Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 19 of 20 FirstFirst ... 14151617181920 LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 193

Thread: Duck Dynasty star anti-gay remarks

  1. -181
    Phinatic8u's Avatar
    FinHeaven's Elite

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Nov 2008
    Posts:
    9,873
    vCash:
    12116
    Loc:
    South Carolinia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Cam Wake 91PS4 Controller2013 Dolphins Logo1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    Do you really think exercising your faith -- by praying alone -- is equivalent to telling gay people from the megaphone of your platform as a public person that they're going to hell?



    It's frankly amazing you think these are relevant counter examples. "I'm a Christian and it doesn't bother me when everyone around me doesn't act 100% Christian. And other people not acting 100% Christian is license for Christians to tell these people they're going to hell for not being 100% Christian. We tolerate them, so they have to tolerate that."

    I mean, .
    In a sense, no.

    You can use that as a comparison, but Phil Robertson believes in the word of god, the old testament actually says gays will go to hell and it is an abomination, which is something i don't agree with, so he has every right to do so. That also entails he shouldn't be upset of the backlash he received over his remarks.

    I never used that as a example or anything, just stating the fact that if people want to live differently or act differently than what other people do, then don't get upset when they speak about you in a negative light.


    Deshaun Watson is the TRUTH!
    Quote Quote  

  2. -182
    phins_4_ever's Avatar
    FinHeaven VIP

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Oct 2008
    Posts:
    4,726
    vCash:
    36961
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Roman529 View Post
    Only the "Politically Correct," crowd thinks Robertson has no right to express his beliefs. Last I checked, this is America, where your freedom of expression/beliefs should be protected.

    BREAKING news: A&E has caved and Phil Robertson has been reinstated.
    Nobody has ever said that he can't say whatever he wants to. But the freedom of speech does not 'free you' from criticism. Why don't people understand that?
    ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    "You may think that you are some kind of god to these people. But we both know what you really are."
    "What's that? A criminal?"
    "Worse. A politician."
    Source: Under The Dome
    Quote Quote  

  3. -183
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    9,184
    vCash:
    37258
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Phinatic8u View Post
    In a sense, no.

    You can use that as a comparison, but Phil Robertson believes in the word of god, the old testament actually says gays will go to hell and it is an abomination, which is something i don't agree with, so he has every right to do so. That also entails he shouldn't be upset of the backlash he received over his remarks.

    I never used that as a example or anything, just stating the fact that if people want to live differently or act differently than what other people do, then don't get upset when they speak about you in a negative light.
    Having a lifestyle and criticizing that lifestyle are two different things, though. Praying by yourself and telling someone they're going to hell are not equivalent. I recognize that proselytizing is part of Christian doctrine, but it's also very bad manners.

    I'd actually go farther than this, though. Being religious -- having faith -- is a choice. And society, as a whole, respects the right to judge people based on their choices. In other words, it's not seen as particularly bad manners to criticize someone if they're wearing a stupid shirt, to use an example. Or to **** on their favorite sports team. You had a choice to wear that shirt or root for that team.

    Being homosexual, on the other hand, is not a choice. Some people don't ascribe to that view, but I don't think they're right, and all of the science that I'm aware of is on my side. And, once you've bought into that idea, it's universally seen as exceedingly bad manners to criticize someone for something that they had no choice over. Being ugly, for instance... or having some kind of physical malady. I recognize the comparison here might be insulting to homosexuals. I certainly don't mean it to be. I'm just trying to translate it.

    The overall point here being... it is much more valid to judge a guy like Robertson for his beliefs than to judge gay people for being gay. Strip away the content of the relative viewpoints and he's on the far shakier moral ground.



    #freespesh
    Quote Quote  

  4. -184
    Phinatic8u's Avatar
    FinHeaven's Elite

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Nov 2008
    Posts:
    9,873
    vCash:
    12116
    Loc:
    South Carolinia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Cam Wake 91PS4 Controller2013 Dolphins Logo1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    Having a lifestyle and criticizing that lifestyle are two different things, though. Praying by yourself and telling someone they're going to hell are not equivalent. I recognize that proselytizing is part of Christian doctrine, but it's also very bad manners.

    I'd actually go farther than this, though. Being religious -- having faith -- is a choice. And society, as a whole, respects the right to judge people based on their choices. In other words, it's not seen as particularly bad manners to criticize someone if they're wearing a stupid shirt, to use an example. Or to **** on their favorite sports team. You had a choice to wear that shirt or root for that team.

    Being homosexual, on the other hand, is not a choice. Some people don't ascribe to that view, but I don't think they're right, and all of the science that I'm aware of is on my side. And, once you've bought into that idea, it's universally seen as exceedingly bad manners to criticize someone for something that they had no choice over. Being ugly, for instance... or having some kind of physical malady. I recognize the comparison here might be insulting to homosexuals. I certainly don't mean it to be. I'm just trying to translate it.

    The overall point here being... it is much more valid to judge a guy like Robertson for his beliefs than to judge gay people for being gay. Strip away the content of the relative viewpoints and he's on the far shakier moral ground.
    I agree with all this.

    I never tried to compare a Muslim praying by himself to what Phil Robertson did. There both completely different.

    To certain Christians there exactly the same though. Which in its self is wrong.
    Quote Quote  

  5. -185
    NY8123's Avatar
    Sophisticated Redneck

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jan 2008
    Posts:
    12,189
    vCash:
    9462
    Loc:
    out in the Ding Weeds
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    Having a lifestyle and criticizing that lifestyle are two different things, though. Praying by yourself and telling someone they're going to hell are not equivalent. I recognize that proselytizing is part of Christian doctrine, but it's also very bad manners.

    I'd actually go farther than this, though. Being religious -- having faith -- is a choice. And society, as a whole, respects the right to judge people based on their choices. In other words, it's not seen as particularly bad manners to criticize someone if they're wearing a stupid shirt, to use an example. Or to **** on their favorite sports team. You had a choice to wear that shirt or root for that team.

    Being homosexual, on the other hand, is not a choice. Some people don't ascribe to that view, but I don't think they're right, and all of the science that I'm aware of is on my side. And, once you've bought into that idea, it's universally seen as exceedingly bad manners to criticize someone for something that they had no choice over. Being ugly, for instance... or having some kind of physical malady. I recognize the comparison here might be insulting to homosexuals. I certainly don't mean it to be. I'm just trying to translate it.

    The overall point here being... it is much more valid to judge a guy like Robertson for his beliefs than to judge gay people for being gay. Strip away the content of the relative viewpoints and he's on the far shakier moral ground.
    Gay rights in the public light have come a long way. Gay rights behind the closed doors of the American people have not. Phil voiced the opinion of what I would suspect occurs behind closed doors all through the "bible belt" of America. I would bet a large portion of certain areas of the American population change their overall stance on many issues when placed in the light of public scrutiny only to let their true colors fly in close circles of family and friends.

    I have seen it on both ends in all sorts of racial and religious issues in this country, a person stands up and says "yes yes yes it is right to progress this cause" and then ends up saying exactly the opposite when placed in a comfortable environment with no public ramifications. So in this regard I could careless what Phil said about gay rights, his opinion really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, what matters here is the overall burial of what is portrayed as reality verses what is perceived as reality.

    Phil spoke of what his perceived reality is and that is far different than the portrayed reality in America. When you close the door between perceived and portrayed you will finally have a society that is "all inclusive" and disregards race, creed, and religious differences but as long as the human population is made up of different races, creeds and religious affiliations, you will never close that gap becasue the differences are what make us who we are.

    Phil doesn't have to accept gay rights just as I don't have to accept his views on it.
    "I am free of all prejudice. I hate everyone equally" ~ W.C. Fields

    Quote Quote  

  6. -186
    TheWalrus's Avatar
    1/7/14

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2011
    Posts:
    9,184
    vCash:
    37258
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by NY8123 View Post
    Gay rights in the public light have come a long way. Gay rights behind the closed doors of the American people have not. Phil voiced the opinion of what I would suspect occurs behind closed doors all through the "bible belt" of America. I would bet a large portion of certain areas of the American population change their overall stance on many issues when placed in the light of public scrutiny only to let their true colors fly in close circles of family and friends.

    I have seen it on both ends in all sorts of racial and religious issues in this country, a person stands up and says "yes yes yes it is right to progress this cause" and then ends up saying exactly the opposite when placed in a comfortable environment with no public ramifications. So in this regard I could careless what Phil said about gay rights, his opinion really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, what matters here is the overall burial of what is portrayed as reality verses what is perceived as reality.

    Phil spoke of what his perceived reality is and that is far different than the portrayed reality in America. When you close the door between perceived and portrayed you will finally have a society that is "all inclusive" and disregards race, creed, and religious differences but as long as the human population is made up of different races, creeds and religious affiliations, you will never close that gap becasue the differences are what make us who we are.

    Phil doesn't have to accept gay rights just as I don't have to accept his views on it.
    It's a process, and political correctness, as it were, always proceeds private correctness. I agree with that. But these kinds of public fights -- as nonsensical as they seem and in some ways are -- are a necessary part of that process. It will never be unacceptable to say such a thing in private if it first isn't okay to say it in public.

    It takes time, obviously, but I doubt there are too many people who still hate the Irish and call them dirty micks anymore. Eventually most minority groups get accepted by the majority and then join the majority in oppressing the next minority group.

    America: like a really ****ty fraternity (that's still better than Germany, Japan or South Korea).
    Quote Quote  

  7. -187
    NY8123's Avatar
    Sophisticated Redneck

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jan 2008
    Posts:
    12,189
    vCash:
    9462
    Loc:
    out in the Ding Weeds
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by TheWalrus View Post
    It's a process, and political correctness, as it were, always proceeds private correctness. I agree with that. But these kinds of public fights -- as nonsensical as they seem and in some ways are -- are a necessary part of that process. It will never be unacceptable to say such a thing in private if it first isn't okay to say it in public.

    It takes time, obviously, but I doubt there are too many people who still hate the Irish and call them dirty micks anymore. Eventually most minority groups get accepted by the majority and then join the majority in oppressing the next minority group.

    America: like a really ****ty fraternity (that's still better than Germany, Japan or South Korea).
    I think one minority replaces the other. There have always been countries deemed 2nd rate by other countries. The Irish, Italians, Polish and the Portuguese have always been 2nd rate "white" back in the day. Of course the blacks have always been persecuted and now the Muslims are being lumped into a category not seen since the Jews.

    The poll at NBC makes my point crystal clear, 82% (30k+ voters) think Phil should have been reinstated on the show. In the end A&E sided with its cash cow, much like the NFL did with the bulling bull****.

    I think it was much ado about nothing to be honest. Just the media spinning up the next "shocker".
    Quote Quote  

  8. -188
    D0lphan72's Avatar
    Hokies class of 2016

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2009
    Posts:
    1,938
    vCash:
    2793
    Loc:
    Virginia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Ford LogoDolphins HomerTannehill 17Snakes!Xbox Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by rob19 View Post
    You may think otherwise, Bill, but I don't believe Homosexuality is a choice. To me it's no different than saying someone is a sinner for the color of the skin they were born with. I'm sure you would have no problem if someone was suspended from their place of employment for saying that it's a sin to be black -- even if that was their 'religious' beliefs.

    As Hankey pointed out, I'm also sure it must be very insulting to the gay community to keep having people insinuate that Homosexuality is a hop, skip, and a jump away from Bestiality.
    I actually completely agree with you on the terms of being gay is a choice or not. I have a very close gay friend who has tried numerous times to 'convert himself to being straight' by watching women porn and other things. I don't think any person would choose to be harassed and receive poor treatment throughout their younger life. I firmly do believe it is natural. How it is caused I have no clue, however, I certainly believe it isn't solely based on choice.

    At the same time, being a Christian myself. I have no problem with gay rights or gay marriage. Phil was attacked and there's no argument against that. He spoke his honest opinion and even said he will never judge or hate anyone based on their sexual orientation. He did not deserve any of the heat he received and A&E had no true motive to ban him except for the fact that he publicly said he doesn't believe in gay marriage. It's the Chuck Fila fiasco all over again.
    Quote Quote  

  9. -189
    Buddy's Avatar
    Starter

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    May 2004
    Posts:
    3,947
    vCash:
    15709
    Loc:
    Victoria, TX
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by D0lphan72 View Post
    I actually completely agree with you on the terms of being gay is a choice or not. I have a very close gay friend who has tried numerous times to 'convert himself to being straight' by watching women porn and other things. I don't think any person would choose to be harassed and receive poor treatment throughout their younger life. I firmly do believe it is natural. How it is caused I have no clue, however, I certainly believe it isn't solely based on choice.

    At the same time, being a Christian myself. I have no problem with gay rights or gay marriage. Phil was attacked and there's no argument against that. He spoke his honest opinion and even said he will never judge or hate anyone based on their sexual orientation. He did not deserve any of the heat he received and A&E had no true motive to ban him except for the fact that he publicly said he doesn't believe in gay marriage. It's the Chuck Fila fiasco all over again.
    I have a good friend who is, I guess you would call it, a non-practicing gay. His attraction to men is not a choice but his decision to not act upon it is certainly his choice. He is a devout Christian and believes gay sex is immoral, just as fornication is immoral. Our desires are not our choice but our actions definitely are. I really feel for him and others like him as it has to be a huge cross to bear. However, his attitude is amazing and he is an inspiration to a lot of people.

    Regardless, one's choice in the matter is between them and God. It is not my place to judge.

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
    Quote Quote  

  10. -190
    D0lphan72's Avatar
    Hokies class of 2016

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2009
    Posts:
    1,938
    vCash:
    2793
    Loc:
    Virginia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Ford LogoDolphins HomerTannehill 17Snakes!Xbox Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by Buddy View Post
    I have a good friend who is, I guess you would call it, a non-practicing gay. His attraction to men is not a choice but his decision to not act upon it is certainly his choice. He is a devout Christian and believes gay sex is immoral, just as fornication is immoral. Our desires are not our choice but our actions definitely are. I really feel for him and others like him as it has to be a huge cross to bear. However, his attitude is amazing and he is an inspiration to a lot of people.

    Regardless, one's choice in the matter is between them and God. It is not my place to judge.

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
    That's a rarity. But good for him. I find it interesting for him to be so devout to Christianity and believe that what he is a an 'abomination' if you say. Even though he knows what he is, is not something you can 'choose'. It sounds like he has a connection with God and knows God loves him instead of following what some human wrote into a book and told people what to believe. (Yes, a Christian taking a stab at the Bible and some of the teachings in it does happen )
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. duck dynasty...
    By hooshoops in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-09-2012, 05:39 PM
  2. 'Grey's' star in counseling after anti-gay slur
    By BAMAPHIN 22 in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 01-26-2007, 10:49 AM
  3. Chavez makes anti-semitic remarks, also called Condi illiterate
    By Miamian in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-06-2006, 05:36 PM
  4. Star Wars EP III Anti-Bush?
    By SkapePhin in forum Political | War Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-16-2005, 08:02 PM
  5. MERGED: AJ Question/Anti-Anti-Feeley thread
    By LOCAL SCUM! in forum Miami Dolphins Forum
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: 03-10-2005, 07:46 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •