to draw the line. I'm probably pretty close to you as to where I personally would draw the line on the issue JRB raises. But those lines are the result of public decency laws, not fundamental rights.

Now we are back to the subject of rights. Your government, and me, distinguish between rights and laws. There are thousands upon thousands of laws. There are relatively few rights, just a handful. And they are, to me anyway, set out rather clearly by the founding documents and the subsequent amendments. Unlike laws, they typically set out a fundamental premise upon which the laws will be based. A law that contravenes these rights is typically struck down by your Supreme Court at some point.

There are a group of rights, enshrined in the US constitutional documents that set out the sanctity of the individual and his right to pursue his life as he sees fit. It is perhaps the most important aspect of American society and often given as the reason for your unparallelled success as a nation. As you say, those rights are modified by laws, agreed upon and changed over time, reflecting the will of the majority at any given point in time. But those laws only modify the execution of the rights. they don't supplant them.

The biggest beef I hear in misfires is the efforts of legislators to supplant the right to bear arms with laws that make that illegal or subject to onerous condition. That beef is as it should be.

I'm simply pointing out that none of you have a RIGHT to not be offended by two adult men holding hands. Just as you don't have a right to be offended by an adult man and woman holding hands. You may certainly choose to be offended....that of course is your right.

I think what you all are railing against is the feeling, accurate I believe, that the leftist elites in your country are trying to take from you the RIGHT to feel offended by that behavior.

BHD, I have enjoyed every single post you have made on this subject. Thanks for doing you best to keep it light. I can't get that revolting float out of my head now. LOL

Good Morning James,

Most of what you say is correct, some is iffy.........

Without typing as much as you did, because my interest level is not where yours is, bottom line 'legally' is:

The real RIGHT is the RIGHT to remove one's self from any public or private situation that is uncomfortable for whatever reason. We all know this, but basic laws of decency in most societies give us an unwritten right not to be exposed to these situations. These laws were probably put in place to protect children for the most part, nonetheless, they exist.

This RIGHT is prevalent in most civilized societies.......SO, written and holy water blessed or NOT, the RIGHT does exist James......again, plain and simple......

BTW...."Happy New Year"......

I couldn't agree more Doug. It's just that JRB has so far refrained from a detailed explanation that would tell us whether what he observed crossed the boundary of common decency. So he exercise the right he does have and that you just described....the right to remove himself.

I have to ask....


Just how long have you been addicted ?

Why jOe, it's been about 8 or 9 years now. May have even contributed to the demise of my marriage. I just knew the first time I picked up those long barrels that SxS's were the guns for me. How about you?

I think there is plenty anecdotal evidence, and your own admission with the pm story, that you feel it is logical and correct to advocate for the gay rights position, because you want to. No problem to me, really.

I'll repeat, that I believe, even if subtle you're making the case that your 7% is the equal of the 93%. Apparently, you don't like 'queers', but you cite well founded research that it is normal, see your last sentence quoted above.

I don't think I've been too worried about half assed theories. I believe I generally comment on policy that's being proposed or actually imposed by leftist ideologs in charge or the courts that they manipulate.

What my girlfriend and I experienced is NOT fit for even the misfires forum. You will have to accept that. If you want explicit sex details I would suggest that you go pick up a current issue of Playboy or Penthouse and get your jollies from that.

My luv is equally dispersed between SxS's, AR's....pistols and semi auto shotguns.

I got addicted at 6 or 7 years old after just one shot....

I thought no big deal, but this one bothers me a bit too. I think this might be a semantics play. What does offended mean.

Because it's normal and pc glorified, kindergarten kids in public school are forced to learn about bill and bob dating, and sue and betty marrying. It's not presented as a 7% part of the curriculum, but an overwhelming majority. Gay weddings can be proven to be a recent phenomenon, but there are regulatory and criminal penalties auto inserted in the wedding industry preventing private individuals from declining a job.

Well, I take you at your word. No prurient interest in the details. But clearly, having now described it as you have, it probably crossed the line for public decency laws and would be been offensive regardless of the gender make up of the participants. So had you chosen to, there was likely some legal recourse....like letting the police know.

The atheists feel they are entitled to the right to not be "offended by public displays of Christian religious significance" during the Easter and Christmas Holidays. But how many of the hypocrits still actually don't completely abstain from ANY type of celibration themselves since they claim its really just another day.

And some of the thong wearing socialists that parade around pretending to be Justices seem to defend that stance thus far way too often. I consider even once far too often. Until someone drags them kicking and screaming into church every sunday...they need to keep their yaps shut while we celibrate our holidays.....they can refrain from celibrating themselves if they so wish. If they aren't hypocrits that is.

Craig, you are not listening to me.

I am not advocating for gay rights. I don't think punitive laws designed to force people to interact, hire or do business with others are appropriate. I don't think that the curriculum regarding sex education of any sort to elementary school children is appropriate. I don't think the rights of the 7% should take precedence over the rights of the 93%. Where have I suggested those things. You are putting words into my mouth.

What I have said is homosexuality occurs, in man and in nature with other animals. What I have said is it occurs regularly in a small proportion of most human populations, about 7%, regardless of race, religion or culture. What I have said is that there is no scientific consensus for why it happens in humans or animals but there is some evidence that it occurs in humans as innate behavior rather than learned.....a theory I happen to think makes sense.

To me those are the starting points to a discussion, not an advocacy for something.

Those rules you just described about wedding planners are specifically rules designed to stop someone being offended! Those rules are an abomination to me and run counter to the idea of personal responsibility and consequence.

If my comments about the nature of rights bothers you, have at it. But know that my belief about rights include that they are to be extended universally to the members of the society where those rights exist (obvious exceptions like criminals and minors aside).

There are no many red haired people, relative to the general population. They are born with red hair. Should we still regard them withy suspicion as we onc

Doc as I see it the atheists are objecting to religious displays on public property. Some Jews and some Muslims have probably been offended by Cross displays on courthouse lawns. I don't know that. I am a Christian and I wouldn't be offended by a Menorah display on Jewish holidays on public grounds. The general idea is that the religious displays on public property violate the separation of church and state.

The atheists aren't suing churches for having crosses displayed outside the church and viewable by the public. This is because the cross is on private (church) grounds. There is a giant cross on I40 East of Amarillo. It is on private grounds. No lawsuits although it can be seen for miles.

I'm sure that if the atheists ever get their way the "Christ the Redeemer" statue in Rio will be torn down.
Jim

There is no freedom from religion in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution.

And according to the Federalist papers which document the thoughts and concepts behind the writing of the constitution make it clean the Seperation of Church and state was purely to prevent the establishment of a SINGLE religion....such as with the CHurch of England (which is a specific branch of the Prodestant wing of Chirstianity)during the period of time leading up to our independence.

That is something that hasn't happened here.....Nobody has ever tried for example to establish the United Methodist Church as the official Religion of the USA....and to outlaw any and all others....or to seek out and drang the atheists kicking and screaming to church every sunday until they see the light and convert.

And by that argument.....giving people paid time off to celibreate a specific religious holiday goes far beyond a generic Christmas tree. Perhaps if government workers had to work on the holidays costs would decrease and productivity woudl increase and there would be no appearance of favoring any particular religion.

Wow, I went flintlock deer hunting yesterday and came back to find an additional 10 pages of posts on this subject. It's a bit disturbing that the Second Amendment Informational thread is only 24 pages and this is already up to 27.

I still think homosexuality is a defect or learned trait, and not an inherited trait. If it was genetic, they would have long ago disappeared via natural selection, having removed themselves from the gene pool. As such, I strongly feel that it is wrong of the Libtards and PC idiots to force-feed us and our children this lifestyle. Even if it is an act between two consenting adults and hurts no one, it should not ever be seen by impressionable children... just on the supposition that it may be a learned trait.

But... it is entirely incorrect to say this lifestyle hurts no-one. HIV, hepatitus C, rectal cancer, etc. became epidemic as a result of this abberant lifestyle. I certainly realize that all of the above can be acquired by heterosexuals, but it was promiscuous homosexuals who were the rat in the present day plague. Even the overwhelming spread of heterosexual AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa can be linked to homosexual transmission in the early days of the outbreak. From there, it was prostitution, which is more behavior between consenting adults which supposedly hurts no-one. And that is why it became such a heterosexual threat here, via bisexuality and blood transfusions. Now, with many corporations providing medical benefits for same sex couples, insurance costs are increasing for everyone to cover the very expensive protease inhibitors that keep HIV positive gays alive and healthy so that they can spread even more virus before they expire.

I think Mike makes an excellent point when he says that Polygamist Mormons or Muslims may have the same "right" to practice their behavior between consenting adults. If corporations must provide coverage to same sex couples, how about co-habitating heterosexuals? Where does it end? At least those unions would result in children, who would become taxpayers and contribute to Social Security. I think that was the basis for the lower income tax rate for married couples.

Quick comment on suing the Catholic Church, or Episcopals, or Boy Scouts, or Penn State, or Exxon, or BP, etc. into oblivion because of the criminal actions of one or a few. To me, that is a load of legal crap which punishes thousands of innocents for the criminal acts of a few, and enriches lawyers. Punish those guilty of the crime. Punish and confiscate the assets of anyone who engages in any attempt to cover up the crimes. Pedophiles, for example, should be publicly ground up alive and used for bone and blood meal fertilizer. This should deter other pedophiles from acting on their urges, and will insure no recidivism. Confiscate their assets and give it all to the victims with no cut for any law firm. Period!

J.R.B., did you at least get their names? I'm guessing nca225 and homer.

I think they are still picking the splinters out of their ass from the fence post JRB sat them on as a result of whatever they did back then.

Doc I think their argument is that putting up Christian symbols in public settings is to establish Christianity as the official religion.

As far as a right to "freedom from religion" I would object if the police (or FBI) were out rounding up backsliding Christians on Sunday and then giving them the choice of attending church or going to jail.

Tax dollars are going to pay people to stay home on CHRISTIAN holidays instead of working, they aren't getting Hindu, Muslim..Bhudist, Wicca, Santaria, etc holidays?.....far more is spent doing that than on any display that the majority of Americans would enjoy.

If you see the point I'm getting at.......whining about a CHristmas tree on public ground is hypocricy when public officials are getting paid time off for those same holidays to celibrate them.

I don't think the atheists object to the expense of the display but to the expression of Christianity on public property.

Good point about government observance of Christian holidays. Probably that practice is in the atheists gunsights too.

If religion is a belief system based on faith then so is atheism. So it would seem that lack of religious symbols on public grounds is just as much an expression of religion as having Christian displays.

I don't think the average atheist would insist on working on a holiday...without premium pay. But they will graciously accept money to sit at home on a holiday they refuse to acknowledge themselves.

In a a sense since most of them are hypocrits I doubt they would go after what ammounts to a free handout (paid religious holidays) they themselves benifit from.

Mike....I'm still perplexed.

Oops, missed the question the first time. I don't know, maybe a male child was molested by a male pedophile over and over. Males became the gender that stimulated him.

Back in seventh grade my girl friend and I went to the movie theater together. We sat in the balcony by ourselves. Just a little bit of kissing and groping and ever since I have been addicted to vaginas.

Keith, welcome back. Hope you had success with the flintlock.

Pretty sure all of us here don't like the force feeding of "alternate" lifestyles, whether to adults or children.

If you are arguing that homosexual behavior should be outlawed on the basis of harm and health care costs, I'd say you then need to include smoking, drinking, processed and fast foods, obesity and slothfulness, just for good measure.

And plenty of leaders of the Church did their best to turn a blind eye or actually cover up the harm. We all know that now. So should your Church take your prescribed medicine?

I for one don't know where this is all going. However it's apparent that the homosexuals have opened a door they probably should have left closed and have now made a lot of people aware of just how insidious their goals are.
I personally wasn't aware there even was an organization named GLAAD until their twerp of a "spokesman" made an appearance on Fox news. He probably did as much as anyone to awaken a sleeping "true mainstream America" to just what they are trying to accomplish.
I would also surmise that the vast majority of Americans were unaware that A&E had invited GLAAD to vet their programming to insure that homosexuals were given ample exposure.
I am predicting there going to be a BIG turnaround in the United States in 2014 this issue, coupled with the medical failure called Obamacare the loss of unemployment benefits for another 1.3 million and a host of other issue will settle on the current administration like a pall.
Even Brian Williams, the chief apologist for the current administration, won't be able to gloss over and explain away what's really happening anymore.
Jim

As far as JRBs reluctance to comment on the homosexual behavior he observed:
I owned and operated a video production company for many years. Our policy was NO Pornographic work what-so-ever but occasionally something would get slipped in for duplication. On the few occasions this happened I inadvertently got to observe homosexuality.
The originals were promptly returned with a notice to Never bring this type of work to us again. However I can confirm that what I briefly observed was enough to make most of you puke.

James, every time I take my flintlock for a walk, it's a successful day. I didn't even see a deer yesterday but it was cold and crisp with a fresh snow, and I never saw another human. For me, it's the best time of the year. The deer have been harrassed and shot at since archery season, and they are as scarce and spooked as they will ever be. Since there are so few other hunters in the woods, it's unlikely anyone will push a deer to you. It's basically you vs. the deer. About 4:00 PM, I noticed my flashpan was open and empty. Probably flipped open by the multiflora rose that I had fought through an hour earlier. What fun!

The best part is that I didn't get anything, so I get to try again. My perfect seasons have been when I got a deer late on the last day.

I didn't argue that homosexual behavior should be outlawed, but now that you bring it up... well... actually there have been times I thought it would be OK if all men, except for me, were queer. Then I would have all the women, except for the lesbians. What a way to go.

I did say we don't need to have it crammed down out throats. We don't need to see it on every other TV show. We don't need to see it on any TV show for that matter, and that especially goes for our children. There is zero tolerance for prayer in schools and a kid cannot even mention guns, but this crap is OK? Something is seriously wrong here! Whether it is more harmful than smoking or not is irrelevent. And smoking can no longer be advertised on TV even though it is legal and confined to consenting adults.

I used to like Snickers bars. But I never bought another after they did that gay advertisement where two queers ended up kissing after sharing a Snickers bar during the Super Bowl Game several years ago. I sure hope Reese's Cups doesn't do any dumb shit like that!

As for the pedophile priests and anyone who helped cover up their crimes against kids... exactly what I said. But when you decide to punish the entire Catholic Church for the crimes of a few, you punish a billion innocent clergy, laypeople, and members who had absolutely nothing to do with the crimes. Any lawsuit money or settlements does not come from the pockets of those who raped kids. It comes from the collection basket donations of me, RWTF, and other parishoners. How is that right or just? Same goes for my alma mater Penn State. The millions in fines and penalties came from tuition monies and alumni donations. Sandusky did not pay one cent. Neither did Curley, Schultz, or Spanier. The sanctions are punishing a coach, players, fans, and the economy of a town that never did a thing wrong. Meanwhile Sandusky gets a warm bed, meals, and free medical care courtesy of the taxpayers. I say grind him up, alive, at halftime during the National Championship game.

There's gonna be some real changes when I become Dictator canvasback. Heads will roll!

All homosexuals weren't alter boys...

So you maintain most of them were born that way?

Or, ALTAR boys in my Church. Once they have been bent over and butt-#$@*&^ by a priest who can't keep his zipper up around children, he's *&^%$# for life.

I propose doing to the pedophiles what the Towel heads do to a man who has violated their daughter- They strip him and tie him into a chair, get a hooker to "oralize" his unit until it is straight and stiff, shove a glass tube up the piss-hole as far as it will go, and while still erect, smash it with a wooden meat tenderizing style hammer on a wooden chopping block just enough to break the glass tube inside the pee tubing- then keep him alive in prison and give him a diet high in salt and all the cold water to drink he wants, and listen to his screams of agony as he takes a piss-- Killing the sick bastards is far too merciful- pedophilia is an INFAMITA!!!

Keith, while I don't deer hunt, I think you and I share the same kind of pleasure in being out there.

Don't know how it got misconstrued but I'm with you on the crammed down our throats thing. Don't like it. Don't think we need special laws to protect them. I have a nine year old. The curriculum in schools isn't just theoretical to me. As far as the Snickers goes, in Canada, our networks substitute local ads....we don't get to see the great or bad Superbowl ads you see.

And when you're in charge, maybe it will be time for me to move south.

Happy New Year to all my friends on DGBB. Hope 2014 is a great year for all of you and we get to continue butting heads and finding common ground in the year ahead.

As far as I know, there is no legitimate, peer reviewed research that says homosexuality is "normal." Natural yes, normal no.

It's not natural or normal...

If it occurs in nature, then it's natural. Statistically, still abnormal in animals and humans.

With various animal species you get into blurred sexuality. In humans there is no real blurring except in rare instances such as with hermaphrodites.
Therefore a vary valid argument can be made that homosexuality is neither natural or normal.
Jim

You know, few years back in Russia every April 20 they had "special event" (may still have it) where groups attacked folks that looked different then them. I heard it's not bad place to live if you speak fluent russian and look like native slavic russians. Just a thought mind you.

After three days of this thread lying quietly, this is the posting of a troll.

Homosexuality doesn't occur in nature...it's just interpreted that way by screwed up people.

These so called "Observed homosexuality in nature" scientists can make anything happen given some outside influence like enough money.

Just look at their so called 'lead' argument, which is destroying California and its tradition of hunting.

The New York Times ran an article on the new Duck Commander sponsored guns. The comments tell me more about the Left than the article.

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/03/the-duck-dynasty-diversifies/?comments#comments

They could call them Mossy'turds.....


Mr.Sniffle'bean shoots Mossy'turd shotguns

Along with his gutter-minded, uneducated mouth...

Maybe he'll have a barrel obstruction some day !

(oops, I forgot how to do the Heimlich maneuver. Sorry.)