doublegunshop.com - home Forums Duck Dynasty

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?