I knew it wouldn't be long before one of the stars of A&E's Duck Dynasty spouted off some redneck bullshit about the gays. One of the show's stars, Phil Robertson, apparently didn't get the memo that we live in a tolerant society now and recognize that the Bible is wrong about some things, including homosexuality.
In an interview with GQ, Robertson said.
"It seems like, to me, a vagina - as a man - would be more desirable than a man's anus. That's just me. I'm just thinking: There's more there! She's got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I'm saying? But hey, sin: It's not logical, my man. It's just not logical." Asked what, in his mind, is sinful, Robertson replied: "Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men."
Right, because having sex with an animal is the same as two consenting adults...sheesh. A&E has suspended Robertson indefinitely as a result of these comments.
As expected, the right wing media industrial complex has rushed to his defense, citing "freedom of speech." The conundrum for them, however, is that corporations (see: Worship Immediately, no assembly required) are private entities and are free to hire and fire people based on their views. Now, if they suspended Robertson because he was white or heterosexual, then they might have cause for complaint. Or if they refused to provide him with service because he was a man, then we'd definitely have a civil rights violation on our hands. As it stands now, thought, the cries of freedom being taken away are full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
I wonder if Robertson believes that women should be subservient to men as this directive is mentioned far more often than homsexuality...
3 comments:
It's amazing how you can assert that "[o]ur society needs to throw our preconceived and male centered views of sexuality out the window", yet immediately turn around and condemn someone for pointing out the logical consequences of such "you're not the boss of me" thinking.
Right, because having sex with an animal is the same as two consenting adults
I see you reading comprehension is as bad as everybody else who is in hyperventilating mode.
And the attacks are unfair. He didn't compare "being gay to bestiality." He put homosexual conduct — not the status of being gay — into a category of sins that included "sleeping around with this woman and that woman" as well as bestiality.
are private entities and are free to hire and fire people based on their views. Now, if they suspended Robertson because he was white or heterosexual, then they might have cause for complaint. Or if they refused to provide him with service because he was a man, then we'd definitely have a civil rights violation on our hands
Don't be so sure about that.
the 1964 Civil Rights Act addresses this sort of action very clearly.
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer - to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;
A&E has made a public announcement to the effect that it has suspended Phil Robertson from his employment on the series Duck Dynasty for having expressed his religious beliefs outside of the workplace. This action certainly "otherwise discrimnate[s] against an individual with respect to his. . . terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individuals. . . religion".
Phil Robertson, apparently didn't get the memo that we live in a tolerant society now and recognize that the Bible is wrong about some things, including homosexuality.
And there you go again. Wrong about some things? Wrong as in factually incorrect? Nope. You are using wrong in the morally wrong guise. Do you realize how silly it is to claim a guidebook on morals is wrong in it's view of morality while still claiming to be a follower of that guidebook?
Probably not.
Further what are you basing that judgement that it is wrong upon? The standard of our current society? That's just as silly. The mores of societies change over time. That's the gist of what you are saying, that the mores of our society have changed and that we are 'tolerant' now so the bible is 'wrong'.
That's not a very stable platform upon which to base your morality. The mores of society two hundred years ago said that slavery was A-ok. Were they right or were they wrong? What will societies mores of two hundred years in the future say about our current?
Post a Comment