5 Things To Remember When Discussing This Duck Dynasty Mess

“Just when I thought I was out…. They pull me back in.” ~ Michael Corleone

Nothing could have prepared me for the shock of finding out that this guy thinks gay people are going to hell….

Nothing could have prepared me for the shock of finding out that this guy thinks gay people are going to hell….

If you haven’t already heard, you will shortly: A&E has suspended some dude (I don’t know what his name is, and I really don’t even care enough to Google it) from the show Duck Dynasty for some offensive comments he made about homosexuals in an interview with GQ. I’m not going to focus on what was said in the interview…. If you care, you can read the whole interview HERE, or you can read some of the homophobic highlights HERE. Myself? I really don’t care what he said. There is absolutely nothing surprising or noteworthy about an old, white, southern, Christian hunter being grossed out about gay sex or believing that all the gays are going straight to Hell. There is nothing rare about this.

There is also nothing surprising or noteworthy about a company suspending an employee because of their personal behavior. It happens all the time. I work for a organization that educates kids about differences, and if I did an interview with GQ where I said that I think that retarded (if you are a person who still uses this word, you should probably READ THIS) people are disgusting and they are all going to hell, I would be a fool not expect to get fired from my job.

Watching people argue on Facebook….

Watching Facebook arguments.

What is noteworthy is the conversation that is going to take place over the next couple days on social media. I say “conversation,” but really it’s mostly going to be a bunch of angry people who are certain that God is on their side typing in ALL CAPS. And I say “on social media” because people (for whatever reason) feel okay about typing things on the internet that they would NEVER say to a person’s face. But before you let yourself get knee-deep into all the arguing and debate and noise, here are a few things to keep in mind:

1. Freedom of Speech does not mean “Freedom to say whatever you want without any consequences.” This should be one of those things that goes without saying, but apparently, it needs to be said. We all have the freedom to go on TV and scream “My boss is a jackass!” But that freedom comes with some ramifications….

If the only kind of prayer that you want in schools is prayer to the God that you believe in, then you don't REALLY want prayer in schools.

If the only kind of prayer that you want in schools is prayer to the God that you believe in, then you don’t REALLY want prayer in schools.

2. There is also free speech that you don’t agree with. You are not some sort of “Patriot, fighting for the First Amendment rights of all Americans” if the only time you get upset about a person’s “rights being trampled” is when it happens to people who think exactly like you. If you think of the First Amendment when hearing people saying “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas,” you are very, very confused. And if the only free speech that you support is speech that you agree with, that doesn’t make you a “patriot.” It makes you a hypocrite. And that’s something completely different.

Something about these dudes and the word "Antibacterial" don't go together very well.

Something about these dudes and the word “Antibacterial” don’t go together very well.

3. Any plans for some grand act of support (probably by “Christians”) for this Duck Dynasty guy will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to actually support him, but it will do plenty to drive an even bigger wedge between the Church and the LGBT community. Please think about this for a moment–This guy is a gazillionaire…. You can’t walk through a Walmart without knocking something off a shelf that has his face on it. He does not need your support. But if people plan some sort of “Wear Camo to Work” day in support this guy (just like the whole “Chick-Fil-A Appreciation Day” to support Dan Cathy’s First Amendment rights to financially support groups that actively work against equal rights for the LGBT community), what you will accomplish is hurting and alienating the very people you believe are going to hell unless they change…. Does that seem like a good strategy to you? Me neither. Also, it will have the added effect of making my damn head explode….

My favorite DD cast member, modeling one of their highly successful antibacterial bandages.

My favorite DD cast member, modeling one of their highly successful antibacterial bandages.

4. This is NOT religious persecution. I cannot stress this enough. He did not get suspended for his religious beliefs. He was suspended because what he said was completely offensive. There are plenty of Christians (many of my friends, in fact) who believe that being gay is a sin and marriage should only be between a man and a woman, yet they could have still answered those questions with love and humility. Someone might use Bible verses to claim that interracial relations are an abomination and say “Anyone who commits the sin of miscegenation is heading straight to Hell” and call it freedom of religion, but really…. It’s just old school hatred. Hatred is not a Biblical belief.

5. And lastly (and most importantly), imagine that there is a gay person reading the things you are writing. Because guess what…. There will be. Please don’t separate the ISSUE from the PEOPLE. Imagine that there is someone reading the words you are writing who is trying to get a sense of what this Jesus guy is all about. Imagine a person reading your words who is just as sure of their same-sex attraction as you are of your opposite-sex attraction. Imagine that person has only ever heard hatred coming from people who call themselves Christians, and he or she is just about ready to give up. Imagine looking into a person’s eyes and saying the hate-filled things you are getting ready to write, instead of looking into computer screen. Maybe even imagine one of your kids has come out to you, and he or she is reading your words. And then finally, think of a time that you have been wrong about something in the past, and imagine that this issue of “how sinful it is to be gay” might be one of those times.

I hope this helps…. And if you’re one of the people who has been hurt by the hate and ignorance and judgment over that is already everywhere on the internet, just know that the folks who are spewing all that hate are not really representing Jesus. Jesus said, “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples: If you love one another.” So that’s the way you’ll know. Let’s keep it clean, internet.

***Oh, and I almost forgot!***
If you like this, chances are pretty good you’ll like some of the other stuff I write as well. You can subscribe to this blog at the top right of this page (It’ll send you an email).
You can like The Boeskool’s Facebook page HERE (It’s sometimes funny)
Or you can follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/TheBoeskool

"Sorry folks. Shitter's full!!" If you're thinking about writing a comment that tells someone else how stupid they are, kindly take that crap somewhere else….

“Sorry folks. Shitter’s full!!” If you’re thinking about writing a comment that tells someone else how stupid they are, kindly take that crap somewhere else….

Please, please stop calling each other names and being so mean in the comments. What started out as kind of ironically amusing, has just become a beacon of discouragement. Read what I wrote–I don’t care what he said. I understand that he said it. I have probably said very similar things before I got a little more clarity on the situation. I’m sure he’s a nice guy. This post was about a few things: How this is not a free speech issue (it’s not), how a having a giant “Stand With Phil” rally will only work to further alienate the LGBT community from the arms of the God who loves them, and how we all (but especially those of us claiming to follow Jesus) should think about how the things we write will be read by people who are gathering information about what Jesus is like. Is there some sort of site that bombs comment sections with ignorant, hateful comments in order to make Jesus look bad??? What in the world, people….

This entry was posted in 5) Not Quite Sure and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1,203 Responses to 5 Things To Remember When Discussing This Duck Dynasty Mess

    • Muslims want homosexuals put to DEATH. Our country STILL SUPPORTS them!

      • theboeskool says:

        Stop it, Mary. Take that shit somewhere else. I can deal with a lot, but that will not fly. Muslims are part of our country. And it has been Christian missionaries to Africa that have worked to pass laws making homosexuality illegal and even punishable by death. Take your blazingly ignorant hate somewhere other than my page.

      • Geebzus says:

        They also want you put to death for being an infidel so what’s your fucking point?

      • Skeet says:

        Not all Muslims! There are radical Muslims just as their are radical Christians. Some are even called the KKK. But, I refuse to judge all Muslims by the actions of a few just as I don’t judge all Christians by the actions of a few.

    • Cam92788 says:

      I think that people tend to forget that when he goes on record saying anything, he’s a representative for his company and the television station that plays his show. The punishment he got is far less severe than I would’ve gotten had I said something like this for everyone to hear at my place of work.

      As far as Christian supporters, make sure your hands are clean before you voice your support for this guy. Don’t rely on scriptures to make your argument if you don’t practice every teaching in the Bible. It’s self-righteous and your argument will collapse on itself. That being said, this man is not a terrible person. His ideas may seem outdated to a lot of people, but from what I gathered, he just can’t wrap his head around the idea of a person being attracted to the same sex. It’s also really strange that this is where AE draws the line for “going too far.” Shows like “Hoarders” and “Intervention” could definitely use some reevaluation.

    • Lo says:

      Awesomely written! Thank you for this.

  1. Jen Runyon says:

    Miscegenation is the mixing of races, Misogyny is more anti-Female.

    • lillianb says:

      chris is a terrible speller. and he believes autocorrect/spell check pretty faithfully. 🙂

      • Frank says:

        Amusing how Chris called out Christians in social media for typing in ALL CAPS to justify their anger. Then proceeded to MAKE HIS points, many of THEM IN ALL CAPS.

      • theboeskool says:

        Yes Frank, that is amusing. You have rightly pointed out my glaring hypocrisy….

        But I didn’t call out Christians for typing in all caps. I said that everyone is certain that God is on their side. Both sides are certain. And yes, sometimes people annoyingly use too many CAPS. But it was in prelude to the more important point–That we are far meaner to people online than most would ever dare to be face to face. I think this comments thread has proved that hypothesis….

    • theboeskool says:

      Thank you. I’m a dork, and a terrible speller, and I finished it after my wife went to bed (she’s my proofreader). I changed it. 🙂

  2. Chris says:

    Well stated! I have long tried to explain that freedom doesn’t mean you can do/say anything you want to without facing the consequences.

    • John Paul says:

      Yes, everything we might say or do has a consequence but as long as it can be supported, with facts, you are in the right to say it as long as it is true. Such as my experience in the Philippines where i was asked why i no longer wanted the service of an officer. I first started out politely, even though everything i said was all the same, and first stated “because i did not come to talk with him” which means i can choose whom to talk with and so i was asked why 2 because i do not trust him and I was asked WHY 3 simply enough because he lied to me, which was the truth, but instead of the officer asking if i could support it he cursed at my face and accused me for insulting assaulting an officer because simple enough he was bias and hated me and did not like the truth and he wanted to use something to get rid of me so i would not be a constant reminder that he is not doing his job which was the honest truth they do not do their job and i do not follow a copy cat system which is not entitled to answers because the law itself entitles me to questions and answers they tried to forbid me from.

      As long as what we are saying is the truth, which is what the actor was doing while also sharing he does not hate them he had every right to sa what he said and for no one to try and jump out and use it against him as some crime which he never committed

      We are living in a generation where truth is being hated by many but the truth is still the truth so get your thumb out of your mouths cry babies…

      • Holly says:

        By “actor”, do you mean Mr. Robertson? If so, and you claim he is stating “the truth”. That’s pretty bold. From what (admittedly little) I know of the bible, speaking for God is a big, BIG no-no. He can speak for himself. HE has not said what Mr. Robertson said. That’s active interpretation (or active imagination, depending on your view).

      • Larry Dillon says:

        You use the word “truth” as referring to facts
        Yet in reality, the “truth” you are referring to is religious delusions.
        Not facts…delusions

    • Nate says:

      dude you have to be kidding. first of all, as you said, you don’t even know the guys name. Sounds to me like you are uninformed on this topic and have not done your research at all, which leads me to conclude what would possibly make you think you even know what the heck you’re talking about. What he said was not hateful in any way. He was asked the question what he believes sin is. Soo he listed a bunch of examples, homosexuality as one of them and ALSO included men and woman sleeping with each other outside of marriage. He backed it up with a Bible verse that easily coincides with what he said. The end comment he said that he never disrespects anyone because of sin. Our goal is to love them….

      • Larry Dillon says:

        Plastic Palin defended duck phuck Phil and she also admitted she had not read a word he said….but to be fair Sarah has also said she “only reads whats placed before her”(see the Katie Couric interview)

      • Larry Dillon says:

        “Pointing out sins isn’t hate…”

        That form of intellectual dishonesty and disingenuous platitudes, is exactly why more and more SMART and DECENT people can see them as very false people, if not false Christian.
        Those of us who are HONEST and who have eyes and ears can see just how selectively they single out gay people for social, political and civil denial of equal protections that they wouldn’t DARE try with heterosexuals that would meet their definitions of sins. Gay people are easier to do this too because of the long legacy of discrimination already in place.
        It’s religious doctrine that’s made society hostile and distrustful of gay people, and they won’t own up to that. And regardless the damage, the violence and lack of ability for gay people to BE honest about their orientation without some kind of threat to themselves, they still think the onus of changing is something they deserve. Even though it’s IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to change their orientation.
        Christians insist on influencing a great deal in our society, and despite screwing up. REALLY, screwing up badly, they still expect to and have unconditional support and unchallenged acceptance.
        Something they’re not willing to GIVE, except to certain specific approved members of their tribe.
        Yeah, it IS hate. There isn’t a lot of wiggle room between ‘you’re an abomination, your blood shall be upon you” and “we don’t want you to exist unless you pretend you’re heterosexual and only THEN we maybe might consider you to be a regular, normal person”
        The price paid and who it really costs doesn’t matter to them, obviously.
        Because they don’t have to pay a dime. It’s not THEM that has to deal with people like THEM.

  3. davemhagen says:

    The most hateful and judgmental statements I have seen regarding this issue or any of the people surrounding this issue, by far, have come from you.
    I’m not saying you are wrong on your stance, just that despite your post encouraging everybody to rise above the fray, you have not.

    • littlebyrdie says:

      Dave, could you be more specific? (Cite some examples) I’m just not seeing it, so I would like to know what you have found hurtful/offensive from your perspective.

      • lillianb says:

        i went back and read his fb page looking for (and honestly, expecting to find) some examples, and didn’t see it. but i could be not as sensitive to it.

      • davemhagen says:

        In the process of trying to write a response I’ve decided I made a mistake in writing this in the comments. Chris, I’m sorry for saying that on a public space and I am fine with you deleting it. I would be more than happy to have a discussion with you about this, but I don’t think a public thread is the venue for that.

      • theboeskool says:

        No problem, Dave. I can think of many times that I have said things that were hateful, and I should be called out on it. I’m just not sure how I’ve been hateful about this particular issue….

        My main concern with this whole thing is how it affects gay people who love what Jesus is about, or people who are convinced that Jesus is full of shit because of all the hate that comes from these arguments. I am far from a perfect example of Jesus’ love, so if I’m coming across as hypocritical, I’m really sorry.

        I can tell you that I have had two different people (who are gay, but didn’t feel comfortable speaking up in those discussions on social media threads) thank me for trying to get it, and reminding them that they are loved by a creator as well. For what it’s worth…. I feel like I’m trying to do the right thing here, but it might not always come across that way.

    • theboeskool says:

      On the upside, I think that at least now you might have a few more examples of hateful/judgmental statements…. 🙂 Things have gotten downright PG13 up in this mug!

    • Mara says:

      I do not see how any of it was hateful. He brought his point across on how it was a very drastic decision to back up what a person says based on their religion. Then he goes to explain that visualizing the person you are speaking to might help clarify what you are trying to communicate without being so rude, hateful and inconsiderate that they are people too. Everyone makes bad choices, but that does not mean that they cannot fix them. I believe that he was just trying to help people in general when it comes to typing online in what someone would say and how it is better to remember that you are talking to people that have emotions, ideas, opinions that all are different from one another. These things make us individuals, but similarities give some groups unity. No matter what sexual orientation, religion, or any other difference we should all be respectful to one another. This is some of what he is trying to explain and is using the situation with Duck Dynasty’s Phil Robertson as an example of the difference in expressing your opinion based on religion based on rational interpretation and expressing your opinion based on irrational interpretation. So he sounds like a very caring man, who cares about people’s feelings from many different perspectives.

  4. Peter says:

    Is number 2 satire? It’s funny if intentional, hilarious if not.

    • I had the same thought. At what point did the Left become so authoritarian? People who call themselves liberals are now the ones emphasizing limitations of rights, saying, “the law is the law” (in regard to health care, not pot). They’re the major proponents of censorship these days, trying to silence anything that doesn’t meet their standards of approved speech (with the exception of the Right’s weird little idiosyncrasy about “Happy Holidays” vs. “Merry Christmas”). Whether you’re talking about meat, guns, or plastic bags, they want to ban things and impose criminal penalties on anyone who offends their sensibilities. They’re saying they defend the President, right or wrong, no matter how many civilians he kills, how many whistle blowers he prosecutes, or how many corporations he bails out. In a word, they’ve become conservatives.

  5. Emma says:

    Won’t even read this because your first statement is wrong. READ THE ARTICLE BEFORE YOU VOICE YOUR OPINIONS. he never said anyone was going to hell. He said it was not anyone’s right to judge who goes where, but it is his right to LOVE EVERYONE despite what they are or are not. It’s people like you who are making things bigger than they are. GTFOI

    • theboeskool says:

      That’s really funny…. You say that you “won’t even read this” right before you write in all caps “READ THE ARTICLE BEFORE YOU VOICE YOUR OPINIONS.” Was that irony intended?

      Here is a direct quote, Emma: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God.” What do you think he meant when he said they “won’t inherit the kingdom of God?”

      Anyway, you’ll be happy to know that he misquoted 1 Corinthians 6. It’s a common mistake. It doesn’t say anything about “homosexuals.” It says Sodomites. And, as I’m sure you know, the Bible clearly says that the sin of Sodom was being inhospitable. Like Ezekiel 16:49 says, “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.” Also, the story of Sodom and Gomorra was about rape. Not homosexuality. It says that “all the men of the town” came and demanded they send out their guests. Do you really think that ALL THE MEN of the town were gay?

      Anyhoo, thanks for stopping by with your criticism of my article you didn’t bother to read. I had to Google what GTFOI meant, but yes, I will try my hardest. 🙂

      • Emma says:

        I love how your direct quote is so direct and you leave out this: “We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?”

      • Emma says:

        Oh, and GTFOI is pretty much just get the f*ck over it. His name is Phil Robertson, and he believes what he believes. Heaven forbid a Gay person to say anything bad about Christianity…nothing would be done about it. It would be ignored. But anytime someone so much as whispers their views on them, the world might as well end. I agree with everything he said. I have gay friends, they know I don’t support what they do. But I sill love them, until they give me a reason to not like them, even then I will still love them. Which is what Phil was saying. It’s people like you (I skimmed though your article…so I guess technically I ‘read it’ make you feel better?) who are taking this way further than it needs to be taken. He said his half, none of it was intentionally offensive, and now he’s being criticized for it. Yet everyone who has their panties in a bunch over this, including yourself, has looked past all the good stuff he said. So I repeat, read the whole article.

      • theboeskool says:

        Yeah, like I said, Emma–I Googled it. Thanks.

      • Emma says:

        Oh, and did you google all of you info for this? Find just bits and pieces? Google your bible quotes too?

      • Sandra says:

        Chris, you’re awesome. That is all. 🙂

      • Theresa says:

        Depending on the Version you use, could depend on the verbiage. I use several versions to get an understanding of the Bible. I’m not sure which version you were quoting above in Corinthians or in Ezekiel, but the NIV, Amplified, NKJV and NLT is clear about homosexuality. I’m sure there are many other versions, as well, but these are the ones that I like to use. I won’t quote them directly, but I will let you look them up for yourself.
        I agree with your article, and unfortunately, these things get blown out of proportion when there are so many other things that should have our focus. I am not the perfect Christian, and never claimed to be. In the GQ article, it states that he doesn’t judge. Nor do I. It’s not our job to judge. It’s our job to “love the sinner, hate the sin” (I’ll let you look that scripture up, as well) It is our job, however, to share the Good News. If someone wants to know what the bible says about something, I’m happy to show them and have them look it up themselves.
        Also, if you continue the verse in Corinthians, it says….”And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” (NIV – by the way)
        So, as a true Christian, I WAS one of those…….
        One of my favorite scriptures…..

      • He didn’t misquote 1 Corinthians 6. He quoted from the 1984 NIV. You appear to be quoting the NRSV, which made a misleading choice in this case–the underlying Greek word, ἀρσενοκοῖται, has nothing to do with the city of Sodom (note that it’s not capitalized). The translators were using the word in its common usage, “One who practises or commits sodomy” (Oxford English Dictionary). The RSV translated the term as “sexual perverts,” assuming that the passage specifically condemned homosexual pederasts. The RSV-CE (“homosexuals”), ESV (“men who practice homosexuality”), and 2011 NIV (“men who have sex with men”) all revise their former editions to clarify that the reference is indeed to male homosexuality. Cf. the CEB’s “both participants in same-sex intercourse” (translating both μαλακοὶ and ἀρσενοκοῖται together) and Moffatt’s “catamites” and “sodomites” (translating the terms separately to distinguish between passive and active partners).

      • Alan says:

        Love this. And you are right. The sin was NOT homosexuality. People are like parrots. They believe and repeat what religious leaders feed them. Anyone with even an ounce of common sense reads the Bible with educated eyes and a brain.

      • Chris says:

        I always love these people like Emma who say “I have gay friends. They know I don’t support what they do, but I still like them.” Uhm, how do you like them if you don’t support them? And what don’t you support? Being gay is something you are born with. If you don’t support the whole gay thing, then you really don’t like them. I know it makes you feel like you are not bigoted to say that you have gay friends, but trust me, if you have gay friends and tell them that you don’t support them, then you DON’T have gay friends.

      • Blaine says:

        people have rights, ideas do not. and i’ll respect your opinion as long as your opinion doesn’t disrespect my existence

    • JohnDavid Morgan says:

      Seriously Emma….you are doing exactly what Chris was trying to have us avoid… Wow..I guess some people just cannot see past their need to attach others….Imagine what you could accomplish if you used all that energy for love instead of hate…

    • Lee says:

      I agree Emma. I love how he stereotypes “old, white, Christian, southern guys” but then says “hate is not a biblical belief”. It sounds like he is the hater.

      • theboeskool says:

        Lee–I am white, I am Christian, I live in the south, and I am getting old. I do not necessarily expect people who fit this description to have unenlightened views about the Bible and how it relates to Homosexuality, but I’m saying that it doesn’t come as any sort of shock. I held many of those same beliefs a little over 5 years ago. Here’s more on that transition, if you care to read it: https://theboeskool.com/2012/02/24/gay-marriage-and-green-eggs-ham/

      • Holly says:

        You’re getting the directionality wrong. He didn’t say “old, white, Christian, southern guys” hate gays. He said, essentially, to learn that a person who is against homosexuality IS an “old, white, Christian, southern guy” is not a surprise. Those two sentences do not say, or mean, the same thing.

    • Bella says:

      You are exactly right!!! Ppl like him making this something it isn’t !!

    • Larry Dillon says:

      Larry Dillon wrote something really mean and offensive here, and I (The Boeskool) changed what he wrote to this comment. Because I can. Everyone have a great day!!

  6. No gay person gives a damn if some old rich white bigot says they are going to hell…they are a dime a dozen…but the offensive part is not only associating gays with beastiality but giving BS examples of how we need more Jesus because without Jesus the holocaust or pearl harbor happens…look into history… Christianity is far more responsible for tragedy than anything else.

    • Hany Said says:

      You need to re-examine your History books and differentiate between religion and “religious” individuals. It is not Christianity (or any religion) that causes tragedy, but human nature.
      That said, I agree with your first statement.

  7. Hany Said says:

    Thank you for this article. I agree with pretty much everything you said, The only thing that I do not agree with is your comment that any support for this man would drive a bigger wedge between the Church and the LGBT community. Ok let me clarify. I actually don’t disagree with your logic, but to your reference of the “Church” (with a capital C). When you use the word capitalized it should be referring to a church whose followers share the same beliefs, doctrines, and practices. In my opinion, such a church must be an Apostolic Church (as in Catholic and/or Orthodox). Here in the US, while there are millions who belong to that Church, the majority of Christians specifically ones like the man you are referring to in this article belong to any one of hundred of thousands of independent churches, each of which has its own head of church, preaching his/her own interpretation of the Bible.

    This is not a jab or criticism against any denomination. But as a Catholic, I was extremely proud of my Church when the Advocate (“THE” LGBT magazine) named Pope Francis their person of the year. If anything, the Catholic Church is removing wedges.

    That said, I am a fan of Duck Dynasty. I even like this Phil Robertson’s character on the show. I also feel that the majority of people who scream FIRE whenever there is hint of minority discrimination are often not even members of said minority. I think the majority of gays who watch that show would have continued to watch it regardless. Hec, if Catholics boycotted shows or movies that either bashed on or made fun of the Church, there would be nothing left for us to watch. lol

  8. Pingback: I’m Going to Fucking Scream! | Scorched Ice

  9. Well Said….I tried explaining this to a legalist earlier this morning.

  10. 021534789mg says:

    yawn! sorry your a fucking idiot!

  11. Excellent post. Very well reasoned. Sorry about the attack comments. People are gonna be people, and we are all imperfect.

  12. Scott says:

    You must be a gay. Anyone that doesn’t take the time to research the name of a man, Phil Robertson, he is writing an article about has some personal ties to the subject because you went out of your way to insult him. Why aren’t you taking up for the people that perform beastiality? I’m sure they feel their attraction to animals is as real as your attraction to men.

  13. Mark McLain says:

    Thank you for writing this post. I’ve already shared it on two Facebook walls and will send a tweet as well.

  14. Pamela Ortiz says:

    Either it was brilliant humor that has you stating zach galifianakis as a DD cast member (photo with band-aid in the beard)…or just idotica mistake since all bearded men look alike. LOL

  15. SJ says:

    The man has his beliefs and a soap box to communicate them.

    He also stated in his after statement that despite his beliefs he has respect that other people may have different beliefs. They don’t all have a soap box to communicate them.

    So in summary, we have a human race that has different beliefs, where the loudest act with emotional conviction as if they are speaking for all. He did neither.

    While I do not agree with any of his statements, nor do I believe the first amendment does not preclude a person from ramifications and A&E has a business to run and does cater to a large LGBT demographic. I really do not see the issue here. Opinions are like… well you know the expression.

    And if you don’t believe that this is going to raise their income from $80mm to well over $150mm, then you don’t realize how large and powerful his, now niche, constituency will be.

  16. JB says:

    I have a serious problem with the fact that apparently all “white, Southern, Christian hunters” have issues with homosexuality. I am friends with many gay & lesbian couples, I am Southern, born & raised, I am white, I was raised in a house where if you didn’t hunt you didn’t have good to eat. I married a Southern pastor’s son & he also happens to be a US Soldier in the US Army, cause I am sure that is somehow wrong as well. I support Phil Robertaon for standing up for his beliefs. He is blunt, if you don’t like it, don’t watch the show. I do not understand the double standard that exists. How is it that the gay & lesbian activists can say whatever, however they choose & it is okay? But, you have a Christian who is asked a question, he answers said question, the way he answers every question & it is wrong? I was raised to see the person & not the color or the sexuality but I can’t stand around and act like it is okay for this double standard to exist when my husband is risking his life for it & all of our rights, right now. This is ridiculous. He wasn’t being hateful. If people actually read the whole article then they would know he said he doesn’t judge, he just shares the word of God. He was just answering a question.
    The media lies all the time. We just had 5 soldiers killed & 1 injured. The media report was nothing but lies. If they lie about how our soldiers are being killed overseas at war then why wouldn’t they lie about this just to stir the pot? Think about it people???

  17. Dennis N says:

    You were going pretty well up to the point where you claim that quoting Bible verses to explain an abomination is hatred. On the contrary, it could be a simple misunderstanding, or it could be a proper interpretation and an honest effort to point out the sins of another. I’ll say only two things on the issue – 1) if a professed gay or lesbian were censured for stating their beliefs, many would feel they were being unfairly denied their rights – same here. And 2) it is quite possible for Christians to hate the sins of gays and lesbians even while they love the person – that’s exactly what God does!

    • Holly says:

      He was not “censured”, he was suspended… by his EMPLOYER. He was not… anything… by the U.S. government or anyone else. “Censure” implies that there was some legal or governmental consequence. There certainly was not, nor would there be. To use your example, “if a professed gay or lesbian were [disciplined by his/her EMPLOYER] for stating their beliefs, many would feel they were being unfairly denied their rights.” (I changed that language to reflect what has actually happened to Phil Robertson.) Well, a “professed gay [person] or lesbian” would face the exact same consequences that Mr. Robertson did when making a statement that might bring embarrassment or negative backlash to his/her employer. They would have the CHOICE to make the controversial statement, state the controversial belief, etc. and WITH that choice, they would face the potential consequences — just as Mr. Robertson has done.
      Most reasonable people would understand that regardless of the person (gay, christian, atheist, etc), or the belief (gay is good, gay is bad, tacos are delicious, etc.), if a person makes a PUBLIC statement, that will or might embarrass his/her boss, that person will likely face some unpleasant reactions from said boss. I find it both incredible and laughable that you are suggesting that *never* happens to gay people, or other-than-christians, or whatever. It’s equally ridiculous that you seem to suggest rights for some people (christians and perhaps others) are good and rights for other people (gays and perhaps others) are bad. If a person (any person) does what Mr. Robertson did (violates the terms of a contract or offends the sensibilities – or even the bottom line – of his employer) and faces the consequences he has (suspension of his employment), that would be, well, right — even if that person is *gasp* gay!
      As for your second statement, Dennis N, that’s pretty damn presumptuous — speaking for God. Wow!

  18. periham says:

    Chris you are standing up for people that are judged and that is love. Phil Robertson also openly shares his love of Christ to possibly help people, knowing he will also be judged. You both showed a form of love even if you both said things that were hurtful. That’s beautiful

    • Brenda P says:

      Now that is the first reasonable thing I’ve read thus far. Sounds like everyone is having a right fight. In the end it is not going to matter who was right as much as who loved!!!

  19. Sandra P says:

    Chris – don’t forget the fact that the Bill of Rights, which the 1st amendment is a part of, only protects individuals from infringement by the government, specifically Congress. We are protected from the government making laws restricting our free speech, nothing more. Therefore, A&E is completely within its rights and Mr. Robertson’s right to free speech is fully intact.

    • Bj says:

      Ex-ACT-ly, Sandra

    • MarkE says:

      And, Sandra P, everyone has the rights to squabble on social media with their opinions. Chris was trying to make the point, I believe, that we need to be a bit more compassionate and kindhearted in all our public speech.

      • Sandra P says:

        Oh for sure, MarkE…I was referring only to his first point. To me, it’s silly to use the 1st amendment to try to protect all speech when that is not the purpose of the amendment at all.There actually is no right to squabble on social media. Of course, at this point in time, the social norms that guide our society are such that we are able to argue our points. However, if Facebook were to decide that they would no longer allow the posting of our personal opinions on their website, they would be within their rights to do so. It is that distinction that I was trying to make. The repercussion of such a decision would likely be the end of Facebook’s status as a going-concern, but they would not be barred from making such a decision by the Constitution.

    • Brenda P says:

      Everyone keeps setting everyone straight on the first amendment. I believe it is an oversight. I don’t believe people think what A & E did was governmental or what the heck ever. I just think when people start getting reprimanded by anyone that has the power to broadcast it all over the world, that is what people go to. So give them a break

  20. Rhonda says:

    Everyone can argue over whether what he said was offensive to the gay community, but the bottom line is the man believes what he believes and probably doesn’t care whether he is kicked off the show or not. The man has always stated his beliefs on the show and I’m not surprised what he said about homosexuality..that’s just the way he is…..A and E suspended him and his fans will do whatever they feel is necessary to support him! Attacking people verbally and posting fuel to the fire is just idiocracy at it’s best! Move on people!!!

  21. ARCLS says:

    To theboeskool: This is excellent, and I’m looking forward to reading more of your blog. And you handled the Emma’s of the world like a pro. The best revenge is to live well, and it seems you have! Cheers!

  22. This was my first visit to your blog, but it will not be the last. Well done! I wrote a brief essay on the same subject from a different angle earlier today, but it pales in comparison. Glad I got it out of me before I read yours! 😉

    my essay:

  23. Not to be the non-sequitur geek here, but it’s also worth noting that the 1st Amendment Right to Free Speech doesn’t even apply here, at all. The 1st Amendment only applies to government entities, ie congress and the laws they pass, public universities, public schools…etc. A&E can fire who they want for anything they say, and it’s not a violation of anyone’s free speech if they do so because A&E is not a government entity.

  24. Ken Moser says:

    You didn’t win a fan with that psycho babble of a piece.

    • Holly says:

      Actually, your inaccurate insult notwithstanding, he did — me. And, if you read the comments carefully others, too. 🙂 Try to tell the truth. It helps you.

  25. Dave Harris says:

    You don’t care to know his name or what was actually said? Nice research on your article.

  26. Amanda says:

    I’m just confused as to why whoever held the interview asked the question knowing his religious background. It seems to me that he was set up and while I don’t agree with what Phil had said, both parties are to blame here. The way the interview should have gone is Phil should have left it at that’s for God to decide and left it at that; however, many who watch the show know Phil is an open man who will state how he feels. I think the world has taken it much further than this needed to go. Let it go and let A&E and Phil Robertson decide how this issue should be handled. You are not going to change someone who has believed what he believes for years by posting things all over social media. Let it go and let the people who are involved handle it. It’s nothing new for gays to hear this type of adversity. To me it’s not about religion or gay rights, it’s just a bunch of people looking for something to talk about.

    • theboeskool says:

      I had my mind changed about this very issue, Amanda, after believing what I believed for years and years…. And if a person standing up for someone who might not be able to stand up for him or herself helps even one person, I think it’s all of our responsibility to not “let it go.”

      • Amanda says:

        By “letting it go” I am saying who are we to judge anyone. The fact is (and you should look at the reply Phil has given in response to all of this) we should all love one another. I don’t care if someone is for or against gay rights and what they believe. They are still a person and I love them all the same.

  27. Mom of 3 says:

    Thank you! As someone who has been driven away from the church over & over again because these kind of people are held up as “good Christians” I want to thank you for injecting some common sense and a true sense of what Christianity is supposed to stand for.

    • theboeskool says:

      Oh, that sucks, MO3. I’m so sorry. My own family has felt a bit of that sting as well. We all get it wrong so much…. The hope is that we can all encourage each other to be more and more loving, forgiving, and humble. Less religion, more Jesus.

    • Oline Wright says:

      It is a sad fact that the Bible people are so fond of quoting parts of also condemns people who drive others away from coming to accept Christ. Sorry don’t remember the chapter and verse as quite frankly the contents mattered more when I was reading it than the sections etc.
      While writing this I want to thank this author for once again as I have seen various others for trying to straighten people out over the rights that people keep saying were violated.
      I remember when I was in college a friend once said that the religion should rightly be called Paulism instead of Christianity because oh so often the parts that are quoted in this manner are often the writings Of Saul the persecutor of Early Christians who later converted to the faith and then seemingly started to remake it into a more Jewish version.
      Yes the man in question has a right to his beliefs and yes he has a right to say what he wishes to say (for the most part some things can still get you in legal trouble.)
      However suppose the issue was not about gays at all? Suppose the person who made the decision to suspend him was instead someone who committed Adultery and didn’t like that being thrown in their face. I mean how often do you think you could get away with telling your superior in a company that he/she was going to Hell?
      We don’t know all that was involved in the situation and likely few people do to say that we know that one person was right or wrong would be folly.
      Also I have read several things on this matter and even have seen self admitted Gay posters who say that he likely should not have been suspended because they too feel it was a violation of his right to free speech.
      But as the Author said free speech doesn’t mean you are free from consequences for what you say. It only means that the government cannot bar you from saying it nor can they imprison you for saying it based only on the words alone.
      However as we are seeing the Government keeps trying to change that.

  28. Reno says:

    Whether you agree w/ Robertson’s comments or not is ultimately irrelevant. What is relevant is the level of hypocrisy with which he has been judged. Had a popular Muslim reality star (is there such?) said the exact same thing, it more than likely would have been praised by the MSM as being courageous to vocalize someone’s personal opinion in disagreement with someone’s sexual orientation. Had a gay reality star (there are plenty) said the exact opposite thing as Robertson, I think the MSM would have yawned, and life would have proceeded as normal. It’s the hypocrisy of it all that I’m frustrated with, and the political correctness behind it all.

  29. christy says:

    First off i have nothing against gays what so ever i have friends that are gay but once again this goes to show that the united states isnt as free as we thought and you say you arent judgemental but yet you say you arent surprised that an old white southern country hunter why is that statement not judging someone. I am white i am southern and i dont feel about gays like this so dont stereo type but i do feel if i say something it is my right to express it and shouldnt be fired based on something that is my OPINION so if the man wants to hate gays love gays be gay dont worry about it say what you feel and love what you say and other people mind their own business this world would be much better….

  30. Paige henson says:

    This blog post and comments would make a great Shakespearean drama…
    LOVE it…but it’s making me a little weary and wry.

  31. Kevin says:

    Just a quick question…if were not free to say what we want without consequence, than we are not truly free. So then why are there wars against people who want to take away our freedom, if we dont have freedom to begin with?

    • Allison says:

      This seems like a pretty twisted idea. Why then do we punish bullies? I mean, they can just say what they want right? Why put consequences on hurtful or hateful sayings? It’s their right to be a mean person openly and publicly? We really are enslaved aren’t we. Trying to keep people from being hurt is pointless so we might as well just let everyone who wants to be hateful, be hateful. I’m not saying Phil was hateful, I am saying there is no way you can say something of such controversy nature publicly without consequence, someone will be upset, hurt or put down. Just to negate your comment further, wars have not been started over someone calling someone else’s mother fat, they start because of greed or for the goal dehumanizing and eliminating a group of people because so much hate has been spread about them. Freedom is not about being able to say whatever you want just because you can. Honesty does not give grounds for cruelty, so even if you believe it, you still shouldn’t have the right to hurt someone.

  32. jwilly33 says:

    I think its dumb he got suspended for telling the truth read the bible HOMOS go to HELL. Not like he was lying about anything just stating a fact. Truth hurts

  33. Todd says:

    Wow, I’ve never read anything you’ve written before and as I a Christian friend of mine posted this ridiculously painful blog: http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/12/19/dear-ae-congratulations-you-just-committed-suicide/

    Ugggg…. I considered delving into another long facebook debate on how homosexuality shouldn’t be persecuted because of religious opinions, then I read the quotes from the interview, where he suggests Black People were not persecuted under Jim Crow laws. That is when I had to stop and think, wow, how much of a waste of my time is this. This guy is obviously way over line.

    I can’t believe people who defend this and then compare it to imaginary hypocrisy. Give me an example of ‘left-wing’ hypocrisy. You can’t just make it up and say, “in my imagination I think left-wing people or god the evil and somehow left wing mainstream media would praise a famous Muslim for preaching religious hate speech.”

    So please give me the CNN anchor who was praising Sharia Law or the mainstream media telling the world that Iran is a great place because they deny gay people live there. When did Mike Tyson who is a famous Muslim ever say gay people is the next step to bestiality. When you do read the quote, it isn’t that he just said – Being homosexual is a sin, they go to hell. – He compared it to adultery and beastiality.

    • theboeskool says:

      Yeah, some of my friends have shared stuff from that Matt Walsh blog before too. I have decided that he is the bizarro me. Maybe my least favorite….

    • Brenda P says:

      the bible says not one sin is any worse than another. So actually the comparison is accurate. Adultery is no better of a sin than murder…real talk

      • Todd says:

        Thanks Brenda P. I can understand the point that you’re making. But are you telling me that You Shall Not Murder is just as bad as You Shall Not Steal.

  34. Seth says:

    Freedom of Speech does, as a matter of fact, mean you can say whatever pleases you. Whether or not that means there are consequences is up to question, all scenarios play out differently. But regardless, I’ll say whatever pleases me and if being true to my beliefs/mind means some lace curtain sissy can’t handle the opposition of a person who thinks differently then, so be it. A college professor of mine may have said it best: “You don’t have the right to [b]not[/b] be offended.”

    There’s six billion people on this planet, not all of them will be thrilled to find out you’re a sick, pervert. Be that as it may, I still support your right to be gay–just don’t expect me not to give an honest opinion when it comes to pass.

  35. Mickey says:

    I think the photo used for #3 is NOT a cast member of Duck Dynasty. He is a well respected actor. Check this for fact, remove this fine gentleman from this post

  36. Paul Murray says:

    Actually your narrow viewpoint of old, white, Southern, Christian, hunters is somewhat offensive in and of itself. You make some great points in this post but unfortunately they won’t be read and considered by the people that need to because of your lazy, intellectual assumptions and your own narrow mindedness.

  37. jwilly33 says:

    God made Adam and eve for a reason not.. Adam and steve!

  38. Leslie says:

    I couldn’t help but laugh at this article.

    “…headed straight for hell.” No, that’s not hatred. It’s fact and honesty based off the bbile and his biblocal facts. It doesn’t matter what a Christian says, someone will always find it offensive. You are no better than him when you stereotype Phil.

  39. Pingback: Phil Robertson’s Remarks on Homosexuality | Leadingchurch.com

  40. Adam says:

    Nope…respectfully disagree. Mr. Robertson (that’s his name – don’t care if you don’t wish to know it) has stressed before that he loves all humanity. This is not about hate – or fear (homophobia). Don’t break out that old chestnut, or play that card. Pick your metaphor. Mr. Robertson was quoting the Bible after he was ASKED what his opinion on homosexuality was. The Bible states that it is wrong. It doesn’t say to hate these people, and that’s not what’s going on here. Just because you disagree with something, doesn’t make it all about hate. Don’t spin what the man said.

  41. Lokey says:

    I agree… Freedom of speech is not speech without consequences.

  42. Clayton Lassiter says:

    Enjoyed your article. Even some of the harsher moments. I doubt you will see thing in my light or view. I have read the interview several times and found his comments ignorant, but not inflammatory. Please ignore the ignorant. Phil is entitled to his view on things as much as any person. He was not spitting hatred, in fact discusses on the issue summarizing that “I love people.” Here is the thing. God does not HATE homosexuals. In fact of the detestably horrid sins he never mentions hate for LGBT. Proverbs 6 covers this 16 There are six things the Lord hates
    no, seven things he detests:
    17 haughty eyes,
    a lying tongue,
    hands that kill the innocent,
    18 a heart that plots evil,
    feet that race to do wrong,
    19 a false witness who pours out lies,
    a person who sows discord in a family.

    So now let’s other misguided points. Phil’s rant on who goes to Heaven is completely wrong and off base. The word homosexual does not actually exist in the bible. It was first introduced in 1946 at the discretion of the writers. The word there means sexual impurity. The other times sexuality is concerned have to be looked upon in context. Leviticus is about purity. Which it considered doing certain things on certain days a sin. Jesus dying on the cross, rising again, and defeating both sin and the laws of sin makes any point Phil says mute. Jesus said Love God. Love people. It’s simple. I know this is your blog and of course you and the rest of the folks will feel right about blasting someone over this. Simply. It is not worth the time the magazine put in it.

  43. Molly says:

    Interesting comments you wrote – some being true but many questionable and just obvious your opinion (who I guess some are allowed opinions and others aren’t). It is funny when someone (white, Christian men) make comments or state their beliefs everyone (well media and left) bash that person to no end and their feet are held to the fire. However, if you are a liberal or in the media and make outrageous comments, their feet are never held to the fire. So there are ramifications to what one says, but 9 out of 10 times it is only when it is from a “conservative” or “right winger” that that happens. (Alec Baldwin is about the only one recently that was fired for making a gay comment). Robertson’s whole point was there is no or a large lack of morality in this country. Everyone has been “zeroing” in on his homosexual reference which is what stirs all the controversy. He made a comment which covers the fact that people just sleep around with anyone; affairs; children born out of wedlock, parents not getting married, Relationships constantly changing. An overall opinion of the morality of today’s world. (All of which is a fact – watch some TV and “reality shows” Kim K, etc, lifestyles of the rich and famous Hollywood) He has the right to express that opinion when asked the question. Was he supposed to lie to the reporter? Everyone has gotten so thin skinned that no one can comment about anything anymore without being attacked.

  44. Lol someone pointed out that Islam condemns homosexuals to death and was ostracized for it. Yet the Christians are blamed for disagreeing with the practice of it and saying it is gross. How? … Never mind, the liberal mindset is too screwed up for me to understand.

    • theboeskool says:

      And I don’t understand the picture next to your name, Brent…. There are a a lot of things beyond all of our understanding, I suppose.

    • Well the picture… I am a F*cking superhero. Oh wait… You are distracting from the argument. I get it. You hate anyone who doesn’t think like you and you are incapable of defending your reasoning. Now before you go flailing about for an appropriate response, I want to warn you that I completely agree with the homosexual’s right to marry. Surprise. I just don’t like when Hypocritical liberals are constantly screaming for their right to say whatever they feel like and refusing those rights to anyone who doesn’t nod their head to everything they say.

      • theboeskool says:

        I was simply trying to lighten things up, Brent. I don’t hate you. And i am very capable of defending my reasoning. This is not the first post that I’ve written. Pick an issue (maybe “Muslims”) and search for it on the right of my blog…. Chances are pretty good that I’ve already spent some time defending my reasoning.

  45. IED says:

    I find this article interesting. I had to read it through several times to make sure my response and feedback matched up correctly. First, I found the intro paragraph conflicting. You stated that you did not care enough about the guy’s name to google it. However, just to the right of the paragraph is a photograph of the nameless guy’s face. Typically to find a photo of a person on the internet you would need to know even their basic information: name, affiliation, title.. etc. So this statement of not caring is negated by the existence of the photograph. Second, in this same paragraph you stated that you don’t care about what he said but then wrote an entire article centered on arguments about what he said. Naturally it would be assumed that you do, in fact, care even slightly about what he said. Moving on. I do agree with several of your “Five things to remember.” However, I think that the things to remember are weakened by your backup opinions that you followed them up with. Your statements come across gruff and crass. Had you refined your rantings, your argument would have been strengthened by your opinion. The only introductory statement for each of the five points I do not agree with is number four. You stated that “This is NOT religious persecution”. I would have to disagree and say that yes, it is religious persecution. He was stating his religious belief and got in trouble for that. I would have to say that he was being persecuted for his religious belief.

    I think that overall this article reads as angry, harsh, and written the night before it was due. It needs to be refined, read through, and thought out more. I think you set out to make excellent points but your opinions got in the way of your intentions. The “conversation” you started on this social “network” invited angry responses because of the tone people perceived it written in. I think the majority of your writing has some merit but could have been delivered in a more impactful way. Everyone should have the right to speak their opinion and have the opportunity for everyone to hear it. Sometimes we respond with anger and dismiss what is being said when it is spoken in a way that offends us. Please continue to speak your opinion and stand for your beliefs. It is, after all, a right given to us as Americans.

  46. Stevadore says:

    From your article: “There is absolutely nothing surprising or noteworthy about an old, white, southern, Christian hunter being grossed out about gay sex or believing that all the gays are going straight to Hell. There is nothing rare about this.” Um yeah, when the side of “tolerance” starts stereotyping people based on age, race, region, and religion, I’m confident the rest of his/her rant will be nothing but hypocrisy and the so called “hate” they claim to loathe and reject. Physician, heal thyself. I’m out…

  47. Stevadore says:

    Another viewpoint, for your consideration:http://www.russellmoore.com/2013/12/18/duck-dynasty/

  48. Jerry says:

    I do agree with a lot of what was said here, however I do not think this guy should have been fired. I would say there are a lot of Christians who watch MTV, & are offended when they see Miley Cyrus doing the things she does. Why is it , when she does her thing, it is called expressing her creative side, but if a Christian expresses his Christian view he is fired???

  49. Pingback: 'Duck Dynasty' Star Phil Robertson Suspended Over Anti-Gay Remarks. Thoughts? - Page 11

  50. lmgoode79 says:

    This is EXACTLY what I’ve been saying all day. #4 especially! Thank you for writing this. 🙂

    • D Mowry says:

      I have been a Christian all my life. I didn’t need to be reborn, and I agree with you completely. With his background, of sex drugs and rock n roll, (His own words) I don’t think he is anyone, that I would take advice from. It is NOT his place, or mine, to judge anyone. I don’t care for him, or any of his family, and I don’t care what he thinks.

      • Elizabeth says:

        So…what I interpret is that you will not take advice from someone who has sinned and especially not someone who admits their previous sins. Who do you get advice from then?

  51. paceaux says:

    howdy Mr. Boeskool. Thank you for writing a good article and addressing the subject from a non-emotional perspective. To make it easier for the trolls and impending flamers, I’ll clarify that I am a 30-ish, Texas-born, gun-toting, Jesus loving libertarian. And I’m white.

    Freedom of Speech is exactly that. The first amendment makes no mention of “freedom from consequences.” This, I believe, is the thesis of your first two points; Phil Robertson can say what he wants, and A & E can react however they want.

    With regard to your third point, that some sort of boycott or, other silly action won’t do any good…right again. Not only is the guy rich, I can’t seem to find a verse in the Gospels where Jesus said, “Go therefore, and boycott them, in the name of the Father…” Not even in The Message.

    On your fourth point, I disagree. All freedoms being equal, they didn’t have to suspend him. But they did. If he didn’t violate a legal contract and didn’t commit insubordination, then what legal argument does A & E have to suspend him?

    On your fifth point, bingo. Jesus also had an adulteress brought before him, with a crowd of people that had **full Biblical precedent** to kill her with rocks. Jesus, being the son of God, was the only one who was sinless and with the authority to cast the first stone. Instead of giving in to first-century-stoner-peer-pressure, He opted to love all of his children. He tells the crowd that it isn’t their job, and he tells a woman, “go and sin no more.” Jesus never said the woman *hadn’t* sinned, he told her not to do again.

    Everyone is a child of God, and we should treat them *all* like they are His Kids. I believe that the Bible is accurate in stating that homosexuality is a sin, but that person who is sinning is a child of God, just like I am. Jesus didn’t want a crowd to stone a woman – because he was looking at one of his own kids. Why push her away, when she has an opportunity to be saved? Christians should be as loving and kind with non-believers as Jesus was, because they deserve the same gift He gave us.

    • theboeskool says:

      Thank man. You should watch this. It really changed my mind about how clear the Bible actually was about the issue of homosexuality: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezQjNJUSraY&noredirect=1

      Also, read this that I wrote a while ago: https://theboeskool.com/2012/02/24/gay-marriage-and-green-eggs-ham/

    • Lucy says:

      Love this. Love everyone equally. No judgements, no prejudices. Opinions are opinions. Everyone has different beliefs. I as a Christian believe in the Bible- others do not… I don’t hate them for it. Live and let live. Be kind to everyone. Wishful thinking…..

    • you can also be fired for going against company policy. i dont know any companies where discrimination is policy.

    • Jesus Freak says:

      Well written reply! Your last paragraph brought these verses to mind: 11 Now suppose one of you fathers is asked by his son for a fish; he will not give him a snake instead of a fish, will he? 12 Or if he is asked for an egg, he will not give him a scorpion, will he? 13 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him?” -Luke 11:11-13- NASB

      Food for thought!

    • CindyL says:

      Simply put, I agree. I don’t think Phil R, would have anything but God fearing love for his fellow man-kind.

    • James says:

      Let me start this off with a quote from a famous lesbian, Lynn Lavner:

      “There are 6 admonishments in the Bible concerning homosexual activity, and our enemies are always throwing them up to us – usually in a vicious way and very much out of context.

      What they don’t want us to remember is that there are 362 admonishments in the Bible concerning heterosexual activity. I don’t mean to imply by this that God doesn’t love straight people, only that they seem to require a great deal more supervision.”

      Remember this throughout this article.

      I am going to attempt to keep this short and simple, so here we go.

      Some claim that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 clearly say that homosexual sex is an abomination. In fact, it merits death. Isn’t it obvious that God hates homosexuality?

      Yes, depending on which translation you are using, Leviticus does say, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female, it’s an abomination.”

      However, a few points must be made about this statement:

      a) It appears in Leviticus, which was given to preserve the distinctive characteristics of the religion and culture of Israel. However, as stated in Galatians 3:22-55, Christians are no longer bound by these Jewish laws. Even if you, for some reason, argue that these “laws” are still important, then you surely follow all of them, right?

      It is interesting that people who use Leviticus against the Queer community forget the part that talks about religious sacrifices, making women sleep in tents outside during their period, the dietary restrictions placed on them and how to cleanse a leper, all of which appear in Leviticus.

      The laws of Leviticus are completely obsolete for today’s Christian; however, even if you do claim to live by the laws of Leviticus, it is not fair to pick and choose which laws you are going to live by, or condemn a people by, if you are not going to follow the others. You should not need any more convincing evidence than this; but if you do, be my guest.

      b) The word that was in the original work, “to’ebah,” which was translated into Greek as “bdglygma” actually means “ritual impurity” rather than abomination (or enormous sin). These passages in Leviticus can be translated to not mean homosexual sex generally, but only limiting homosexual sex in Pagan temples.

      c) This passage does not denounce homosexual behavior as a whole, but just the specific act of anal sex. This was meant for the prevention of disease. It was ruled unclean because it was physically unclean; however, hygiene has made wonderful advances since that time.

      d) These passages in Leviticus can be interpreted in many ways. I have seen it interpreted by scholars and priests to mean: “don’t have sex with another man in your wife’s bed;” “don’t have sex with another man in the temple;” and “don’t have sex with another man and pretend he is a woman,” just to name a few.

      I have never seen an interpretation in any Bible, or from any scholar, that specifically says to never have sex with a man.

      Some claim the Bible simply does not support gay marriage. Chapter two of Genesis defines marriage as a holy union between a man and a woman. And later, in Matthew 19:4-5, Jesus himself reiterates the traits of a traditional marriage. How can you argue that anything other than celibacy is honorable for gay and lesbian people?

      Yes, marriage is a holy union. However, in these passages, while Jesus reiterates (but does not require) the traditional marriage, he also provides an exception for eunuchs (castrated men – or otherwise impotent men, in today’s terms), and allowed them to be married, saying that this law is given to those to whom it applies.

      Because these eunuchs were born sexless, God made an exception for them because it was natural. The same applies to the Queer community today. Science has proven homosexuality is completely natural, so it seems God would allow for homosexual marriages.

      In Matthew 19: 4-5, Jesus encourages a traditional path, but does not discourage alternatives, except in the case of divorce.

      Jesus did stress purity of marriage, but not in regard to the sexes of the people within it. It can be seen that the reason that churches are against homosexual marriage is not because it is explicitly said by God, but because of a lack of instruction to specifically allow it.

      In the time that the Bible was written it would have been impossible to foresee the future to be able to specifically allow or forbid homosexual marriage.

      Some claim, in Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, he lists homosexuals amongst the many sinners who will not inherit the kingdom of God. Doesn’t that make God’s position on this vice very clear?

      If we look at the other types of people listed in this passage, we can understand what it is actually talking about. Law breakers, thieves, adulterers and drunks are specifically mentioned. The word “homosexual” was not found until the 1890s, so it would have been impossible for it to be in the original version.

      What actually appears in the original is Paul condemning those who are “effeminate” and “abusers of themselves with mankind.” In this context, the original Greek word, “malakos,” is translated into effeminate, or soft, which, more than likely, refers to someone who lacks discipline or moral control.

      In this passage, when Paul condemns “abusers of themselves with mankind,” he is speaking of male prostitutes.

      Then there are the people who claim that, even though science has proven that people don’t choose there sexual orientation, the fact remains that homosexuality is unnatural. Romans 1:26-27 tells us that humans have a sinful nature, and therefore commit sins against God. Certain people are predisposed to be alcoholics and pedophiles, but that doesn’t make their actions any less immoral. God tells us to “tear out your eye” if it makes you stumble. Why can’t you just accept homosexuality as the part of your nature you must deny?

      Because the Bible has gone through so many translations, and through the hands of many people (some being non-believers), it is not surprising that the meaning has become a little fuzzy in parts.

      Homosexuality is normal. The phrase “para physin” appears in the original text for this verse. This term is often translated to mean “unnatural;” however, more accurate translation would be unconventional.

      Proof for this can be found in 1 Corinthians 11:14 where Paul uses this phrase to refer to men with long hair (unconventional, not unnatural) and in Romans 11:24 where Paul uses this phrase to refer to the positive action God made to bring together the Jews and Gentiles.

      All in all, homosexuality is obviously not a sin, unless you take passages from the Bible and add your own words or you just try really hard to interpret it that way. Let’s just remember Galatians 5:14, where Paul stated, “…the whole Law is fulfilled in one Statement, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’

  52. Your article is exactly what I was trying to communicate on my personal social media account. For the last couple of years, I cringe whenever I hear someone play the ‘Free speech, first amendment’ card, because 9 times out of 10 it’s a way for them to passive-aggressively advocate someone else’s stance on an issue without actually getting themselves dirty from directly stating their personal convictions. This exact situation has played out many times today over the Duck Dynasty fiasco, and I’m honestly stunned at the hypocrisy of my friends, family, and acquaintances.

    I definitely blew the whole thing out of proportion on Facebook because a lot of bottled-up pain finally came to a head for me. In the last month I’ve witnessed bigotry towards my minority friends, and learned that some people who I’ve known for years and thought I knew well are harboring strong prejudices. I see the ideological war between the anti-LGBT (Christian or otherwise) and LGBT communities being much more than a political issue. It’s one group of humans seeing themselves as superior to the other group. It transcends differing opinions and enters a large, ugly side of humanity: segregation and ostracizing.

    So, yeah, when I read about some random guy saying some random things, it wasn’t his words that got my attention. It’s the idea behind his words, and the fact that a surprising number of people advocate that idea, yet hide behind the defense of free speech for their pet philosophies that they’re too afraid to openly promote. I have a feeling that some reality show I’ve never even watched is going to expose those in my life who are closeted bigots, and in turn cause the end of a few of my friendships.

  53. Karen says:

    Why do the “LG community” get upset over the plain truth??

  54. Missy Taylor, MD says:

    I wonder why you conveniently ignore this part of the interview?

    “We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later….”

  55. john says:

    Hey Michael, in your opening statement you wrote you don’t know this guys name. You know the company he works for, you know he is an old white christian, you were surprised that he believes homosexuals and all other sinners are going to hell if they don’t turn from there ways and accept Christ, you’ve seen his merchandise all over wall mart, you know the name of his show and you obviously read them interview. You don’t know his NAME? If your opening statement is a lie, it certainly makes me question the validity of the rest of your comments.

    • theboeskool says:

      Actually, when I started writing, I didn’t know his name. I was trying to be a little funny, but I was actually telling the truth. I’d heard about the show, and I had spent a little bit of time discussing the situation on a Facebook thread. I hadn’t read the whole interview (I found the link when I wrote the word “HERE”). And I add the pictures last. I now know that his name is Phil. But feel free to believe what you you want….

    • Bob Riehl says:

      I knew that stuff, too…and I don’t know his name, and don’t care to know it!

    • Rallyforth Jermaine says:

      He may just prefer to not mention his name

    • Stacey says:

      I don’t know his name or any of their names either, and I too have seen them all over Walmart, and I also know the name of the show, etc. Why is it surprising the author doesn’t know his name? Probably most people who don’t watch the show don’t know the characters’ names. And I’m not looking it up either.

      • D Mowry says:

        Just because I’ve seen his picture. etc, doesn’t mean I know his name? I didn’t either till this mess broke out. And I’ve forgotten it already. One of the sites, quotes him, saying he was all sex drugs n rock n roll for years. including selling hard drugs, I don’t think he’s anyone I would take advice from, on any subject. I’m not judging him, that’s not in my “jobs” title. I don’t think he is anyone that should be judging others, It’s not his job, either.

    • Duane says:

      Who honestly doesn’t know the show and station their on!? If you watch cable TV of ANY kind or walk into a Wal-Mart as the author wrote, you’re gonna know the show, and you’re gonna know the network, but if you don’t actually WATCH the show….how the hell you gonna know his name!? You’re not. Just like I didn’t know his name until looking further into the whole thing.So don’t be so damned quick to judge; otherwise, feel free to read someone else’s opinions.

  56. Melanie J. says:

    A & E is his employer. If you are employing someone and completely disagree with something they’ve stated in a public interview, during which they were representing the show that employs them, (because nobody would even know who he was if it wasn’t for the show) that show has every right to fire or suspend him. I’m quite sure that’s clearly stated in the contract they signed anyway. If I represented my company in a light they didn’t care for, I’d be fired. Imagine if you were the boss for a minute, would you want to have to keep someone you thought was a total jerk employed? And continue to pay them? It’s within his rights to say whatever he wants, it’s also within the rights of his employer to respond accordingly. A & E isn’t saying he can’t say it, they’re saying he can’t say it and still be on their show. The choice was still his.

    • Kimberlee Hart says:

      Agree…whether he likes it or not, he was a representative of the company that employed him at the time of the interview. They are entitled to protect their “brand”, and dismiss someone who does not represent what they stand for. It is a popular show (although I’ve never seen it), and a public interview, and A&E had the right to take action, just as the gentleman (Phil, is it?) had the right to express his opinion…and accept the consequences.

    • jeff says:

      SO can a Christian company fire someone for promoting a gay pride parade? or would that be wrong?

      • T. says:

        I don’t think he was fired for being a Christian (obviously not, the show centered around the idea of them being Christians). I think he was suspended for saying homosexuality would morph into beastiality, which is akin to hate speech, which is not protected by the First Amendment.

      • Craig says:

        It happens often, actually. This man wasn’t fired for promoting a gay pride parade. He was just fired for legally getting married. But, he did violate a clause in his contract by doing so, which I bet is the reason Phil has been put on hiatus from A&E.

      • Only if they do it as a member of their company. If they do it while representing the company then the company can discipline them or fire them, it’s their prerogative. This guy was giving an interview as a participant on A&E’s show so they have the right to censure or fire him for his comments that disagree with their policy.

        If a person goes and promotes a gay pride parade, but as an individual, and is not known to be representing that company, then yes, firing them would be wrong. If Phil had just made his comments as part of a personal gathering and the media had heard about it, but the gathering had nothing to do with the show or with A&E, then it would be wrong of them to take any action.

      • theboeskool says:

        Yes. Yes they can. In most states, they can fire someone for BEING gay because there is no federal protection for people who are LGBT. Isn’t that so messed up?

      • NoisyCricket says:

        jeff has a good question here. Why is nobody responding?

        Does ‘tolerance’ go both ways?

      • NoisyCricket says:

        Obviously my page wasn’t refreshed when I said nobody was responding….

  57. MistyLane says:

    I agree that so-called christians can often be the worst examples. And hate speech and hateful treatmment towards the homosexual community is a big problem. But, this is just wrong. It’s wrong of you to make an example out of the wrong man. It’s wrong of you to comment on the words of someone whose words you dont know. You say you didn’t read them, but then make it seem as if you know he said that gays are going to hell. I know this isn’t a free speech issue because A&E is a private entity not the government. But freedom of religion is extended to private companies. They cannot discriminate based on someone’s religious beliefs. And when someone expresses those beliefs during their own time without using any bigoted slurs or hate speech and then they lose their position that is discrimination. Period. Him being treated this way after having a history and reputation of being open and kind to all kinds of people including homosexuals is just going to add fuel to the fire of the extreme religious right wingers. Squelching hate speech is a good thing to persue. But if you expect to tear down people’s religious beliefs in the process you may very well be fighting a losing battle. Attack the hate not the religion.

      • Truth says:

        no hate speach?

        “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,” he tells reporter Drew Magary. “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

        Basically says you start gay then go out have sex with animals and orgies.

        Sounds pretty nice and loving to me

    • MistyLane says:

      That is not what he said, that is your supposition of what he meant after taking it out of context. You have to remember it was an interview and he was answering a specific question. You’ll see he was not saying one led to the other. Most of the quote you posted was from the Bible. That is his religion.

      • Truth says:

        that is a direct quote from his interview, and you find one sentence of that quote in the bible….

        i see ZERO questions that could make that sort of answer acceptable.

        Also, he is getting his opinion from a book that also says you should stone unruly children and not eat shell fish (which being from the south i am 100% sure he does)

        Love those who cherry pick what they agree with and ignore the rest.

      • MistyLane says:

        Just because you dont see the question doesn’t mean it wasn’t there. It was an interview. and that “sentence” takes up half the quote. It’s his religion and his right to believe it and speak it. And you are taking a lot of things out of context today aren’t you?

      • kriterrei says:

        I agree with you Misty…… He was asked what he thought sin was and he stated his opinion which is allowed and it was a series of things and OMG he was one of those, a drunkard! You all don’t have to agree with it. That’s not for you to judge him for. I am sure all of you have specific things that you strongly are for or against and have stated so whether or not you knew you were gonna get slammed on or not for it. Get over it. He is entitled to his opinion whether or not we agree with it. He doesn’t hate the gays, he doesn’t think it’s right but no where did he state the words “I hate gays”……. I don’t agree with his belief in what he thinks is “sin” but I support him for standing up for what he believes in, I support anyone who is strong enough to say what they mean and stand up for what they believe in that is what make America great is the fact that we are all so different in looks, opinions, religions, etc…… So quit bashing each other and Phil… It is just ugly all the way around. Those who bash him for not believing in what today’s society is supposed to believe in are just being hypocritical. You can support your opinion with out being ugly. Just say, “respect what you have to say but I disagree with you…. this is what I believe…..” and then agree to disagree then move the hell on.

      • Truth says:

        which sentence is that? because he has no quotes from the bible in there, those are HIS words based on his personal view on the bible.

      • kriterrei says:

        1 Corinthians Chapter 6
        9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

        10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

        Here is the quote from the bible, and the effeminate is what we in the 21st century call homosexual. Phil just put it in modern words.
        I am not a religious person but I had to check it out do my own research and yuup there it is in black and white what the bible says about what is sin. This is HIS and many others beliefs just accept and move on. And I myself will agree to disagree and support him for speaking the truth of what he believes in.

    • Laura Heck says:

      But the hate came from religion. He was referencing the Bible when he made those remarks. His hate was literally derived from his religion. You cannot claim they are separate. For many, this is the case — for him it is.

      • theboeskool says:

        One can, if one so desires, pull a rationale for literally EVERY KIND OF HATE out of the Bible, Laura. People have been doing it since way before there was a thing called “The Bible.” It’s actually one of the things that Jesus got so frustrated with….

    • Laura Heck says:

      But the hate came directly from the religion in this case. He was referencing the Bible when he made those comments; he derived his views from his bible. You cannot separate his hate from his religion. For some people, they don’t get hate from religion — he did. His religion is responsible for leading him to this hate.

      • MistyLane says:

        What evidence do you have that he hates any one. He basically just said, in his red-neck vernacular, “I dont get it” And “I believe it’s a sin”. People do things all the time that I dont understand or agree with. Doesn’t mean I hate them.

      • Donny Fultz says:

        Christians are to hate ALL sin. It’s not complicated. Yours, mine, everyone’s. But love the sinner.

    • For the record, First Amendment rights extend to businesses as well, just as religious rights. However, as the author illustrated, this is not a First Amendment right issue because he was 100% allowed and able to say what he did…obviously. However, it is EQUALLY acceptable to be suspended or fired for IMPROPER SPEECH when representing a franchise or business or when in the business environment. Perfect example, two professionals in a work place environment of opposite sex. Professional A tells Professional B: “That’s a sweet ass!” Prof. A has expressed their freedom of speech; however, it is also violating Prof B, a harm against Prof. B. Prof A would immediately be suspended from working their further. This is something resoundingly supported by the U.S. Supreme Court. Continuing with this, you claim there is also a religious component to this: that his religious beliefs are torn down. That is also incorrect, as the author explains. It was not that he simply expressed his religious beliefs, it was the intent that was provided with such speech (what usually helps determine HATE speech). Going back to Prof. A and Prof B: If Prof A tells Prof B “God’s gonna judge you homo!” You can expect an identical suspension of Prof A. by the company as was witnessed by Phil and A&E. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequence.

      • MistyLane says:

        But he didn’t say that and it wasn’t “on the job”. The argument that he was representing the company because the only reason he was being interviewed is because he is a star of the show does not mean they own him 24/7. And stating your religious belief is not the same as sexual harrassment. Let me give you an example: If a man says that’s a sweet ass to a woman at work, yes he is in violation of sexual harassment laws. But if he says “I dont believe women should be preachers, it makes me uncomfortable when I see women preachers on TV. It isn’t right” while out with friends from work on his own time, he cannot be fired for that if it is the express belief of his religion. Women who hear it may be offended. They may think his religion is a bunch of bunk. But for him to be fired for stating his religious beliefs on his own time because the boss just doesn’t like his beliefs is discrimination. This is especially so if other employees regularly express their beliefs without any recourse. That shows directly that it is discriminatory. The problem is they dont like what the person believes. You can’t fire someone for that reason, especially if that person can prove it is an established doctrine of their stated religion. And keep in mind the express purpose of this interview was to get his view on things.

  58. Anthony says:

    Ok so I will put this out there for y’all.he was asked questions and he answered them honestly and they are in fact his opinions and beliefs. If I call someone a fag and you take offense to it that’s your pr

  59. Anthony says:

    Ok so I will put this out there for y’all.he was asked questions and he answered them honestly and they are in fact his opinions and beliefs. If I call someone a fag and you take offense to it that’s your problem not mine. If you are kissing your boyfriend and my kids see it and I take offense to it that’s my problem and if y’all can voice your opposition to something I can voice that my kids shouldn’t be subjected to seeing it. Here’s the short of it stop getting butthurt cause you don’t like what someone says about you. Bunch of crybabies.

  60. Tristan Antoszwski says:

    Isn’t it just the tiniest bit hypocritical to profile the guy (How could I guess that an old, white Souther Christian hunter would disapprove of gay people?), then bitch about his intolerance?

  61. Mario Diana says:

    Did he make a distinction between homosexuals and drunks, people who have casual sex, those who slander or swindle others, greedy people and others? His point was that, according to Christianity, all these things (and more!) are sinful. If you notice, it isn’t even clear that he ranked what he listed as sins. Did you notice that he then goes on to say:

    “We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?”

    In other words even those whom he thinks are putting their immortal souls at risk and separating themselves from their Creator are eligible for Salvation. Moreover, believers ought to “judge not” and leave judgment to God, and instead open their hearts to those they perceive as violating God’s commandments.

    Is anyone surprised by any of this? Who’s shocked by this? This kind of thing is being preached in pulpits of many mainstream Christian denominations each and every Sunday. And it’s being preached with good reason: because this is exactly what the Bible says and what Christianity teaches.

    Now, for the record, so that no one assumes something that isn’t the case, I’m not Christian. I’m an atheist. And I’m all for casual sex. I’m straight, but I don’t think anyone ought to stand in the way of two people who love one another, so I’m all for gay marriage and all that. (If anything, straight married people have done more in the last 50 or 60 years to harm the institution of marriage than anything that could be blamed on what homosexuals will supposedly do to “undermine” marriage.) I’m ambivalent to greed, since I think much of what is called “greed” doesn’t deserve the opprobrium, but I’ll sign on for slandering and swindling and—what the hell!—even idolatry as being “sinful.” But what I won’t sign up for is the self-righteousness of people enjoying the sanctioned Two Minutes Hate by the self-appointed “enlightened.” With all the things going wrong in this country we ought to all upset ourselves over the fact that somebody basically voiced the Christian doctrine that tens of millions of people in this country believe, or that some half-educated redneck thinks the things that homosexuals do are icky? We ought to pat ourselves on the back at how quickly we “share” our “outrage” with our “friends” on Facebook?

    Who cares? This guy and his opinions are the kind of things at which sane people shake their heads and chuckle over. Don’t watch his show. The reaction to all this that we’re seeing is ding-a-ling silly. No one in his or her right mind—gay, straight, or idolater—could be offended by what he has to say. You know why? TAKE A GOOD LOOK AT THE GUY. And, please, get a grip.

    • theboeskool says:

      Did anyone actually read what I wrote. I am not making the case that this dude is a bad guy. I DON’T watch the show. I have a grip.

      • MistyLane says:

        Look, you said a lot of great things. And your greater point was a good one. But I got stuck on the first paragraph where you said you didn’t care to know what he said, but then said his words were offensive and then said this: “Myself? I really don’t care what he said. There is absolutely nothing surprising or noteworthy about an old, white, southern, Christian hunter being grossed out about gay sex or believing that all the gays are going straight to Hell. There is nothing rare about this.” I dont mind the profiling of my local white men, I live here in the south, I can see it. (even though I live in a big city so I dont quite see his type very often) But it’s that you presumed to know what he said when you didn’t. Then there are your words in point 4 where you say his words you dont care to know are “completely offensive” and that you have friends who believe it’s wrong but dont say that gays are heading straight to hell – which implies that is what he said. You say it isn’t about him and that you weren’t interested in him but you crucified him in your post it seems to me. Look, I dont like the show. I dont like reality shows period. I have seen an episode or 2 and I do see the draw. They are very witty with no bleeps or screaming or hatefulness but I’m not impressed with red-neck ways over-all. Not my thing. Plus like all reality shows it seems fake and scripted. They over-do the stereotype for show.

        My fear is that making him a pariah when in actuality he seems to be one of the more open and nicer of the christian types parading on tv lately is going to cause a huge backlash. There are plenty of horribly offensive so-called christians out there spouting real hate that we could be talking about.

      • theboeskool says:

        Listen closely: It is NOT about what he said. We all say/believe stupid things from time to time. It is about the REACTION that people have to this…. One side or another.

      • MistyLane says:

        Well, then “look”, you shouldn’t have commented on what he said. And you certainly shouldn’t have misquoted him. All Im suggesting. And only since you asked.

    • Harrison says:

      Right on! Very well said and I notice no snappy reparte to boot!

    • KP says:

      Said “half-educated redneck” happens to have a master’s degree.

  62. Nathan says:

    I do take issue with 4. This is the same channel that began intentionally editing out the prayer at the end of the show and any reference to God. It was only when Phil pushed back that they added it back in. While I don’t believe he was suspended for his religious beliefs, A&E has made it pretty clear where they stand and to say that is wasn’t a factor when they’ve already demonstrated the contrary is naive at best. For the record, I believe they had every right to suspend him, I just wish they were as up fornt and honest about why as he was about the topic in the interview.

    • theboeskool says:

      That is not persecution, Nathan. A private business making a decision that they don’t want their show to be religious is NOT persecution. It’s just not. The definition of words is important.

      • Nathan says:

        Persecution was your word, not mine. I think we’ve established that A&E has the right to do whatever they want, but you made the case that their decision to suspend him had nothing to do with religion. If that’s true then why make an effort to remove it from the show? Clearly they had an issue with the extent to which it was being conveyed on the show and they’ve demostrated that. Portrying A&E as some champion of gay rights (and I don’t mean you necessarily, just in general) simply because it’s the right thing to do just isn’t fair or accurate. They are clearly pro LGBT rights and at the very least sheepish about overt christianity and Phil is at the opposite end of that spectrum. Lets just be honest about it.

      • Nathan says:

        If they made a decision based on religion before, you’re going to have a hard time convincing me that it isn’t at least a factor is this one.

  63. Lauren says:

    I really appreciate #5. That is a wonderful point and it made me so happy to read it. Thank you.

  64. Irad Micah-El says:

    First off, this is utterly biased toward one side, and that is Zach Galifianakis, any DD member… I am an atheist btw, and still think its wrong… Anyone ever read The Naked Ape? A completely liberal atheist stated that homosexual responses were not natural in nature and he studied apes for over 30 years, as well as other documentation that led to his exegesis on sexual trends in humans… and this is a book that the LBGTQ community quotes as being standard against conservative arguments… This has started a revolution…

    • KateDamo says:

      Obviously that naturalist didn’t study all apes.Bonobos (pygmy chimps) take part in sexualbacts with the same sex on a regular basis. As well as over a dozen other species of animals.

    • MistyLane says:

      I majored (but didn’t finish) in animal psychology, my particular interest was feline as I was interested in being a feline behaviorist. Yes I took a course called feline sexuality and it included what was called “abnormal sexuality”. After learning about gender confusion, homosexuality, etc in animals I tell my homosexual companions they dont want to use animals as proof that it is natural or a good thing. lol Animals and humans are very different in many respects. Behavior is a major one. For animals its almost entirely an intricate interaction between hormones and instinct. Homosexuality and gender confusion is almost always found to be from disease or biological dysfunction and always leads to infertility and thus is pretty much never genetic.

      • theboeskool says:

        Please don’t. Just…. don’t.

      • MistyLane says:

        I didn’t say it applied to humans. What’s your problem with animal sexuality?

      • You may not have directly said it applies to humans, but you sure as sh*t just implied it.

      • Ken Hillman says:

        Misty, as someone well versed in Leviticus (I have read it a few times in Hebrew and several other times in English) I can tell you that there is one verse referencing Homosexuality: the same number of times as the fact that you can be put to death for wearing a garment made from two materials, you can be put to death for touching the skin of a pig, if your child is insolent they shall be publicly stoned. There are rules for how to treat your slave, if you can marry the slave from a conquered village and definite rules of dietary laws (no shellfish, no pig because they do not have a split hoof and chew their cud). But it says 37 times some variation of “Be kind to the stranger among you for you were strangers in the land of Egypt”. Thirty Seven. So please spare me the religious purity where poor Phil (and yeah, I thought he was pretty funny up until this) could have answered those questions 1,000 ways without either being hypocritical to his own beliefs or getting fired (“after all of my sinning, I take a very literal approach to the bible” without specifically lumping homosexuality with swindlers and bestiality. You play football Misty? Wear Poly Cotton blends? Then step a way from stones…because WAIT UNTIL YOU HEAR WHAT HE SAID ABOUT BLACK PEOPLE!!!

      • MistyLane says:

        I meant quite the opposite. That is why I said: “Animals and humans are very different in many respects. Behavior is a major one.” How can you not get that that means what I then said did NOT apply to humans????

      • MistyLane says:

        At Ken, I think you replied in the wrong place. I know a bit of Hebrew myself and have studied ancient Hebrew and Canaanite history to understand the background of those laws. Again taking any of it out of context is useless. As one who knows Hebrew you doubtless know that the Hebrew word e’vedh is not limited to persons owned by others. A great portion of the law was about preventing disease and the spread of disease at a time when the study of microbiology and availability of refrigeration was millenniums in the future. (Thus the dietary restrictions) You also know that how e’vedh were treated was strictly regulated under the law and that one couldn’t be forced into labor unless they were a criminal or prisoner of war. All this would explain why many e’vedh were said to have their own property, money, and did business, and why many chose to stay in their position past their time of service. And of course you know that the law didn’t say parents could kill their child for being unruly or insolent. Even in our society we have the death penalty and parents have to go along with it for very egregious acts. The context shows it was an especially egregious ongoing and non-reformable blasphemous hateful person who cursed his parents (that doesnt mean what you think it means, it’s an actual threat).

        At any rate none of this has anything to do with my comments about freedom to express ones religious beliefs regardless. And this isn’t the place for it. I’ve never said what my religious view are or what I think about homosexuality.

        And the law was a contract for Jews any way and last I checked Phil isn’t Jewish.

        He claims to be a Christian. He could have answered many ways I’m sure, but I think he went with the truth. The purpose of the interview was to get HIS thoughts. His view. What else was the guy there for than to find out what PHIL thinks? So how is PHIL to answer but with HIS beliefs and authentic feelings? I would have answered very differently, but then again, I’m not PHIL.

    • Sara says:

      I am a wildlife biologist. Homosexuality is found in all sorts of animals, primates included, for all kinds of reasons. Sometimes, it’s a power thing. Sometimes males will “play” to learn proper sexual behaviors when young, or engage in those activities when females are in low supply (or they are not alpha enough to get one)…and surprisingly, some animals have been observed to prefer same sex companions. And in captive environments (some could argue the human condition is more similar to a captive environment), it is relatively more common.

      I have seen some early works where people claim there is no homosexuality in animals, but those works are normally biased. It definitely does happen, though one really can’t say if it’s for the same reasons it happens (some studies have suggested it happens more frequently when populations are high, but I am not sure I believe that). Bring your child to a zoo on a Saturday morning and you’re likely to see it.

    • Sara says:

      Homosexuality occurs in many animal populations. Sometimes it’s just because females are in short supply (or the animal isn’t alpha enough to get a girl). Sometimes, young males “practice” on each other (that’s actually pretty common in apes) to learn how to do it for real. Sometimes, they just prefer the same sex. It’s fairly common in captive animals too (probably more so than wild animals). Some would argue that the human condition is more like “captivity.”

      Early work that claimed there was no homosexuality in animals was pretty biased. We can’t be sure that it’s for the same reasons that humans display the trait (some suppose it happens more often when populations are high and breeding isn’t needed, but I don’t know if I agree with that), but we can be 100% sure IT HAPPENS. Heck, bring your kids any given Saturday to a zoo, and you’re likely to see it.

      • Sara says:

        Sorry this was posted twice. It said it didn’t go through the first time so I reposted. I think the first one was better written!

  65. My favorite comedian said ” You can’t fix stupid ” we can only call out this condition when we see it and hope that enough of people let them know so they , one day , figure out how ignorant they really are. This is a really good article , thanks.

  66. Free man says:

    The fact is that, yes most freedom of speech is used in a one sided matter. But what Phil’s said was his view based on his belief in God. And it’s his freedom to say it, and yes he still has a consequence for what he said. But my main question is why does it seem that anything that is based on a biblical belief seem to suffer the most critical repercussion when things opposing biblical beliefs are embraced by so many with open arms, and when it does get a opposing response it goes straight to accusations of hate.
    It’s my belief that it’s my duty to share the love that has been shared to me NO MATTER what they believe or what they chose to do with there life, but this doesn’t mean I have to agree with them and if asked I’m force to share my belief. Sometimes it’s best to not ask the questions you already know the answer to just to throw that person under the bus.

  67. Nicole says:

    Christians do believe there should be more sex before marriage and only a man shall love a woman and he quoted the Bible… therefore… for all you non- christians this is a religious subject. Freedom of speech?? not to much because he needs to watch what he says but EVERYONE that watches the show knows they are christian.. well wake-up… christians that follow the Bible do not think homesexuality is right… Will they hate you or treat you different? no they won’t. But it does not mean they think it is right.

  68. Nicole says:

    Shouldn’t be any****** hahaha well that sounded great

  69. Ken Bradley says:

    I feel its pretty degrading to define people solely based upon their sexuality. But groups like GLAAD and the Human Rights Campaign feel it is very important to characterize, classify and compartmentalize people then define what is offensive to individuals within those boundaries. Phil is very clear that the act is sinful in the same way his life has been littered with sinful acts. And free speech has consequences? I know that is what you learned in barista school diversity training, but this was settled a long time ago with the Alien and Sedition Acts.

  70. Medb says:

    I appreciate your clarity. I’m bi, and as far as the duck dynasty guy I’ve really been more offended by the a lot of the responses to him than by what he said originally. I’m also unimpressed at how much the racial things he said are overlooked in comparison.

    • theboeskool says:

      Seriously…. The responses are so much worse. And people haven’t even HEARD about his racial ignorance. But what are you going to do, right? Some people are ignorant. 🙂

  71. U know what this world is a fuckin joke by all means I hate the government. If people don’t like me I don’t like them I love gay people. Religious beliefs should not be discriminated against an A&E had. Had. No right to suspend Phil because. Of his beliefs I don’t like aethism so should I be suspended just be cause I don’t like what a person believes in. We aren’t allowed to pledge the allegiance anymore were not allowed to recite the Ten Commandments or merry Christmas or preach the gospel on the street when people are lost broken hearted. And homeless We aren’t allowed to say the N Word but the black people say it any way in rap music and they talk about rape or the subject of abortion come on. I don’t want this country turning us is to Islam or tell us we don’t have a god well we do and he is the one who is Judge I was judged because I’m learning disabled all my life and the ignorance of There idiocies I don’t like it listen up I don’t like playing games with sissies like A&E congrati to u u just made Yourself a fool and u got dog shit in your face for that this is your last and final warning DONT do it again we have your address and phone number so if I was you I’d be looking behind your back so get with it and start getting a life if not. It’s my gain and your loss u whistle blower😡😡😡👎👊😠👇👹👹👹👹👹👹👹

  72. MistyLane says:

    Remember he was answering direct questions. And for a company to ask their employee to lie about their religious beliefs would be religious discrimination.

  73. Ashley says:

    Here’s a thought, why is freedom of speech only for the gay community? So what he said some things people didn’t agree with? Sticks and stones. It’s ok for people to be gay and everyone is just supposed to be ok with to but let a man speak his beliefs and it’s over. I know plenty of gay people who don’t agree but understand he had the right to Say what he said. Everyone needs to quit being so damn sensitive and worry about their own selves!

    • theboeskool says:

      You’re not going to get it, Ashley….

    • Ken Hillman says:

      Here’s another…he had a right to what he said-A&E had the right to can his ass for being a homophobic and racist employee and a poor reflection of their brand, their show and their network. And you have every right to think it’s wrong, but even the most stringent protection of th free speech ends at yelling fire in crowded movie theater (Schenck v. U.S.) and as was so capably stated above: there is no constitutional protection from consequences after saying stupid shit in a magazine…

  74. Reblogged this on English Major Malfunctions and commented:
    I’ve been thinking most of this all day. Well said.

  75. chocolatecakesandchocolatepies says:

    This country will fall soon because of its tolerant nature. I’m no bigot, gay, lesbian, bisexual, republican, democrat, what have you. I’m just a normal guy who truly thinks that if this nation embraces this *watch out for everyone’s feelings* horseshit, then whoever wants to take this country from us could just waltz right in and nab it straight from under our pussy asses. Get your heads on straight.

  76. Mark H says:

    A&E has the right to suspend Phil for his behavior, and Duck Dynasty’s millions of viewers have the right to boycott A&E for the network’s actions. In hindsight A&E will probably wish that it left Phil alone.

  77. Alexander says:

    You know at the beginning of the day I supported this guy and his freedom of speech, but as you pointed out there were flaws in my thinking. I didn’t make it an issue of sexual orientation but one of freedom of speech. I want to thank you for proving my mistakes and helping me be more aware of how my support affects my friends and family. God bless or Universe bless or Science bless, whatever you choose.

  78. Dawn says:

    1) This IS a free speech issue; there is no law against being offense
    2) (read carefully, this is super-duper important), this is America, you GET to change the channel Don’t like it, the message, the actors, their lifestyles, their religious orientation, don’t watch their show. Plain and simple I don’t understand why everyone (subject irrelevant) thinks we should all believe like they do. Where is the diversity in that, our nation of immigrants?

  79. Mark H says:

    Also, I find it just a wee bit hypocritical that many of the people decrying Phil’s “intolerant” remarks can’t express their views without being intolerant themselves, calling him and his supporters “rednecks”, “mouth-breathers”, “inbreds”, etc. But I guess that kind of intolerance is OK.

  80. Derek says:

    Thank You, God Bless you and continue to pursue His truth and His love for those who are broken around us.

  81. It’s not controversial that the network distanced themselves from Robertson’s personal views. Most people could accept that. A&E, however, went too far when they put Robertson on “indefinite suspension.” This act is a violation of personal liberty and free speech (and perhaps, employment). If A&E thought this was a good business decision, they will soon find out that they bowed to the wrong agenda. (See my “Duck Controversy?” http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2013/12/19/duck-controversy/)

  82. guthrie says:

    I do not ‘stand with Phil’. That being said, I *partially* disagree with this writer’s point #4. On the one hand what he said can be construed as offensive. On the other hand, he is being attacked (sometimes viciously) by those offended, some whom purport to be supportive of ‘tolerance’.

    This gentleman (Phil) is being excoriated in some quarters based upon an *idea*, specifically an idea expressed. There is no evidence that this gentleman has caused any harm, or been anything other than respectful to those around him. He expressed a belief that many millions also believe in to one degree or another. That doesn’t make the idea or belief correct, but it also doesn’t make him (or any else) the antichrist.

    (The fact that he issued a statement at a later time, explicitly stating that Christians ought to love everyone and treat everyone with respect carries little water with some, which is a shame)

    I don’t understand the strategy of demonizing anyone in the name of ‘tolerance’. Someone especially who hasn’t done anything other than speak his mind after being asked a direct question. What’s the end game? What’s the goal? To convince those who hold similar beliefs that they’re wrong? To logically expose the inherent flaws of a faith-based approach to sexuality in a calm, rational manner… at some point *after* the vitriol is spewed? Or is it merely a signal to other like-minded folk that you’re one of the ‘good guys’, and ‘hey, aren’t I clever ripping on this (fill in the blank)’?

    What I *really* don’t get is why anyone is surprised or shocked. This show is billed as the ‘God and Guns show’. I mean, who didn’t see this coming? This can also be said to those who ‘Stand with Phil’ (per point #1)…

    I agree this isn’t a free speech issue. However, in this country, people have the right to be wrong. People have the right to be stupid. They have the right to hold beliefs and express principals and ideas that are offensive to others. So long as no harm comes to others, so long as there is no action which separates another human being from life, liberty, or property, then what consequence can come from allowing people their sometimes-wrong, sometimes-offensive ideas?

    Honestly, the more someone is upset by words spoken and ideas expressed, the less confident they appear to be in their own beliefs and ideas.

    Per Point #3, let’s face it… NO ‘grand act’ on either side will be of much use or effect, quite frankly… it’ll only help to muddy the waters further.

    If he is suspended or ‘fired’ by A&E, that’s their business. It won’t make much of a difference as far as the issues raised are concerned.

    Were I to imagine one of my friends who happens to be gay reading this, then I would hope my words would inspire a more intelligent and thoughtful response to this issue. At the very least I would hope they might relax a bit, if they were upset. So what the guys a little famous? All kinds of celebrities (for example) endorsed Al Gore, John Kerry, John McCain, and Mitt Romney… to no effect. This is *one guy* who’s ideas are clearly in an eddy in the flow of the general culture. He’s espousing a belief which has less and less power, influence, or resonance in our nation as the days pass. This teapot tempest won’t even wind up being a footnote.

    This is at best – and at worst – a conversation starter. It’s possible to maintain good nature and a positive attitude even while disagreeing with someone. If one claims to support ‘tolerance’, why not start by ‘tolerating’ people who honestly believe as he does? Because that’s where the rubber meets the road. Then perhaps we can all get somewhere in our discussions…

    • debby says:

      This is the most eloquent, thoughtful, and sensible reaction to this issue that I’ve come across. Thank you! A friend of mine of few words said it best, “Don’t ask someone for their opinion unless you’re willing to tolerate it.”

  83. Ruth B says:

    The Bible has principles of right living. The New Testament advocates love…love of all people. Jesus states that He came not to condemn but to save. He did not choose perfect people as His disciples but imperfect ones. I feel all this stuff about Phil and A & E has gotten blown way out of proportion. There is so many other things people ought to concern themselves with than this. No one is perfect or without sin. Let it go and be at peace.

  84. s bub says:

    Believing something is wrong does not equal hate. I believe if a child plays in traffic bad things will happen. Same with ignoring what the Bible says is right and wrong behavior. Doesn’t mean I hate children or homosexuals.

  85. Kiley says:

    Tell me why a gay person has such a chip on their shoulder!? It’s like you guys always have a point to prove! When someone says something about a gay person you get all tore up. It’s hilarious. And yes the Bible says clearly it’s a sin to lay with the same sex. I am 100% Christian. And I’m not doing the freedom of speech thing for Phil Robertson I’m mad over the whole suspending thing just because a group of gays heard one person said it was a sin. All I can say is the truth will stand when the worlds on fire!

  86. Nick says:

    I actually wrote this as a comment to a friend on their facebook wall earlier in the day…seemed to go hand in hand with what you said here…

    I know I’m going to take a lot of flack for this, but just hear me out…Just like his comments have no real effect on your life or the lives of LGBT men and women, the marriage between two men or two women, or a relationship between them, has no effect on your life or your marriage. It was Phil’s choice to speak the way he did and to affirm his beliefs, and kudos to him for having the bravery to do so, but in today’s world, there are consequences for making comments like that. It doesn’t mean he’s a bad person, but it means he needed to think of the consequences before he spoke. He works for a very public company and is a major public image for that company, ABC-Disney has every right to discipline their employees for not upholding their company ideals and beliefs. Think about it, if you had been in a position to be interviewed for a magazine while working at gmc, but had let slip about how you were worshiping the devil or wanting to commit genocide, I don’t think Charley and the gang would have taken too kindly to that. I know it’s two completely and very different scenarios, but just like Phil was able to share his beliefs, A&E and Disney have the right to share their beliefs and their belief is one of support of the LGBT community. The point I’m trying to make is, no one should be or feel directly effected from Phil’s remarks, but as a public figure, he needs to think before he speaks or face the consequences. And one last thing, the world has changed SO much since the Bible was first written, and we no longer follow EVERY. SINGLE. PART. of it to a T, so why has this one piece, the anti-homosexuality part of the book, get followed and scrutinized so much more than pretty much every other part of the Bible. The most important teachings of the Bible are “love thy neighbor” and “do unto others as you would have done unto you”. If the world could follow those rules, accept that the world is not the same as it was when the Bible was written, and realize that a marriage between men or women has absolutely no effect on you, your life, or your marriage, other than an effect you let happen mentally or emotionally to yourself for some strange reason, then the world will just be a better place…

    • Nate Woltz says:

      So just follow what you want and disregard whatever doesn’t fit you? That makes no sense. That becomes no faith and no religious aspects. Atheist you are young one possibly

      • Nick says:

        Nope, not an Atheist, just someone who is educated and realizes the world has changed and that the Bible should be more of a guide to life rather than strict rules to follow.

      • Nick says:

        Also, I also know Jesus was friends with a prostitute, so he’d probably be ok with gay people. You know, it seems like all that anti-homosexuality stuff came from the Old Testament which had a more angry and vengeful God, but then the New Testament came along with Jesus preaching peace and to love everyone. So, if Jesus is God in flesh and he preaches love everyone in later times, seems like God had a change of heart too. Just a thought. Take from it what you will, but I doubt you’ll ever agree with me or even consider an outside opinion and just assume that everyone that doesn’t follow the Bible word for word is not a Christian and MUST be an Atheist…

  87. Wayne says:

    You state that what he said was hateful and offensive and that it’s not religious persecution, and you try to compare you calling some one a retard to what he’s said. He first of all didn’t call any one a derogatory name, he was simply asked what he considered to be sins and he stated homosexuality, drunkards, terrorists those who commit beastiality, and adultery. He didn’t compare homosexuals with the others, or say that they were equal or worse sins, he was just naming groups that he believes are considered sinners. How is what he said to be construed as a hate speech? When in his belief he loves them all the same and that God will be the one to determine who or what the sinners or sins will be. He never said he hated any group or person, he said he loved them all the same but each person would have their own set of sins to account for before God. The fact that he can’t speak his mind as he sees fit, is religious persecution. If he had said Same sex relationships are ok before God, there would have been a vast number of Christians that would have been offended by that, should he then be suspended by A&E for that, or would that be ok in your mind? I for one think that sitting back and watching your mind explode wouldn’t be a bad thing.

  88. john manor says:

    Maybe you should read the WHOLE interview before you cast stones you hypocrite. If you really want to be a serious commentator, check your facts first!

  89. Elizabeth says:

    So its ok for you people to judge him, be critical and speak your mind but he can’t. Now that’s far isn’t it. It’s always the Christians that have to keep their mouth shut. LGBT and atheist and others can throw their beliefs at me but I can’t. That is BS. GO PHIL!!!!!!!!!!! I will support you 100%

  90. tony says:

    I dont get it. All he did was repeat what JESUS said in the bible. It wasnt him giving an opinion. Cmon man, we have fallen SO far as a society. Nowdays, good is the new evil. Evil is the norm. Its too much. We need to wake up.

    • Problem is, Tony, he DIDN’T speak what Jesus said in the bible. He spoke “Phil.” He literally paraphrased tid-bits of the bible. Jesus had absolutely NOTHING to say (at least in our bible) about homosexuality. Jesus did, however, have LOTS to say about love and acceptance. So there’s that….

  91. Tony Bruce says:

    Just wondering how you know his comments are so offensive if you didn’t care to read them. You obviously cared enough to write an article about it with limited information.

    As for a bigger wedge… That’s a bit ridiculous. Unless you seriously thing that the LGBT community is recruiting from churches or vice versa. The difference between an asteroid 20 million miles away and another asteroid 21 millions miles away is…. still way too far way to matter.

  92. Nate Woltz says:

    Hatred is completely biblical. More people have died over that crap than anything else in the history of humans. Why is it that nobody uses their real names here or anywhere on these types of sights again? Even worse than your comment about not saying it to another person’s face.

  93. grlsrule says:

    All he said was his opinion for which A&E suspended him. He has a contract with a television network. The network makes money from ads. Ads are placed based on viewership. This is not A&E’s only show. They needed to take some action and they did. There is no Constitutional issue here at all.

    FYI – he did not repeat the words of Jesus. He made reference to some of Paul’s letter to the Corinthian’s, which is contained in the Bible. And even then he was not quoting from the Bible either.

  94. Plumcrazee says:

    Man, I just love this world of self-rightousness! Phil has his right to his religous belief, and to his freedom of speech. A&E may not employ him any longer for his expressions, but guess what, America hasn’t exiled him! I dislike the the liberal ideology, but I don’t hate anyone for it. May god bless us all!

  95. iamscoundrel says:

    Very well said. Brilliant, actually. Thoughtful and respectful and dripping in intelligence. Thank you.

  96. kelsey says:

    My parents told me I was sinning when I turned up pregnant at a young age. That didnt mean “you’re going to hell” it meant “you are wrong” … everyone is a sinner. No one is perfect.

  97. Awesome says:

    What I find ridiculous, is a people of this day and age believing in biblical references. Sure Jesus was real and he was a martyr, however, the bible was created through mans hands and manipulated to develop power. As far as homosexuality, prior to any biblical reference it was not uncommon for men and men, woman and woman to share beds. Hell Romans were notorious for it. I find it funny to develop sense of pride in religion when it in itself cannot see itself for what it truly is. They call themselves members, crusaders, and followers. Striking similar resemblance to what we today call cults. Funny thing is belief and personal drive toward groups build cults most religious sects remove themselves from the term cult. Christianity much like any other religion is a cult. Look up by definition what cult means and argue in any other way. It is a form of extremism.

    • Awesome says:

      Let me reply to my own comment though, I believe Phil was justified in his response to the question he was asked. He simply stated what he valued and what his belief system programed him to justify what was right to him. At no point should he be chastised for his belief. Common sense says we all have a right to believe in what we want. Religious or not until people respect and understand that we all have a voice, we will forever carry a burden.

  98. You make a really good point. And you are definitely right, I’ve watched this show a few times and what he said about his belief didn’t surprise me, he’s what I call an “old fashioned christian” and yes he really should have been a bit more careful with his words giving today’s day and age. And to make it worse fans, I myself got a bit carried away but then gave myself time to think, are turning it into a freedom of speech thing. Religion and politics don’t mix! This is a prime example. I think that because he is famous and got suspended from the show, people are just looking for something to complain about.

  99. VP says:

    If you have read the Bible front cover to back please raise your hand. Quotes and verses aren’t meant to be interpreted without reading the entire thing. I pray that through this mess, you will all pick up the book that can redeem you from this hell-ridden world and loom at life differently. Please, just read a little and I promise your heart will grow…

    • tony says:

      awesome reply 🙂

    • Todd says:

      “verses aren’t meant to be interpreted without reading the entire thing”
      Why not?
      The Bible is a large collection of writings culled from dozens of ancient texts, written in more than one language, written by many anonymous authors, across hundreds of years, and not a single word of it was written within at least 60 years in either direction of Jesus’s contested birth date, so there is not a single eyewitness account to anything alleged to have happened, and it contains in excess of 1200 direct contradictions to itself. Not to mention it was collected and highly edited and re-translated many times over, and features several omissions made for political reasons by clergy and kings alike.

      The Bible isn’t consistent, or coherent, from cover to cover, and the interpretations for what is written within it, from page to page, never ceases to be highly subjectively interpreted and controversial not only between theists and atheists, but between just theists alone. Since the earliest days of Christianity’s dawn, there have been over 30,000 unique sects of Christianity because finding agreement among the minority of converted Pagans on just how one is to interpret and worship has proven virtually impossible.

      Further, in the first several hundred years of Christianity, a religion that doesn’t really have any significant foothold in Europe until Constantine’s deathbed conversion, it was forbidden to print a Bible in any language other than Latin, and over 90% of the population did not speak Latin, and were illiterate in their own language. This practice ensured that only the high clergy had authority to interpret the text.

      So… what does reading the entire thing gain anyone?

      • reklisslykawshis says:

        and it was written by a MEN. MEN that change what they want to control the PEOPLE, THE CHURCH, THE WORLD!!! If everyone were to just get rid of this BS idea such as RELIGION in general. People would have much less to fight about. Religion is for the weak minded. It is intended to lead those who cannot lead themselves. It is great to be a lion amongst sheep.

      • Rachael says:

        Reading the entire Bible is a challenge. But I think that if you read a few books from the Old Testament and then compare them with books from the New Testament, you might find the history of the Jewish people fasinating and gain more of and understanding as to why things were the way they were. You might also begin to understand why Jesus and what He taught was so significant and controversial that He was put to death by the Jews. I also find it interesting that Jesus fulfilled every prophecy of his birth, life, death, and resurection that was foretold in the Old Testament. There were eye wittness accounts to Jesus and His life, death, and resurection. I would reccomend a book called “The Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel. In this book, Lee talks about this very thing.

      • Candace says:

        Do you have sources for your information? I am not saying I do not believe the information you provided, but information with such statistics is not reliable unless there are credible sources to back your information up.

      • Mrbadnews says:

        “So… what does reading the entire thing gain anyone?”
        Well,. at least you’ll know why you’re going to Hell. That way, where you go when you die won’t be such a mystery.

      • Pam says:

        Salvation. The truth will set you free. Try researching the actual books and stop listening to scholars

      • Rebecca Cherie Stearns says:

        Thank you for this history lesson but it seems as though you missed the most important thing about being a christian… Do unto others as you want done to you… It may be a long book and can be interpreted several different ways but the message is always the same

      • MistyLane says:

        What? Why would anyone judge a book without reading it? And the authors were not anonymous. And it was many centuries from Moses writings until Johns but that is what is so amazing about it. Please tell me some contradictions. Im begging you. I’ve had scores of people tell me they were there and only a couple have been willing to offer examples and they were so ridiculous I had to laugh. I was all prepared to do research but one look at the scriptures and I thought “Seriously?? That’s all you got??” One was a scripture in Judges where it spoke of God and the tribe Judah and said that he could not defeat an army. Then he showed a scripture that said all things are possible with God. LOL I was like, “Read the scripture before it. The “he” wasn’t God it was Judah. and then showed him an earlier prophecy that said because of Judahs unfaithfullness he wouldn’t be able to defeat all who came against him. Then his second example: The scripture where Jesus told his disciples to go to a city and when they see a ass tied up to get it for him and if the owner asks him why he’s taking it to tell him its for “The Lord”. They did that and the owner asked and they told them it was for Jesus and he said ok. Then he pointed out that stealing was against the law. I was like, ummm If I told you to go to somones house and get their bicycle and if they ask why you are taking it tell them its for me and you do that and they say ok, you wouldnt assume I was asking you to steel you would assume I had pre-arranged it and had permission. LOL He gave up after that. He had gotten them from some website. For years I’ve been challenging people to prove to me the Bible contradicts itself and for years no one has done it. I’ve studied it for 30 years myself and only found one contradiction that I cant find and explanation for – yet. Right now I’m assuming it’s an idiom because for everything else to fit is simply amazing.

        And your claim that it has been changed and highly edited doesn’t hold water. Thanks to modern archaeology we have much evidence of that. The Dead Sea scrolls are just one of many examples that prove very few changes have crept in. And as we find older and older manuscripts its confirmed and whatever minor changes have been found are now correctd.

        And by the way, you confuse christianity with christendom. Two very different things.

    • MistyLane says:

      Hand raised. Several times over. And in several versions/translations. I also learned some Hebrew and Greek in the process. Like I learned that the Hebrew word sheol means the grave and is translated as grave as many times as it is translated hell in the KJV. And that when translated into Greek sheol is hades. And Gehenna is not the same as hades and was a garbage dump where criminals dead bodies were sent because they were not deemed worthy to be buried in hades or sheol. And the lake of fire in revelation stands for “the second death” and that death and hades (“hell” KJV) are thrown into it. So I agree with you completely that it takes a lot of work and time to understand a collection of books that were written thousands of years ago in other languages, but amazingly they are all harmonious. This is just one of many examples. And to take one line out of context from one translation with no knowledge of who was talking to who and what the circumstances were and what society was like at that time and what idioms existed in that language etc. is usually misleading.

    • I’ve read the Bible from front to back so many times I’ve lost count. I didn’t actually understand the Bible until I actually studied the history of the people of the time, the history surrounding the texts themselves, the history of the politics of the time, all of it. All. Of. It. Jesus’s focus was love and HIS commandments; and over and over again he begged and ordered his followers to use their own brains to think for themselves against the established governing self-proclaimed experts aka the priests and rabbis and pharisees and others that were essentially killing the core of the Jewish faith. And gee, look what’s happening now. People cherry picking misinterpretations that include, “gays are going to hell” and calling that a tenet of Christian faith (what the fresh hell? Is that John Lennon dancing on a cracker?) ??? Hurling out the ever condescending “it’s not sinful to BE gay but to LIVE THE LIFESTYLE!” I mean… I hear Jesus weeping.

      But then I think about Pope Francis and how he’s turning the Catholic Church around again. No judgment from that man. Maybe eventually, the rest of my Catholic and christian brothers and sisters will follow his example.

  100. NB says:

    I’m pretty sure the person you have a picture of with the band aid is Zach Galifianakis not anyone from Duck Dynasty.

    • Michelle says:

      I just googled Zach Galifianakis band aid and that’s the picture that came up. Probably should post pictures of the right guys when making an important point.

      • YouAreAMoron says:

        Yes, the picture was the issue here. The picture makes a huge difference in the point of the words written….oh, wait, no it doesn’t. I’m sure the author looks nothing like Homer Simpson either.

      • PK Thunder says:

        I’m pretty sure he knows who it is in the picture. I think he’s saying he doesn’t like anyone on the show. There’s no way he found that photo without knowing who it is.

      • NB says:

        You are probably right PKThunder. I’m just not sure how him making fun of everyone on the show helps anything at all.

      • Sam says:

        Or you could actually read the captions of the pictures before you judge the entire article based off what you think he meant by them. I mean, just a thought.

      • theboeskool says:

        Oh my goodness, people. It was a joke. And thank you, because the sheer amount of people who didn’t get it makes it twice as funny for me.

      • Virginia says:

        The writer was being funny when he put Zach in here…because of the beard…get it?
        Geez…no sense of humor

      • NB says:

        @Sam I did read all the captions. I love the one where he says the way they look doesn’t go well with antibacterial. Judging someone by their looks because you don’t like what they said. How mature of him!

      • theboeskool says:

        I have a giant beard, dude. Everyone please take a freaking breath….

    • your butthead says:

      HA! stupid face

  101. Shira says:

    I think the world would be a better place if people would open their hearts and shut their mouths.

  102. Johnny K says:

    Sure, you’re right freedom is speech is still free, but freedom of work isn’t. Good thing he wasn’t at work right? Unless A&E owns GQ. Better yet, I hope his whole family sticks together like we have heard they may and takes the cash cow away from A & E who caved into a group which has a similarity to terrorist group (they both have the same demands and same outcomes) which include you do this or else, but in all reality they don’t want it to go out of the news, they want it in the news because it will further their cause of getting more non profit money in their pocket. If they truly believed in this cause and thought it was hurting Gays by encouraging others to treat them this way too, they would of first tried to make sure it never hit the media so these backwoods role models didn’t get their opinion out. Secondly, it wasn’t just one party involved in getting this initial story out. Why isn’t there a you do this or we’ll do this to GQ magazine. which in turn would should of had to fire it’s interviewer for getting the same thing out, regardless if they didn’t say it, it’s relaying the same information that this group said was so wrong. Do they have some different freedom of speech and work ethic related policy as the rest of America lol. NO, but it’s common sense why they didn’t go after the party relaying the information they wanted this to hit the media so they could profit from it. Why don’t we be more thin skinned and teach our children the same thing, so at a hint of bullying they created a hit list or get their hands on an assault rifle and kill a dozen or so people. It all goes hand in hand which in turn is going to be one of the major downfalls of the US

    • I agree. How is it that GQ first published the interview, and there was no bruhaha over that, but A&E is all upset by Robertson’s comments? Why didn’t anyone complain, boycott and otherwise ‘punish’ GQ? I would imagine that a large percetage of the readers of GQ are gay, and that most of the viewers of Duck Dynasty are NOT. So this seems completely bass-ackwards to me. And talk about biting the hand that feeds you, Duck Dynasty is the most popular cable TV show EVER. The Robertsons don’t NEED A&E, yet I can only imagine what losing them to another network would do to A&E’s bottom line. Yet they bend over backwards (or maybe they just bend over) for the LGBT community? They aren’t bigots against Christianity, they are corporate morons!

      • Elizabeth says:

        I wish there was some way the whole entire world could see this!! My thoughts exactly!!!!

      • gigi says:

        I bet AE owns rights to the concept

      • BN says:

        There wasn’t any stink about GQ because it is a media outlet. Reporters are supposed to write what is said and what has happened, without sugar coating it. If you read the article, the author doesn’t seem to prod too much, these comments just seem to spew out. The reporter is not supposed to keep this information to himself. He is responsible for doing his job, which is to tell what was said in the interview via an article. Any basic journalism class will tell you reporters report – they don’t make things up or let their bias come through (not that it doesn’t happen,) but news is supposed to just be the truth about actual events. Reporters are not responsible for ommitting offensive quotes – that’s the choice of the interviewee.

        Basically, the reporter was doing his job. He gave everyone the truth about the interview. The words spoken weren’t his, he was merely relaying what someone else said. It is the fault of American TV viewers that these ridiculous people are so famous in the first place. Pick up a book people, or at least find something of substance to watch. And stop blaming the media for what it shows, blame the public for wha bit chooses to put it’s viewership behind.

        Lastly, in regard to the “he wasn’t working” comment – when you’re a public figure, you have no choice. You are always on. You are always responsible for what you say.

      • Candace says:

        I am confused as to why GQ should be held responsible for the comments Robertson made. GQ is a magazine with reporters. Reporters and those in the media have an ethical responsibility to provide information in an unbiased, truthful and uncensored manner. I will concede many reporters act unethically, however, it does not appear Robertson or anyone from the DD camp is contesting the article or the comments made, which leads me to believe the comments were delivered correctly and accurately.

        When Robertson and his family started doing the DD show, each person moved from an individual contributor to a brand. When you become a brand a certain feeling, look, and emotion is evoked when other people experience that personal brand. A personal brand is not unlike a product brand. Think of what you feel when you see or hear or experience your favorite things or what you feel when you see or hear or experience things you dislike. Same thing applies with the DD show and the characters appearing weekly. When you become a brand, every action is a reflection of the brand, whether the action takes place in front of the camera or in private time. Marketingsafari.org provides basic information on personal branding if anyone is looking to understand the concept more.

        I am assuming A&E negotiated certain terms and conditions with the DD people in order for both parties to make money. If maintaining a certain image or brand is part of the contract, the A&E is also within its rights to take action if the agreement is broken. Additionally A&E has a certain brand image to maintain itself. If a part of the A&E brand (DD in this case) threatened the overall A&E image, action should be taken. As Aristotle said, “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” In this instance it appears A&E feels the company brand is greater than the backlash from the actions taken to suspend Robertson.

        This is still fresh news. A&E may retract their decision. Or, it may not. Perhaps DD will go to another network and continue to make money. Or, they won’t. Regardless, Robertson, GQ and A&E made choices and each come with unique repercussions; good, bad or indifferent. The blogger here is simply trying to ask you merely try to put the shoe on the other foot. Christians with similar views should attempt to see those comments from a member or supporter of the LGBT community and members. I would ask it be taken a step further and ask members and supporters of the LGBT community try to understand Robertson’s comments. When trying to place the shoe on the other foot, you are not conforming to differing opinions or being a hypocrite to your own opinions. Knowing both sides of an argument allows you to more intelligently and respectfully debate your viewpoint and, often times, allows you to have a more solid ground in your own viewpoint.

        As a Christian and a firm supporter of the LGBT community, I personally ask you reflect on the bible verse: “Seek first to understand, then to be understood”
        Proverbs 4:7. There is a reason this has grown outside the bible. Stephen Covey uses it as one of the 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. The concept is not biblical in nature at all. Listening and communication are natural and important skills for a successful life. No matter what your beliefs.

    • barbie says:

      Of course he was working. It was most likely a PR piece for his show. Now it can be a big ratings draw to see if he comes back and when he does it can be a big win for the “morally conscious”

    • If there are any real loyal Americans in The United State of America we will realize its time to stop the talking about our rights to freedom of speech and do something about it. We are loosing our freedom of speech, if anyone says anything about the 3 top political correct subjects they are fired, or have their business destroyed like Paula Deen, or have the word Jesus taken out of prayer and anything else pertaining to Christianity because it may offend the Muslims, or like with Phil for being a straight man that voiced an opinion about a life style that is unimaginable to him. When will it stop…never we will sit in our bubble and pretend this will fix its self….but it only gets worse. We have been so politically correct that we’ve come full circle to now it should be wrong to be politically correct. We should be offended right back at the one’s offended at the word Christmas, Jesus, the ones that believe in Christ should be offended enough to stop some of this stupid stuff that the politically correct keep thinking has to be fixed. If you fix one offense then the other should be to. Its now politically correct to put down Christians, and the biggest help in this is our own politically correct president….if he was a president for all the people he would not be so biased about Christians and pit them against Muslims. He should be trying to help stop this problem not making the hate and resentment worse. And as Americans we need to look at what we are doing to this country by not standing up for our rights, instead of being politically correct, how about being a human with a heart, instead of an insult. Be it towards a man that knows and lives what he stands for and has the guts to stand up for it whether politically correct or not…his opinion should not be a reason to loose a job or an empire. This century of thinking you are bad and we will fix you is childish and it’s time for the politically correct police to go away. And maybe everyone would be adult enough to police themselves. Then the resentment and hate might go away.

    • You’re so off base here. Look up “employment at will”… there most certainly is “freedom of work”. He has a choice, and so does a&e. There was most likely a contract, wherein basically anything he does or says publicly reflects on the network, and he probably had to sign a code of conduct and broke it. That is common for many, if not the bulk, of corporate jobs even in middle class America last I checked. He might not have been filming, but pahleez don’t kid yourself or I fear you will totally screw yourself over in your own career someday. Juuuust sayin. Word to the wise, yo. 😉

      Has it occurred to anybody else how silly it is that these same camps of people love to vehemently argue for “personal responsibility” in order to snake out of things like helping the poor, but are the first to cry out about the imaginary persecution of Christians in our country?

      Kinda baffles me to see so many people shouting about this duck guy’s rights, as if he’s been jailed and sentenced to the gallows. It’s really quite simple: dude can say whatever he wants, but he also has to accept the fallout. Sorry, but um… boo hoo he can’t be on a reality show and get paid an outrageous amount for that ridiculousness any more? There are plenty of places who fire truly regular joes for breaking their codes of conduct all the time. Anyway he had himself a good run from what I gather, and will be able to milk all this publicity in a series of books or videos or some such down the line. Can everyone just move forward from this now, please?

  103. skandragon says:

    The “freedom of speech” does not even come into play here. He’s not in prison, nor were his words silenced in any other way. This is not even an issue. This is just a lesson in actions and consequences. If you say hateful things, your employer or friends might not like it, and you may have consequences to your hateful words. Freedom of speech only prevents congress from curtailing your speech, not your boss, your wife or husband, or any other entity you are responsible to. The freedom of speech argument, as well as a “civil rights” argument, are distractions.

  104. This advice is so wise, but unfortunately many of my conservative Christian friends will not follow this. It is so sad that we can’t just show that we are Christians by our love.

  105. Lori says:

    @ Ken,
    He said he didn’t agree with homosexuality . To be phobic is to have fear from so if he was homophobic it would mean that he was afraid of them. Please if you are going to try to use big words at least know what they mean first

    • Mere says:

      Moron!! Phobic does not mean “fear of” but rather an inability to accept or physically be capable to be exposed to. Read a book or a newspaper and stop watching Fox “news” to pretend to pseudo educate yourself

    • LP says:

      No, it doesn’t. The suffix phobic is broader than psychological phobias, and refers to fear, repulsion, dislike, etc. In chemistry, hydrophobic substances avoid mixing with water. Please, if you are going to correct people’s usage, have the decency to pick up a dictionary rather than relying on your obviously limited knowledge.

      • Stephen says:

        Alright. *flips through dictionary, clears throat.*
        Phobia-From the latin word phob. Definition-fear of.
        1. The agoraphobic woman had locked the door tightly, so there was almost no possible way to escape.
        2. Nancy’s bad experience with spiders led to arachnophobia.
        3. Ever since Dan had almost drowned in his swimming pool, he’d been cursed with hydrophobia.

        Killed 2 retards with one stone.

      • PJ says:

        how rude you are to put someone down like that!

    • Lee says:

      How about actually looking up the word homophobic, instead of just using the root word. From Webster’s: “irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.”

    • Actually, Webster’s defines it as:
      pho·bic adjective \ˈfō-bik\
      : of, relating to, or having an extremely strong fear or dislike of someone or something

      So… strongly disliking works too, and whether it’s correct in your eyes or not, the world around you uses the term loosely to describe anybody who is hateful or condemning of homosexuality. I mean, even the pope these days does say who is he to judge… and guess what? If YOU are Christian, it isn’t your job to judge either. It’s YOUR job to “love they neighbor as thyself” no matter what’s the what… and that is supposed to challenge you sometimes. I think a lot of Christians don’t concentrate on the BIG messages like judge not lest ye be judged, or let him who is without sin cast the first stone. … You know, that kinda thing. 😉 You might not be a self professed Christian though, so if not… kudos on being comfortable with being a douche if you’re defending the guy. I only presume that’s the case based on your defensive reaction to mince word definitions on his behalf.

      I can also presume you are quite familiar with a plethora of “big words”, so btw: you should take note of and tuck away in your memory bank the definition of condescending (which you were, and in case you hadn’t noticed I am using to get through to you since you taught me that’s how you like to communicate best by demonstrating it yourself first.) con·de·scend·ing adjective \ˌkän-di-ˈsen-diŋ\
      : showing that you believe you are more intelligent or better than other people

      😉 have a good one!

  106. Amy says:

    All I am reading is bla bla bla on both sides stfu already tired of giving this story more publicity than it needs. Move on!!!

  107. DTP says:

    I worked for Thomson Reuters and got to peruse through many company forums while taking calls. I have known gay people who were very kind, most I have met are the most JUDGMENTAL of people however. What is odd, is the fact that Reuters has a special and specific INTERNAL employee forum category for LGBT’s. We even had a special LGBT week. On the LGBT forum you can talk about non-work related subjects like your favorite LGBT movies, books, TV shows, etc… My question is why is there no off-work forums for heterosexuals? I am sure Thomson Reuters is not the only company doing this.

    and what? a picture of a Muslim praying is going to convince anyone? Really? Go ahead and try to be LGBT in any predominately muslim country and see where that gets you. The worst thing any LGBT has to fear is Westboro Baptist Church here in the USA. You don’t know who his name is (Phil Robertson), yet the article linked above seems to know A LOT about Duck Dynasty? Without that simple knowledge it just comes off as bad reporting, lame blogging.

    • Tyler12 says:

      You question why there aren’t heterosexual off-work forums, so I imagine you may ask the same tired question, why isn’t there a White Entertainment Television (as a parallel to BET)? The reason for this is privilege, which you obviously have and dominate white-and straight-by default culture. The reality is that ‘minority’ groups are marginalized and not represented in broader institutions, thus these communities form and create their own cultures, values, entertainment, and networking opportunities. When you do not see yourself reflected in mainstream society or know other people who are like you, you create your own outlets and find your own resources. How many influential LGBT people or people of color throughout history can you name? I can sure as hell tell you all about the heterosexual, white males we are all taught and talk about. You clearly do not know what it means to be part of a marginalized community and do not understand how heteronormativity hold us all back.

    • Lex says:

      There’s such a standard response I can’t believe you haven’t heard it.
      Because the rest of the forums are usually standard for heterosexuals.
      Why is there no “White History” Month? Because that’s the rest of the year.
      When is “Cisgender Remembrance Day”? The other 364 days of the year besides November 20th.
      That’s the only time I’ve heard of a company doing that.
      Is it over-correcting? Maybe. But just like for feminists, things have been so messed up for minorities for so long, that personally, I’m okay with a bit of overcorrection while people become aware of the issue; then it can fade into the background.

      Lastly, this isn’t even supposed to be “reporting” as much as straight up, opinionated blogging.

    • LuckBeALady says:

      The WORST thing an LGBT member has to fear in America is WBC??? Could you please explain that to those who are victim of actual hate crimes, including assault and murder? I dislike WBC, but they don’t jump out and beat LGBT individuals or kill them.

  108. Ginger says:

    Best post I’ve read on the subject! *cheers & applause!

    • Tj says:

      If this is the best post you have read on this then you do not read much. How can some one comment on a topic if they don’t even have the facts right?

    • Pat says:

      Ginger, you need to read more gooder, cuz this is about the worst sort of biased drivel ever written in the whole history of things being written…and stuff.

    • And the “I’m right you are wrong” police is like all these Zombies movies and TV shows, it’s getting old and let move on to something normal, if you are homosexual, great, or if you are heterosexual great….now stop trying to get everyone to be like the other…just stop it already….DAMN..grow up already….crap, get a life…..Merry Christmas!

      • LuckBeALady says:

        No one is trying to make you gay, Cynthia. They are just trying to be accepted. Big difference. The only one trying to make one group like the other are those who “disagree” with homosexuality.

  109. Michelle says:

    @Youareamoron Obviously the biggest issue isn’t that the picture is wrong but it would be nice for the media to get their facts right and maybe these things wouldn’t get blown out of proportion again and again. It doesn’t say that’s the author under Homer Simpson just a silly quote. The author also says that because of the way they look they must be dirty (under their poster picture). Judging from both sides as usual. The point about the picture is you should have your facts straight before you write an article.

  110. ed shell says:

    Phil disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle so now he is homophobic? What does that mean? Some ppl diagree with the punk rockers lifestyle. Are they punkrockerphobics? What about the ppl that disagree with the yuppie lifestyle. Guess they’re yuppiephobics? Ppl generally disagree with lifestyles because they believe those lifestyles are not what they consider traditional or they may just simply believe they are stupid. No one agrees with every lifestyle. Therefore we are ALL are phobics of some sort. With that being said you can ALL put your stones back on the ground where you picked them up from. There will be no stoning here today .

  111. Phil Robertson only Quoted what was in the Bible and I totally agree with everything he said, like I stated in another comment I do not hate gays nor do I hate African americans, I have both in my family and I love them dearly, God did not say he hated them NOR did I hear say Phil he hated them, but he does hate the lifestyle, it is not right no matter how one tries to twist it and I love how we “Christians” keep being blamed for stirring the pot, sometimes the truth hurts, we “Christians” didn’t make the rules and being a southern Christian even makes me worse as has been pointed out in several comments, that’s ok, I will be a southern Christian until the day I die and I will be proud of it, now if it hurts some of yawls feelins, then maybe you should read the Bible and see that Phil did nothing more than quote some of God’s word and us southerner’s don’t pitter patter around the truth, That is what’s wrong with some of the churches and pastors today, they are too scared to preach hell fire and brimstone cause they don’t want to offend some of their biggest tithers, well where I come from and go to church My Pastor preaches God’s word, like it or not because our church will survive with or without the tithes because God is in Control not man, nor mans money !!!

    • tony says:

      YOU GO!!!!!!

    • TJ says:

      How can Phil disagree with the African-American lifestyle and not be considered racist? Do most Christians believe that blacks were happier before civil rights? How is that okay in any way?

    • Frank M says:

      Sadly Phil did quote from perhaps the only translation he’s read. There are other versions with more scholarship behind their words than the “red-letter” editions many of us have grown up to rely on as the “only truth.” What is really hard is for the arch conservatives to embrace the possibility that the KJV had flaws. It’s gonna take more time for that to sink in.

    • SLE says:

      Janet Morrison-Strout, your comment is:
      1) a shameful representation of southerners, serving only to further the stereotypes in the minds of outsiders of southerns being uneducated country bumpkins with little room for critical reasoning (or for punctuation, for that matter). I’m a southerner, and your comment embarrasses me for myself and all other socially-aware, educated, conscientious southerners.

      2) showing your ignorance either for what was actually said by Robertson and/or ignorance for what is stated in the Bible (I’ve read the Bible a number of times, and I know that it doesn’t say “a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus”. Sorry, but vag just isn’t spelled out in there, no matter what translation you’re looking at.

      Bottom line: This all boils down to a guy (Robertson) who lacks tact and social intelligence. It’s fine for him to have his beliefs and opinions, but it’s not fine for him to present those in a thoughtless, crude manner. THAT’S the issue. It’s NOT an issue of Christians being persecuted, it’s NOT an issue of free speech, and it’s also NOT an issue of southerners being hated on.

      P.S. It’s “y’all”, not “yawl”.

      • MRZ says:

        “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.”

        Tell me where he said this was in the bible please moron? If you are going to quote partial comments, go to work for some Liberal media site, you will do well there. If you can’t tell me where Phil said that comment came from the bible, then STFU!

      • Rod Lewis says:

        i am so tired of people speaking in “bumper stickers” and sound-bytes and not deeply thinking about the illogic of “we don’t hate homosexuals; we hate homosexuality.” really? is that even possible? that’s like saying “i don’t hate japanese, as long as they don’t eat with chopsticks. or speak japanese.” i agree that there is a lot of things to be proud of in southern culture, but there is a lot of other things to be deeply ashamed of. i am german-american, i feel your pain. i also truly dislike this idea that evangelicals have somehow pirated the term “christian.” you do not, by any means, represent us all. in fact, i would suggest that if you are truly “christian” that you totally disregard the old testament. its laws and basic vengeful “eye-for-an-eye” death penalities, laws about what you can eat and wear, do when you are on your period, the correct way to acquire a slave is much more in line with islamic shariah law. and we all know how much christians love that. and, of course, you could have as many wives as you wanted. it also contradicts nearly everthing jesus said in the new testament. thus the terms: “old” (outdated), and “new” (now). jesus was a revolutionary, and by modern standards, a flowerchild hippie (well, i am 54, so modern is relative). he said NOTHING about homosexuals. in fact, the only person who did in the new testament was paul. who never met jesus, and who was not a big fan of woment EVEN speaking. so my point is, if CHRISTians want to be CHRISTians, focus on what jesus said. if you are so in love with the OLD testament, convert to orthodox judaism.

      • SLE…What difference does it make, y’all or yawl, heterosexual or homosexual. You sound like you might ought to go back and read some more of your Bible. Kindness and tolerance, and not being a condescending smart ass would be a good place to start. The words want be spelled out there, but the meaning is still the same.

      • SP says:

        I agree that his comments were thoughtless and crude but if that was the issue then this controversy would have stalled a long time ago. I believe the real issue is whether his comments are fairly labeled as hateful and intolerant.

  112. Tj says:

    You obviously don’t have a clue what you are talking about. You should read the interview. He was asked is opinion, he responded with his opinion. No offensive comments were made!

    • Rod Lewis says:

      Unless you are gay or african-american. but since you are obviously not either, all is well in your world.

      • Rowland says:

        The issue is people do not and will never see the same perspective, and life’s hard. White straight men have hard lives too, black straight men have hard lives, Men and women have hard lives and deal with intolerance. There is racism against each race deal with it. I am personally against homosexuality, I think it’s nasty but any straight man that says he doesn’t think it’s nasty is a liar. Life is fool of unfortunate events for every one. Get over it

    • Nate says:

      Exactly, people have taken to it that offensive and an opinion you disagree with are now synonymous. He stated an opinion, as simple as that. There was no hatred within his statements. He condemns homosexual behavior as well as many other choices like being a drunk or being an adulterer. Now I am not of the mind that thinks that homosexuality is a choice and I disagree with nearly all if not all of what he said, but I still back him for stating his opinions, as he has the right to do.

  113. Michael says:

    SERIOUSLY??? You people need to get a life. IM GAY, AND I TOOK NO OFFENSE OR SAW ANY HOMOPHOBIC REMARKS FROM ANYTHING IN THE ARTICLE! He even says his job is to love people regardless of their sins. WHAT A CHRISTIAN IS SUPPOSED TO DO!!! So the conclusion people are drawing is, if an action violates someone’s OWN morals, then that person must hate anyone who violates it. THIS IS WRONG. These are personal opinions. People are allowed their opinions. If I think eating spaghetti is immoral, then its against MY OWN beliefs to EAT SPAGHETTI.

    In the big picture however, if you rely on someone for a paycheck, you probably shouldn’t take a side on any sort of controversial topic. (unless you are a multimillionaire like Phil who doesn’t care about a scrawny company like A&E)

    And the people arguing about the picture of Zach Galifianakis, have a point. The author of this article is an irresponsible journalist. Seriously, this whole article is biased. And if you want to strengthen your argument about a topic, use valid sources.

    And finally, until people stop arguing and start debating to try and find a middle ground (which is never going to be possible because people are egocentric), you may as well just give up and realize the world is a dumb place and no one cares about your feelings when you violate theirs.

    • Dallas says:

      YES! Finally a poster that used the cap lock key! Wait for it….

    • NB says:

      Gosh thank you! I’m sure he knows that isn’t a Duck Dynasty member. I just felt like all this article did was do exactly what he was mad about in the first place. He is judging them because he doesn’t like what the guy said. I’ve said from the beginning if we read what Phil said without any commentary from a biased journalist we wouldn’t have taken it so seriously.

    • Daniel says:

      Finally, A voice of sanity. Thank you!!!

  114. Pat says:

    I really don’t care, and I don’t know anything about you, but I am pretty sure some smug conservative wrote a very similar musing about the uproar around the Dixie Chicks blasting “W” Bush. Libs were outraged that Natalie Maines right to free speech was being stepped on because country radio was boycotting Dixie Chicks music. SO the point you argue, argues against itself. Let’s be honest, we are just happier to vilify whomever we disagree with, than we would be to find any common ground. We seek polarization rather than respectful disagreement. This article is just smug, silly posturing. At least it’s not printed on paper and killing trees.

    • theboeskool says:

      Dude. I’m not vilifying anyone. I (as well as a lot of other people) happen to think what he said about equating homosexuality with raping animals is offensive. And if enough people think what you said is offensive (for example, Natalie Maines saying she was ashamed of the President) there can be consequences. Boycotts, suspensions, etc…

      Do you feel like I have vilified him?

      • SP says:

        Sorry but de does not equate homosexuality with bestiality. He was responding to a question of what he considered sinful. He also mentions promiscuous sex in the same statement. Should all the “players” out there be equally offended?

      • Jacob says:

        Exactly what SP said. He didn’t equate it to bestiality. He simply named of some sins including sleeping around with a lot of women which everyone seems to ignore.

    • theboeskool says:

      I had to go back and read what I wrote. I said he made homophobic comments (he did), he is grossed out by gay sex (he is), and he believes that gays are going to Hell (that’s what he means by “not inheriting the kingdom of God”). Is that what you meant by vilifying?

      • SP says:

        I think it could be considered vilifying when you label someone who says “We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em…” as “It’s just old school hatred.” This statement also contradicts your presumption that he believes gays are going to Hell. I would also be interested in which statements you consider homophobic. Just reasserting your claim does not really strengthen your argument.

      • MistyLane says:

        On a business trip I went to dinner after work with a gay man and 2 women once. The conversation turned to movies and the man explained how he had to leave the movie theater during the movie because there was a naked scene in it. He explained that the female body disgusts him. Especially breasts. They make him “sick”. He can’t stand to look at them because they are “gross”. He started getting pale and said he was getting nauseous thinking about it so we had to change the subject. I dont remember any of us, including his female boss who was at the table, being offended. If I remember correctly we mostly giggled. I remember wondering if he had some awful boob experience in his childhood that left him damaged. lol So he thinks my body is icky? I spose many gay men do. Isn’t that kind of the point???

  115. cryscoann says:

    I didn’t read the actual interview with Phil Robertson, but this whole story is the big buzz everywhere. I love watching Duck Dynasty and I am in no way against any lifestyle. I think this whole thing is being blow WAY out proportion. There are a ton of “non-famous” people saying things far worse than anything Phil said everyday. The only reason they are freaking out about this is because Phil has become a sort of icon. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. His opinion does not change mine, nor will it stop me from watching the show.

  116. linda drespling says:

    Corporate bullying!

  117. jeremiah says:

    You left out one thing though…

    The issue isn’t that a person should be free from consequences or that an employer is not allowed to fire an employee for personal conduct. It’s that the HRC and GLAAD went after this guy for saying something that no one should be surprised by and put so much pressure on A&E that they buckled and fired him. He didn’t say anything A&E didn’t already know he believed (or the rest of the world for that matter).

    He didn’t even say anything hateful; he just said what 90% of Christianity already believes.

    You mentioned that a movement by Christians to support him would “put a wedge further between LGBT and Christians”…

    Believe it or not, several of my gay friends have expressed the same sentiment but about their own community. HCR and GLAAD demanding that he be fired and the show taken off the air was an overreaction and did exactly that… the people fighting for equality and acceptance just drove a HUGE wedge between LGBT and Christianity.

    If they hadn’t reacted this way, no one would be up in arms on either side of the issue.

    I’m an atheist, polyamorous, straight man that considers himself an LGBT Ally and I think the attacks on him for simply answering a question according to his faith was a stupid move on the part of HRC and GLAAD. The majority of the planet has believed what he believes for almost our entire existence. We’re not going to win the hearts and minds of everyone over night and stupid overreactions and tantrums like this do nothing but set the movement backwards.

    • elizabeth says:

      Well said

    • Gary says:

      Excellent points!

      What GLAAD, HRC, and many others that have their panties in a wad over what Phil Robertson said, they forget that he does have a RIGHT to his opinion and self-expression whether or not anyone else agrees, or heaven forbid might find offensive. If the concept of Freedom of Speech is only allowed to be used selectively for certain people or certain opinions/beliefs, then it isn’t a right.

      • Kimberly Knight says:

        Freedom of speech ONLY means to protect you, me, any of us from LEGAL consequences (or worse) NOT at all to save our sorry asses from economic or social ramifications when we stick our bigoted foot in our willfully ignorant mouths. This is pretty basic civics here so maybe a good old middle school government class is calling some folks’ names.

      • LuckBeALady says:

        Actually, whether you agree or not, GLAAD and HRC doing what they did is a perfect example of both the first ammendment and a free-market economy working exactly how they are intended to work.

        I keep seeing people say “if you don’t like it, don’t watch”, which is exactly what GLAAD and HRC said they would do, encourage people to boycott A&E. That is why A&E decided to suspend him, because they were worried about a large segment of people deciding not to watch anymore if they didn’t.

        Everyone has a right to express their opinions and to refuse to give their money to a company that does not uphold their opinions, and private corporations have the right to fire employees for actions that directly impact their profit line. That’s America, folks.

      • MistyLane says:

        Employment equality and civil rights are extended to private companies. A company cannot obligate someone to suppress their religious beliefs when not on the clock. They cannot compel someone to lie about their beliefs. They cannot base employment, pay, promotions, etc. or lack there-of on their religious beliefs. Their own statement says expressly that the suspension was because of his religious belief about homosexuality. They didn’t forbid him from doing the interview. They didn’t forbid him from answering the question. They suspended him because they didn’t like his answer which was a non hateful simple statement of the established doctrine of his religion. I dont think you get any more cut and dried than that. It doesn’t matter who the employer is, there are no caveats in section VII of the Civil Rights Act that would exempt A&E from having to respect his right to express his religious beliefs. (except something about companies with at least 15 employees. ???)

    • Josh says:

      Well-put Jeremiah

    • Candace says:

      I think it is a narrow-minded, broad assumption to say no one would be up in arms on either side of the issue if GLADD and the HRC did not react. I read the article and it made me uncomfortable reading his comments about the LGBT and black communities. He has his right to his opinions and I respect his right to say them, however, I also have the right to my feelings and actions as well. Actions have repercussions and as long as his is/was prepared for them, then he can carry on. If he was not expecting this backlash, perhaps he should have used his words more carefully. The reporter asked the questions, but he answered the way he wanted to answer the questions. His rights. His repercussions.

  118. Krista says:

    The authors of this article are complete idiotic arrogant morons with no cuth!! Read a fucking book assholes! And get the fuck out of MY country!!

    • theboeskool says:

      I believe it’s “couth,” but point taken.

    • Scott says:

      Yeah!! Shouting expletives via exclamation marks, insisting the authors(of which there are only one, signified by the pronoun, “I” throughout the article) read an unspecified book by calling them names(via expletive), and boldly claiming the entire United States of America under your personal ownership totally helps you express how idiotic and arrogant someone *else* is!!

  119. jonah says:

    Come on… Your opinions will hold a lot more weight after you watch the dumb show. Why are you trying to make a point without doing the easiest and most obvious research (i.e. watching the show…. duh)… Talk about no credibility!

    • theboeskool says:

      Sweet Lord, did anyone actually read the post? It was not about my opinion of the show, folks. Come on…. We can do better than this, people!

    • jonah says:

      I get that… I think you have some great points and I agree with you for the most part. I know it’s not about your opinion of the show. I just don’t get why you choose to post such pointed thoughts without context. I think it’d suit you better to know who this guy is before you try to make some big statement. From what I’ve seen I think his heart is in the right place, I think he’s just missing the real truth of what Jesus was trying to say all those years ago….

  120. VelvetKnight says:

    The world would be a much better place if people would simply think and act the way I do.

    Whatever that happens to be in the situation at hand.

  121. elizabeth says:

    While I fully agree with 99% of what you said, my main problem is that ae suspended him. I know they are within there rights to do so as a business however like you said it comes as no surprise that an old white southern christain has these fews. A&E knew all this about him before they even aired the first show. Did they really expect something like this not to come put of his mouth? It Iis like someone getting a dog and expecting the dog never to bark

  122. Mike Hancho says:

    Ok duck dynasty aside if you are going to write a rant at least research your rant man.you dont even know his name or what exactly he said you sound ill informed and kinda like a blind one sided writer.research all aspects and offer an unbiased opinion. Thank you

  123. Sid says:

    Did the article call him “old” & “white”. Sounds like we have an ageist, racist on our hands. Hope the PC police lock the author up.

    • Tanner says:

      Oh SNAP, looks like this author could be fired by their boss if they SAID SOMETHING OFFENSIVE WHILE PROMOTING THE BLOG THEY WRITE FOR. But since this author wasn’t a complete loon, I’m sure they thought about things before just blurting them out for all to read.

      And if that’s NOT the case, if the blog-boss DOES take offense at this author’s words said while promoting their blog, then the author DESERVES to be fired.

      It’s like people don’t even think!

  124. Pingback: Duck Dynasty's Religious War? | ParkingSpace23ParkingSpace23

  125. rubylaffoon says:

    I live in the Bible Belt. A place where the popular opinion is to jump on the support Phil band wagon. I think that Phil Robertson is probably a good man in his heart. I think the real problem lies within the culture he’s been brought up in. I think it’s much like mine. I think religion plays a huge part in that. I am in no way anti religion. I am anti hate. I am anti judgemental. I just wanted to say that I found your perspective on this very enlightening. A few points were things I had thought of and felt strongly about and a few had not crossed my mind and most certainly wouldn’t have played out in such a way. I think you have an excellent diplomatic view on the situation. Thanks for the read.

  126. otto says:

    In meantime.. on the other side of the pond, laughing our asses off.

  127. Josh says:

    You just equated homosexuals with retarded, dysfunctional children, and no, Phil Robertson did not make “gay-bashing” comments. His comments were clearly pro-heterosexual. If you haven’t already, read the actual article, it might be refreshing: http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson

    • Tanner says:

      Yeah! And Hitler was never Anti-Jew or anti-minority, he was pro-aryan, pro-train! Go Hitler!

      • MistyLane says:

        You seriously aren’t comparing the 2. That’s ridiculous. I dont remember him calling for anyone to be hurt or saying they should or would go to hell. But I certainly dont recall him saying they should be exterminated nor did he blame gay people for all the economic problems we are having. He didn’t vilify them. He said he thought it was a sin. The guy repeated a scripture saying “they wont inherit God’s kingdom”. Not his words. The question was, “What do you believe are sins?” He answered with a list. They chose to question him further about the homosexuality issue apparently and he responded with his personal viewpoint which is that he just doesn’t “get it”. Personally I dont either, but that’s because I’m not gay. I had dinner with a gay man and two women on a business trip once and the man told us about how he had to walk out of a certain movie once because it had a naked scene and he found womens bodies “gross”. Upper body nudity especially made him “sick”. He couldnt stand to see them. He got pale and nauseous talking about them. I did not see it as hate speech. I didnt take it as intolerance. It’s just his quirk. He doesn’t have to explain how he feels or why. Feelings just are.

  128. I am a mother of a gay person so I am very sensitive to expression. I believe there is good and evil in all of us. As there is misunderstanding on the part of this Southern white man raised in the 60’s who basically means well and has God in his heart, we are not to judge. Maybe someday he will be better informed. Do not judge! Who judges Mylee Cyrus?? Who judges liberal media who turn the other cheek on her actions? Or deficating on Sara Palin? I love my son and do not approve of any of it! GQ magazine was wrong to allow this interview to happen ! Very devious! I am fed up!

  129. joey cadre says:

    why do you only focus on the homophobia and not the insane shit he said about jim crow laws and the racism he has? of course the homophobia is bad but you have to also include he said that blak people he knew during segregation never “sang the blues” what a moron.

    • MistyLane says:

      True, but I think it is because A&E suspended him for his comments about homosexuality. That is what is so egregious about the whole thing. Those comments were simple straightforward with no signs of hate or intolerance and they are a stated doctrine of his religion which is protected under the employment section in the civil rights act. But they never mentioned the comments about blacks and Jim Crow laws. A&E’s actions bely an intolerance and prejudice which is sad because it’s just going to give legitimacy to the extremists who have been crying wolf for so long.

  130. AnonymousDoc says:

    This column is neutral how? You place several points saying “Christian” this and “social media” that. First of all, quotations are used for citing resourced materials or spoken word. Second, your points are EXACTLY what is wrong with this nation. He said something about gays going to hell, and you’re gay. Change the channel. The channel that hired this guy knew EXACTLY the type of personalities they were dealing with from the start. Was this stipulation in his contract? Maybe…maybe not.

    My only point to your 5…. If you don’t like what you hear, move on. America is the only place on Earth this man can say what he wants. If you get offended, move on. There are 6-7 billion people on this planet. In case you’re not good at math…you are 1 of nearly 7,000,000,000 people on this planet. Get over yourself and your beliefs. 300,000,000+ live in the USA. That equates to many personal beliefs. If we catered to them all, we might as well stay indoors with all the doors and windows locked.

    By the way, consequences for freedom of speech? Really? Consequences in the same sentence as freedom of speech is like putting a gun to anyone’s head and saying, “if you say what you want to say, you’ll deal with problems!”

    Oh and by the way, that’s an appropriate use of quotations for a statement in written form. For those of you stating this man should have been careful, he shouldn’t have said that, or anything along those lines, move out of my country. YOU are the reason my rights are trampled. He can say what he wants. “Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.” – G.F. Northall. This is a children’s taunt from 1894. We can all learn from the aforementioned quotation from G.F. Northall.

    Before anyone comments that I’m against any person for beliefs, sexual preference, or race, I love all people. Regardless of how ludicrous your views or statements, I don’t care.

    Rachelmclemore… Religion and politics do mix, sweetheart. Our country was founded on the principals of religion. Maybe you should go back and do a complete historical review. Your new, unfounded, false-prophet leaders want you to believe the statement you made is true.

    In conclusion, we as an American culture should not fault those for stating their minds, but understand the truth behind the blind eye our nation looks through. We are not equal. We are not the same. We are a great melting pot of ideals, falsities, truths, cultures, and absolutes that must find harmony in others. We survived a bloody civil war to break through the bullshit you complain about. Do you want another?

    • Kimberly Knight says:

      Freedom of speech ONLY means to protect you, me, any of us from LEGAL consequences (or worse by the GOVERNMENT) NOT at all to save our sorry asses from economic or social ramifications when we stick our bigoted foot in our willfully ignorant mouths. This is pretty basic civics here so maybe a good old middle school government class is calling your name.

      • MistyLane says:

        Maybe you need to read The Civil Rights Act of 1964. Particularly article VII. BY THEIR OWN STATEMENT, A&E suspended him because they didn’t like his belief on homosexuality which is a confirmed doctrine of his religion. He stated that belief without any hate speech. He was answering a simple question: what do you believe are sins? Here is a synopsis of the law for equal opportunity employment in the United States:

        “Employment discrimination law refers to federal and state laws that prohibit employers from treating workers differently based on certain attributes unrelated to job performance. Discrimination by government employers violates the constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process. Discrimination by private employers may conflict with any number of statutory protections, most notably, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

        Not all classifications qualify for protection against discrimination in the workplace. Under current law, individuals are protected against discrimination based on race or skin color, national origin, genetic information (such as family medical history), gender or pregnancy, religion, disability, and age. In some cases, it is also illegal for employers to discriminate based on marital status, political affiliation, and sexual orientation.

        Assuming a protected classification is involved, many types of conduct can be found to be discriminatory, including decisions to hire, terminate, or promote. Employers cannot discriminate when imposing work conditions or privileges, or when determining pay, bonus, or time off. Workplace discrimination can also take the form of harassment, or retaliation for reporting improprieties or exercising a legal right.”

    • Kimberly Knight says:
  131. Dawn says:

    OMG, Did you all read his blog or not. NO ONE TOOK HIS RIGHTS AWAY!!!! Stop screaming freedom of speech. His words got published, and he didn’t get arrested, no one froze his accounts. He is under contract with A & E, he broke the contract so he is suspended. NOT a freedom of speech ISSUE! (notice my caps) If I go into my bosses office and say something that offends them…I will get suspended. As for GQ… THEY DIDN’T SAY IT. If they didn’t print his words that would have been a freedom of speech issue. That would have been censorship. So you can’t cry freedom of speech and then turn around and blame the magazine. IT IS IDIOTIC!

    • MistyLane says:

      Turns out equal opportunity employment is a right in the United States. He didn’t go into his bosses office and say something that offended him. He answered a question about his religion without using any hate speech in an interview by a separate company. A&E cannot contractually obligate him to lie nor can they require him to keep his religious views to himself while not “on the clock”. Their own statement shows that the reason for suspension was not because he did the interview nor because he answered the question but because they disagreed with his answer which was a confirmed doctrine of his religion. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 says you simply cannot base employment, pay, time off, promotions, etc etc on that. I mean have you ever filled out a job application? It says right on their they cannot discriminate based on religious belief. Their not allowed to ask you what you believe in an interview. And their not allowed to tell you that you have to keep your religion a secret either.

      • Is it equal opportunity rights regarding religion being violated when Robertson made offensive remarks about others? How about his vulgar comments in general about women’s vaginas and anal sex? Did he really have to describe in detail? Or were his rights regarding religion being violated when he made racist remarks? He made several offensive remarks, most of which had nothing to do with religion.

  132. Well done good and faithful servant. Well done.

  133. Andrew says:

    The Author makes a logical plea for tolerance and some people use it as an opportunity to display rudeness and fear. This byproduct of ironic commentary goes a long way in proving the author’s point; which he presaged in his writings. For me, it boils down to this– the author is advising tolerance, a modicum of thoughtfulness and kindness. You can totally disagree with his stance, but embrace the three precepts and the world will be a better place.

  134. sherri says:

    I think everyone is missing something here. Duck Dynasty is a reality show about Phil and his family. He is not playing a part, he is just being himself. No one should have been surprised about the things he said in the GQ interview, least of all A&E. GQ knew exactly what would happen. A&E makes a lot of money from this family who are just being themselves. If they aren’t allowed to be true themselves then I’m sure they are ready to move on too.

  135. ken says:

    let the people vote right or wrong…everyone on both sides quit whinning…live and let live….we are not the judge of mankind……family values are what counts..bring back parental rights and watch the world change…right is right and wrong is wrong..let your guilt if you feel any decide…mom and dad tried to raise us all to be adults…start acting like they were right……lets heal the world by our actions….

  136. Dora says:

    Don’t you folks have anything better to do? Oops, i’m doing it too. Don’t pay attention to what Phil said. It just gives it more importance.
    Ps. Too many have died protecting our rights to free speech, even that with which we disagree, to qualify now what IS free speech. Now, if he yelled fire in a crowded theatre, I’d agree.b

  137. Pete says:

    If you believe in what he said then you are obviously not offended. If you don’t then you most likely were not hurt by it because you think he’s a blithering idiot. I see no reason to suspend him.

  138. Kim Clark says:

    This blog is spot on! Thank you!

  139. Vo Mac says:

    As people who strive to live by our faith and principles, we are called to be the hands and feet of God. We are to walk out the values taught in the Bible as it is considered by Christians as the word of God. I don’t believe in radicalism but I have to disagree with idly sitting on the sideline and watching the perversion and erosion of morals and personal freedoms. Everyone has the right to say what they want and be who they want to be. I have read the GQ article and it is clearly trap-journalism and sensationalism. I agree that while we have freedoms like speech, not everything needs to be said. However, hyper sensitivity to one’s personal views and beliefs is the main issue here. Yes, there is a snippet of coerced censorship which infringes on Phil’s 1st amendment rights but not from A&E. The forceful censorship came from the LGBT and GLAAD. Was it wrong for Phil to say what he thinks?…NO! He is entitled and was put int he situation to answer a question that was presented to him. Are there ramifications? SURE…but Phil acted upon his conviction and did not compromise the integrity of who he is and has been all along. One of the issues is that Phil was not at A&E or an A&E event. GQ was writing an article. To say that GQ is just a media outlet absolves too much responsibility from a magazine looking to stir the pot. So I ask: doesn’t GQ bare some of the responsibility and be held to the same premise that the article above expounded on which is: Consequences of action and words. A&E acted on fear of public opinion and ratings…in my opinion because they lack a backbone. A&E are within their rights to suspend Phil Robertson but on the flip side they too have to live with the consequence of their reactionary measures. I personally do not share the same views as the GLAAD and LGBT but think that if you want to be Gay then be Gay…However, do not impose your views and censorship on mine or anyone’s right to have a different set of morals and views. The Bible does not mince word when it comes to homosexuality and Phil simply responded according to what he believes and thinks. Also there was no undertone of malice or ill will towards anyone in his response. It is not the responsibility of mainstream media or politicians to dictate what is moral or immoral, nor should we as people with inalienable rights accept it. Everyone will have to stand before God one day and answer for his or her actions as is taught in the Bible. With that said, Christians are supposed to speak the truth even when it is not the popular thing to say.

    • Kim Clark says:

      Vo….if some of us are atheist, then everything you say is null and void. We don’t follow the bible because it was written by men with their own biases. The whole basis of Christianity is a scam to control the masses. And calling homosexuality a sin is a prime example of the nonsense the bible spews. Religion is for the weak and ignorant.

    • jay says:

      Interesting that you mentioned that he wasn’t at a A&E event.– That was my thought as well. Could this have been an unsuspecting ambush?– He, after all, was being interviewed in the comfort of his own home and he, like so many of us, have our hair down and are not curbing our outloud thoughts . — I feel like, in an environment such as that, we are at our most protected place. Or, we should be, in the very least.
      This interviewer took advantage of that.- (And very bias-ly, I might add. If there is such a word.) For goodness sake, Phil took him out and did some shooting, showed his property..yadda yadda…sounded like Phil was being very hospitable. All the while this reporter was probably salivating on what was being said and waiting for more, so he could spin it as dirt.
      You know, Some stuff is repeated and printed for nothing other than sales. I am in agreement that GQ should be held accountable on some levels. As a former Editor, I can say that there are certain ‘unspoken’ rules about moral/immoral inclusion decisions that are always considered before presstime. My mother always stressed to me…”some things are just better left unsaid..pick your battles and count the cost” I agree mother, some things are better left unprinted. As most money seekers go, GQ just decided to take the low road. Not caring of the damage outcome to Phil as a person. I am a pretty good read of people..and I can tell you that Phil is a harmless God fearing man.– And by the way, this isn’t the first time there as been a bumping of heads, when it came to “faith based” opinions.– A&E has kept them from using the name of Jesus in their table blessings..they also inserted “bleeps” in their conversations. As if to imply that the guys were all using swear words. Phil, in an interview, made it clear that NO cussing was actually happening. It was all ‘theatrics’. And he brought it to A&E’s attention that he had issue with that.

      Bottom line here….your words… “Everyone will have to stand before God one day and answer for his or her actions as is taught in the Bible. With that said, Christians are supposed to speak the truth even when it is not the popular thing to say.” That is why I am commenting here. Though a defense of Phil is unpopular with — We are all on our own paths and levels of maturity. Spiritual included.–

  140. cjraines says:

    My fav movie quote ever…

    America isn’t easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, ’cause it’s gonna put up a fight. It’s gonna say “You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who’s standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can’t just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the “land of the free.”

  141. tory says:

    Hi there, I am just going to preface with I think that there were issues on both sides of the fence here. I don’t agree with a media outlet outright asking a person what there feelings on homosexuality are and then a person getting slammed for giving his personal opinion when the man is from Alabama and he was born in a time long ago. I’m sorry but he shouldn’t have to apologize for the way he was raised or be forced to change just because he is on tv. I am pretty sure he won’t any way. But I also don’t think he should have been so blunt and I think even he would probably say he wishes he had said it differently. The church is a place of love where all are welcome so I think in Phil’s answer there was just a little lost in translation because if you read for context that is what it says.

  142. Candice Harris says:

    While I do not share Phil Robertson’s thoughts on this subject, I wasn’t offend by someone using their first amendment rights. Please, read the First Amendment, it does say that US Citizens are NOT to be persecuted for voicing their opinion. What the heck did GQ think the answer to their questions would be when they asked a very conservative Christian about his thoughts on his subject? Phil, did not say anything that disparaged anyone, nor was he condescending.

    It is indeed a sad state in our Country when we value ‘Honey Boo Boo’ more than our Veterans. And we have a white house resident that wants to pass a law that makes it illegal to speak out against him.

    Oh, and by the way… we do not live in a Democracy, but rather in a Constitutional Republic.

    It scares the hell out o me that the writer of this article is a teacher of any kind.

    An d when all other common sense fails, turn the channel!

  143. John Bohnsam says:

    It’s simple people! Phil was given a loaded question because they knew how he would answer it! I think homosexuality is disgusting and wrong. However, I do not discourage it or even publicly comment on it. To each his own! I have worked with gay people and they knew my position on the subject. Never talked about personal lives or what they do and we got along fine. I do not condone or condem for choices, I just don’t make those choices! You people need lives!! Get a job and stop living to bash opinions….

    • molly11180 says:

      John, read the original GQ article. It wasn’t a “loaded” question. It was pretty simple. He was asked something along the lines of “OK, so what is sin?”. That is not a loaded question at all. Most people would start talking about murder, lying, stealing, cheating, violence, or any number of things. He took it in that direction from the get-go.

  144. From someone who has been incredibly hurt personally by this event, thank you for articulating what has been running thru my head and heart the past couple of days.

    • Jason says:

      Personally hurt by this event? How? You must not go out in public very often.

    • Sherri says:

      If you are hurt by a complete strangers words then you need to grow a thicker skin. Seriously, I could care less what strangers think of me. What a mess I would be if I did!

      • molly11180 says:

        Sherri – so Phil has the right to feel/believe/say what he wants, but Rene can’t feel hurt? Re-read the article up there, you missed the whole point.

    • theboeskool says:

      Rene’, there are probably always going to be the kind of people in this world who hear someone say that they’ve been hurt and respond by calling that person a pussy.

      Thankfully, there will also always be the kind of people who ask you if you’re okay and tell you they are sorry you got hurt. I believe that empathy is something that can be taught…. That it is a skill. Anyway, I’m sorry that you’ve been hurt by all this. Look for the ones who are doing the loving, and hope that the haters see them doing it.

      This has been very troubling for me as well….

  145. Merideth says:

    Oh thank you! As a Christian I have to say that the company has a right to defend themselves as much as Phil had a right to speak his opinion. Wake up people! And find something more important to worry about!

  146. david29073 says:

    I understand freedom of speech, and I am caught between a rock and a hard place over what this guy said.. For the record I have no problems with the LGBT community or gay marriage..
    Free speech is just that, free to say whatever you want, what I have a problem with is the “consequences” part of the equation. I don’t like “purple people eaters”, but am I going to lose my job because of that statement.
    Why should this Duck Dynasty guy lose his job just because he expressed his personal opinion. I personally find his opinion wrong, but that won’t stop me from going to Temple or him from going to Church. My personal freedoms to say what I want or go where I want without government interference won’t be affected by what this yahoo says. So his remarks don’t reflect the ideals of A&E, he still has a right to say it without fear of being arrested by the government. So A&E fires him? For his right to say what he said? That’s where freedom of speech and consequences colloid and I am not sure he should have lost his job. It is when free speech is offensive that it has to be protected, and that has been proven in the case of Fred Phelps and his maggot family that protests at soldiers funerals. He has the right to protest and have those offensive signs,yet there are people who have organized to protect the people attending these funerals from seeing these totally offensive signs.
    This particular forum allows all of us to express our particular views without fear of government intervention and that is really what free speech is all about. Different groups have different opinions and can express them openly, but lose a job? I just wonder where the line is in free speech and its consequences.

  147. Reblogged this on Simply Ramazing and commented:
    Perfectly stated!!!!!!!!!!!!

  148. Jason says:

    Often times the ones clamoring for “tolerance” are the most intolerant of all. A bit ironic when a lot of the DD haters are posting things on facebook and other social media sites to the effect of, “Why can’t these darn retarded rednecks just respect people?” They don’t see the hypocrisy in their outspoken opinions. “Tolerance is fine….as long as you agree with ME.”

    • phil says:

      Liberal fundamentalism and social activism runs the PC decision making in this country. social activist set corporate policy, not the free market, that is what is wrong with the system. If ratings decline because of what he said that is one thing. but if it is solely because a group of people say we don’t agree and you should fear us, that is another… that group does not represent the free people and should not be making decisions, unfortunately sponsors are too scared of making anybody upset, regardless if they truly represent the free market.

      the only problem is the door does not swing both ways. The don’t ask don’t tell policy is no longer around. and I dare anybody to put into writing they will not employ someone solely because they were gay. I would like to see that breach of contract… If any company did that it would violate discrimination laws. In other words liberal fundamentalism has taken over this country, good luck trying to voice your opinion to all those “open minded” progressive people who do. not. agree. with you.

      • Kevin A says:

        Actually, being fired over being gay is not illegal in I believe 29 states. The ENDA (Employee Non-Discrimination Act) is moving through congress to make it nation-wide, but the LGBT community has the least protections of many groups.

      • phil says:

        thanks for the info Kevin, I wasn’t completely sure on the laws by my point is more directed at the fear of companies who are scared to fire a gay person, even though it is perfectly legal as you said, solely because they do not want minority activist groups bringing down the whole company. this is a factor that runs corporate policy and is completely outside the realm of economics. But you do make a fair point. My problem is that I have a gay guy living with me and he has been suspended from school beat up and a list of a lot of other things not solely because he is gay but because he is a drama queen who usually starts it. regardless of his sexual preferences the way he acts is what get him into trouble. I feel like there is an aspect of the gay culture that people disagree with more than homosexuality itself.

      • NatalPlumb says:

        I’m not so much interested in getting into a debate about this duck business. I just wanted to mention to phil that the plural of “social activist” is “social activists.” As in, “social activists set corporate policy…” It seems to show up a lot in your writing, so it’s probably best to know the proper spelling. Good day, sir.

      • D. DuJour says:

        Phil, when you say that your gay acquaintance gets beat up because he “starts it”, do you mean he physically attacks these folks, and thus starts the fight? Because you appear to be saying he “starts it” by displaying “drama queen” gay behavior that you and others dislike, and that these folks then respond with physical blows or other prohibited behavior. You do realize how juvenile that logic would be, don’t you? I mean, every domestic abuser the police deal with counters with “she made me do it–she made me mad”….on and on down the list of intolerant behaviors, especially the physically violent types, the persons committing such behaviors blame the victim for “provoking ” them. But no matter how much I dislike someone’s actions or speech, unless they are physically attacking me, I have no excuse for physically attacking them–or even for harassing or persecuting them. I don’t have to be their buddy–I’m free to ignore them–but I don’t get to attack them because they’re a “drama queen” or displaying “gay behavior”. I don’t even get to do that to intolerant bigots.

      • Tanner says:

        No, money and power set corporate policy. Do you think Bill Maher and Phil Donahue were fired because of their anti-liberal utterances.

      • phil says:

        Dujour My room mate would seek out people who have homophobic tendency and throw it there face. he would try to kiss guys and he would make people purposefully feel uncomfortable. he was suspended for school because he printed a picture of a two guys have sex and photo shopped him and football player faces to them. I dont care what you are if someone tries to kiss me espcially another guy and i punch him in the nose out of reaction that is becuase I was harrassed, not intolerant. he knows what he is getting into and he knows it will make people upset. yeah he didnt WANT to get punched in the face, but he did want to start something. If I walked into Harlem in a KKK outfit Im not wanting or asking to get my but kicked but should I be surprised when it happens? no. My friend is not surprised either. in his twisted mind he likes the attention..

    • JohnDavid Morgan says:

      It is funny to look at all the different post concerning this Duck Dynasty thing…everyone has an opinion including me. What amazes me the most though is not the subject, but rather seeing how hateful folks can be to each other. People certainly do not let the Christmas spirit interfere with their need to say horrible things to each other and to top it off, so many do it in the name of God. Seems like maybe people should consider getting their point across without so much anger and hatred…Somehow I do not think the good Lord intended for us to be so cruel to each other. With all there is to worry about and deal with in today’s world, I find it kind of funny that the biggest topic right now seems to be a Duck Dynasty issue… Think about this…now the show and all it’s merchandise is going to be even bigger…..hum……maybe good ole Phil and the folks at A&E are smarter than some folks seem to think!

      • phil says:

        There are a bunch of activist who picket the salvation army money stands..I guess the guy who runs it does not like gays. and these gay activist would rather you not give to help children who need coats, than just let someone voice there negative opinion about them.

      • caramelmacchiatto says:

        I agree. There’s a lot of hatred on both sides, though personally I have seen more hatred and angry statements from people who support A&E than from those who support Phil. And one thing that grieves me is articles like this that address others with such sarcasm and disrespect … while accusing them of not being loving. Galatians 6:1 is something for all of us who follow Christ to keep in mind.

    • evilrobert says:

      So people should be tolerant of racism and hate exhibited towards people for their sexual or religious preferences/nation of origin; but people shouldn’t be tolerant of folks different from them and exude hate towards them publicly even if it’s not a part of what Christ directed us to be towards each other?

      That’s a pretty awkward standard to proclaim.

      • phil says:

        This is not hate.. This is an opinion, Phil did not say gather your torches and pitch forks. he said what he believes. You have a right to be uncomfortable around people for whatever reason you choose. Just like you have a right to elect a president for the reasons of whatever you choose. There is a line between hate and opinions. The Neo nazi get to march and so do the gays, and I have the right to disagree with it on these blogs just as much as you do.

    • bonnie says:


    • Rebecca says:

      I believe intolerance of hatred, bigotry and injustice as a good and moral thing.

    • Susan says:

      I have not read the GQ article (I don’t read GQ) but I have several “questions” about whether Phil’s words might have been taken out-of-context.. maybe, maybe not. Maybe it was Phil being Phil, and he lives in America with the rest of us and has that right!! I wonder if the whole thing might have been a “set-up” because of the Prayer at the end of the show with the meal (as in: “Let’s get Phil to say something that will give us leverage..” Think about THAT seriously for a minute! They were after him for quite awhile AND very angry when the Family put their foot down and said No, the Prayer stays, it’s who we are. Or that maybe GQ KNEW exactly what it was doing in opening up a whole can of worms when asking a self-professed “Simple Man” to talk about Homosexuality! “They” knew what the outcome would be because they chose to speak to the most outspoken of all the Robertson’s! I’ve heard Jep Robertson speak in person. He came up here to Illinois and spoke in one of our largest churches. There were 2 services and each one was packed full! As far as the DD programs, there is no cussing, no wife swapping, no nudity or homosexuality.. if you want that, you can find it on any other channel up or down on your remote. Just sit down with your children and lap it up. I THINK: that this is one man (and his family) that made themselves into something from nothing and now people are trying to control them… like they control the rest of us. What we see on TV.. what to like.. what not to like (sounds like our government, doesn’t it?) Which sandwich we should buy from which fast food place and which car we should be driving…. I’m sorry, but a man that speaks his own mind about what he believes is like a breath of fresh air to me.

  149. Monica brower says:

    He didnt say he was grossed out…blatant lie. He said he he wasn’t in the position to judge then and wouldn’t but was just preaching what the bible said. And he is fully okay with the consequences. I have many gay friends and I love them. But God will decide for them. Not me. Get it right!!!

    • God will decide for you, too. We are all sinners. HE will decide for the greedy and the adulterers, too. Don’t be so quick to past judgement lest you be judged.

      • Clayton says:

        Truth be told, GOD does not judge. GOD is love, unconditionally. In all the near death and DMT experiences, it has been told over and over again that GOD does not judge. GOD reviews your life with you and you see the truth for what it was. Experiences. And the same message over and over again. There is no HELL. Infinite love is the only truth. Everything else is illusion. I am also exercising my right to free speech when I say it. My opinion. My belief. Persecute me for it. I don’t care. IT is what I believe to be the truth. It has nothing to do with religion, sexual orientation, gender, or what is right or wrong. It is what they call contrast. In order for one thing to exist, there must be its opposite. Contrast. Balance. Without it life cannot exist as we have come to know it. The research is there to validate this statement if you are willing to look for it.

        Infinite LOVE is the only truth… everything else is illusion.

      • Yiska says:

        Yep! But the real question here is… what KIND of sinner are you? There are only two kinds … Either you are a repentant sinner who turns away from your sin, and the grace and mercy of God creates a desire in you to walk in Obedience to the ONE who created you … or your an un-repentant sinner… in which case; brings the full judgement of God on your sin. Every single soul will one day stand before God and give an account for their life and every word said… and its either going to be a repentant soul who will be judged for their work for the LORD through Salvation in Jesus … or they will be judged based on their sin according to God’s Holy Law.

      • Jazzy says:

        I’d like to ask Clayton… and this is simply a question: If everything needs a contrast to provide a balance, why is there only a Heaven and no hell?

      • Clayton says:

        Jazzy… I did not claim there was a heaven. Metaphorically, there is, and what you perceive it to be is what heaven is. A state of pure love and bliss. That exists here. It is what you create thru your perception. Hell does not exist as a punishment. If you believe in hell, then you will create one here personally suited for your existence. It is conjured in the human mind, by the human mind. It has never existed as a form of punishment from GOD’s wrath. That would be counter productive. The choice is ultimately yours in what you choose to perceive. Do not be fooled by the scare tactics.
        It is this simple. Look into documentaries like “DMT The Spirit Molecule” and David Icke has some brilliant video on this topic as well. We are spiritual beings. We are meant to love and feel compassion for all living things. Somehow along this journey we have lost our way. But for the true seeker, the info, the truth, is waiting for you.

    • Pax says:

      That’s actually not what he said. He compared homosexuality to bestiality and prostitution.

      “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.”

      “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,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

      • No, Pax, he did not compare homosexuality to bestiality & prostitution. He made an all encompassing statement about sins of the Bible. He stated, in his opinion, to start WITH homosexuality & went on to state other sins that the Bible states. He paraphrases Corinthians.

      • actually Leigh Anna the way his statement is worded “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,” can very easily be seen as an inference that all the crap that follows STARTS with homosexuality as its root cause, as if Homosexuality gives birth to the other things…i can see how someone would take offense with that especially since it is blatantly false.

      • Alisha says:

        Funny how only the parts of Phil’s reply to get the spotlight are those that a group of radicals believe to be offensive! We all sin and fall short of God’s glory, however through repentance, salvations and changing our lives we then are found in God’s grace!

      • Clayton says:

        You see what you wrote. It can be inferred that… If you look at that statement, it states the reader inferring his own conclusion. If you read the whole interview, and choose to infer from there, you may come up with a valid hypothesis. However, the act of inferring is the responsibility of the reader. Do not judge because of what is said in an interview, and what is taken out of context for sensationalism, but the acts the man does, and what he gives of himself to other people. Does he do good work? Does he “Pay It Forward” with charitable acts? Does he do GOD’s work? If he can quote the bible, and then interject with his own opinion, and his is in the article, I feel and think I see a man who satnds by what he believes in, and does not judge. He may be a little gruff, but he is accepting of people. He is not judging, he is speaking his mind and his beliefs. What you infer from it is your responsibility, not his. There is an episode where he and his wife get photos taken by a photographer. You can infer that the photographer was gay, and, it is apparent that he does as well. As uncomfortable as it made him, he was accepting, albiet a little on the gruff side. I do not believe in the same religious beliefs as he does, but I believe he has a right to express them. Just as the Gay Pride Parade has a right to be expressed, and I am heterosexual. Just as you have the right to speak your beliefs freely. A touch of tolerance, comapssion, and acceptance will ease the outrage you experience due to the biggest disease known to mankind… The human ego.

        Merry Christmas

    • Malkie says:

      Oldest adult fairy tale in the world……..is it worth it?

  150. Kerry says:

    You should always read a article before expressing opinions.

  151. Jacob says:

    I bet A & E is still cashing the checks from all the Duck Dynasty stuff being sold even though they don’t agree with what was said. Someone commented that these guys are plastering their faces on everything. I’m quite sure A & E has lots to do with the marketing of these products so they can rake in the money!

    • Connie says:

      For your information…. A & E owns Duck Dynasty and the family gets nothing from those sales…. Duck Commander sales is the only place the family receives anything from.

  152. Olivia says:

    Okay . You are clearly a liberal . And that article was the biggest waste of 5 minutes . I would have rather watched paint dry then read one more liberal hypocrite preach about how we all must get along blah blah blah . NO. Who cares if you hurt someone’s feeling . Calling someone gay is calling a spade a spade; if you don’t like it then there http://gopthedailydose.com/2013/12/17/eyewitness-hitler-warns-americans-keep-guns-keep-guns-buy-guns/is a very simple solution, DONT BE GAY. That is all. Have a nice day!

    • theboeskool says:

      You make a compelling case, Olivia….

      • Ted says:

        Olivia, When you stop being an idiot, I’ll stop being gay.

      • Big5Hole says:

        Best. Reply. Ever.

      • Elizabeth says:

        In an effort at facts- he did not say he was grossed out, and he did not say gays are going to hell. As a side point- Olivia does not make a compelling case. I do applaud you for not taking offense. But it does irritate me that someone with such a huge platform, who professes to be a believer, would twist facts or blatantly ignore them. Robertson called a sin a sin. Does it make me uncomfortable- yes, because I sin daily. Make no mistake there will be a judgement day- and you and I will be judged for our sins. Robertson also commented that our job is to love each other. Love- God calls us to love our neighbor as we would love ourselves- regardless of whether they sin the same as me or not. My burden to take is to love unfailingly and leave the judging to Christ. A heavy burden that I fail Him in daily.

    • Calling a spade a spade... says:

      Hey…stop being straight!
      Better yet……stop being stupid!

      Take a minute….are you still stupid? See how hard it is to just stop? Let’s be honest, I’m just calling a spade a spade. Now you understand why it’s hard for people to just “not be gay”.

      I hope you realize how much you are laughed at for comments like yours.

      • phil says:

        I don’t have a problem with gays, I don’t agree with them and I believe your gender is what gives you a right to marry not your sexual preference. But the gay activist who have put fear into corporate policy so this kind of stuff happens is total crap. quit making decisions for the mass. A&E had to ban Phil not becuase of they are afraid the rating are going to drop, but becuase they dont want a bunch of peopel picketing outside of corporate making a big spectacle and using fear and intolerance to get there way.

      • dear Phil, i want to thank you for the visual image you have implanted in my mind of a “rowdy group of intolerant homosexuals marching and picketing and striking fear into the hearts of the mighty television execs while screaming “We’re here, we’re queer, get used to it!” i will be amused for quite a while.

        i’m just wondering what other type of groups or people display their “intolerance” by picketing and causing spectacles to put ”fear” into people to do things “their” way…hmm…oh i have a few:

        1. Women-for many different injustices they have endured and got tired of finally.

        2. Minorities-to be paid a wage, to be able to own property, to vote, sit and eat or ride a bus where they choose to, to marry whomever they choose.

        3. gun owners

        i’m not gonna list all of them but you get the picture. that is how you affect change when there is something wrong or unjust being perpetrated against a group of people that are not the majority.

        from reading your posts it seems as if you believe it’s ok for gays to be treated differently because they are different…even your “roommate” who [brings his bad situations on himself]. what you see as decisions being made for the masses are actually decisions being made to protect the “little guy” and someone having the balls to stand up to the MAJORITY and say “Hey! you can’t say nasty things about folks no matter where the information comes from.” you are allowed to believe whatever you want. what you are not allowed to do is persecute others that don’t subscribe to the same point of view or treat them as second class

      • phil says:

        Brenda I dont have a problem with social activist groups some are very helpful and do get rights changed because they need to. Infringing on people rights is one thing. Giving an opinion is another. There is a hazy line between opinion and persecution, Phil did not call for action with torches and pitchforks, he gave his opinion on a life style not the people who live it. And when was the last time some one got kicked off a show because of they made a comment on gun control? My issues is when the decision being made for the little people began to get too much control to the point that if you used the N word one time 20 years ago you can be charged for a hate crime today. I know for gays need to be protected form persecution but not from Phil Robertson and his opinions. And theyre are minority groups of people that should not be stood up for.. I think the top 1 percent in this country is one.

      • Malkie says:

        Phil: I don’t believe you know what being gay is. Gender??? Really??

      • phil says:

        malkie my roomate is gay I am around gay people quite a bit. When I say your gender give you the right to marry I am saying we are world of men and women, let me repeat that, we are a world of men AND women. if you are a Male that give you the right to marry a female. If you are a female you have the right to marry a male. If you have an alternative sexual preference of whatever that might be, that does not give any right or special circumstance to change this rule for you to freely decide on what you want. Preferences are intangible and really cannot be measured, only proclaimed and demonstrated through action. Your gender is concrete. If you are a transsexual, you transcend this rule because, your gender is in question, and i dont want to get into that, I am not a doctor.

    • Richard Hunt says:

      Olivia, nobody is complaining about being called gay. The problem is when you are comparing being gay to beastiality, incest, pedophilia, etc. What this DD fool did, and had a right to do was state his opinion. We don’t care about that. But then when he tells us it is not his position to judge, he turns around and starts judging people. As I said, he had a right to say what he said, and A&E had a right to suspend him.

      Obviously, you have no concern about other peoples feelings, and that is fine for you. We don’t really care about you either. However, you want to show us how NOT do be gay? Here is a perfect example for you to lead us. How about for the next month or so, you don’t be straight! Let us know how easy it is to change your sexuality. Then we will consider your opinion. In the meantime, go watch paint dry.

      • Jen says:

        She was just stating her opinion just like you do in writing your reply. Phil was doing the same ~ they asked what he thought about the issue and he believes the Bible! The interviewer knew before he went into the interview with him what he stood for. He was not passing judgement he is simply a disciple for Christ. The one who wrote the bible is the judge in the end and everything he quoted is from the bible~ he did not mean he would discriminate the person that is gay but the sin that they are dealing with.

      • evilrobert says:

        The sad part, is no one actually asked Phil what he thought. The interviewer himself stated that Phil just kind of started throwing his opinions out there on his own. I think the part where he said that “blacks were happier without civil rights” was a result of being asked about his childhood.

        The part about Japan (aka “the Shintos), the Nazis, the communists, and the Islamists (who actually include Jesus as a part of their religion, just not as their savior) all being violent and murderous because they don’t have Jesus? That was just priceless.

      • phil says:

        How not to be gay.. Stop going to gay bars stop watching gay porn stop living the gay life style. You do it because you want to. You CREATE your own desires and then you go fulfill them. Trying to step out of your created scope satisfaction is hard and that is why most people dont do it, but it is possible and you can have just as much if not more satisfaction with fulfilling new desires. You are only gay becuase you want to be gay. Im not saying you werent born with an attractions to the same sex, but Im saying that you are not limited to only that. Most have you guys have just that monster your whole life and now have narrowed your desires to the point of having blinders on to all of the worlds other satisfactions. The drug culture and porn culture are the same. Even the military culture. people just dont want to step outside of what they are comfortable with.

    • *sigh* says:

      Olivia, no one is complaining because this guy “called someone gay.” Most gay people I know are perfectly happy to call themselves gay. Shockingly enough, they don’t have a problem with it. Clearly YOU think it’s an insult. But that’s your problem, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with this post — except for proving his point about further alienating the LGBT community. Oh, and just out of curiosity, how do you think you’d handle it if someone told you DON’T BE STRAIGHT? I’ll bet you’d rush right out and change your sexual orientation, right? Yeah, didn’t think so. Probably couldn’t do it if you tried, could you? Any idea when it was you CHOSE to be straight? Believe it or not, many gay people feel EXACTLY the same way about their own sexual orientation that you do about YOUR sexual orientation.

    • tw says:

      Olivia, a very simple solution? DON’T BE GAY? I may as well ask you to say something intelligent, all along knowing your an IDIOT? It could never happen? Nothing even resembling intelligence will emerge from that pie hole.

      • Love 4 All says:

        Darkness will not drive out darkness… Only light can do that.
        Hatred will not drive out hatred… Only love can to that.

    • Erin says:

      Seriously, Olivia? Maybe you spend too much time watching paint dry. There have been claims suggesting paint fumes cause bigotry. Good for you for reading the article the entire way through. It’s unfortunate the message didn’t get through all the red tape in your brain, which was placed so effortlessly by all the bigoted media you’re expected to filter through each day. Pick up a book once in a while, it might help unclutter your scattered and assainine misinformation.

      Oh, happy holidays!

    • Love 4 All says:

      Olivia, I’m going to pray for you… Read a bible, and try to respect your God enough to listen to ALL of it and not just the parts that make you feel better about yourself.
      I would love to hear how you will explain to God that your endless lists of sins committed every day are so much better than any that another human being has committed. THEY ARE ALL EQUAL IN THE EYES OF THE LORD. Find a mirror & chill in front of it for a bit.
      And then remind yourself that you are LOVED regardless of what you find in yourself.

    • JohnDavid Morgan says:

      Olivia you wrote..”Okay . You are clearly a liberal . And that article was the biggest waste of 5 minutes . I would have rather watched paint dry then read one more liberal hypocrite preach about how we all must get along blah blah blah”
      Okay, let’s clear things up… This posting was something that was such a waste of your time and made you feel watching pain dry was more enjoyable…Can I ask you something? How come you a.) Took time to finish reading the posting if it was so boring and b.) why bother wasting more time posting a response when your time would have obviously by your account, been spent so much better finding something freshly painted and watched it dry… .

    • haberdashery says:

      Really, Olivia? Really? How about you DON’T BE STRAIGHT? Did you choose to be straight? Exactly.

    • Lucas says:

      Olivia, I’m a conservative. I’m a Christian. I’m a hunter. I’m from the country. I support the traditional view on marriage. I believe in liberal media bias. I’m a big Duck Dynasty fan, but you’re simply wrong. Phil is gruff and absolutely could have chosen a better way to say what he did. If you’ve watched the show enough you know it wasn’t motivated by hate. However, there is a difference between standing firm in your beliefs and being an a**. What you are talking about is the latter. If you are a Christian I can assure you that there is nothing in the Bible that supports your position. If you are not a Christian, there is very little within a civil society which indicates that being ignorant to prove a point is the best way to go about things. There is nothing wrong with believing in the traditional view of marriage, but the world will get nowhere if you have to stick your finger in someone’s eye to prove a point.

    • Kalynn says:

      To be aware of a single shortcoming within oneself is more useful than to be aware of a thousand within someone else. ~HHDL

      • Rick Yaeger says:

        If only we all took that to heart……..every moment. When asked Jesus said ” ‘Love the Lord your with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment and the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” Perhaps we should stop talking and start listening?

    • Tara says:

      Olivia, I am not gay, nor am I a liberal… I considermyself just a SMIDGE left of the middle (and I only consider myself this way instead of dead center because I seem to have more compassion/understanding/tolerance of those on both sides of any issue than those who are dead center seem to)… What worries me about your comment (I rarely read, post, or reply to comments because I find so many of them (on both sides, again) filled with vile hatred) is your stating “who cares if you hurt someone’s feelings.” Please put yourself in another’s shoes; if you had a child who is slightly overweight, is it ok for someone to call them fat and hurt their feelings? If you have a child who has a mental handicap, is it ok for someone to call them retarded and hurt their feelings? We live in a world that is already so full of hurt, can’t we all be a bit more wary of the things we say that someone we know (or maybe even ourselves, if the role is reversed) may take offense to? Would you want someone to say hurtful and mean things to you, even if they truly felt deep down that they were true, or would you want them to leave by the teachings of our Lord and love their neighbor as themselves? Just a little food for thought, ands I hope you have a pleasant day.

    • Sandy Moran says:

      I just have to say this, so I will feel better. I don’t like you, Olivia. I don’t like people who think like you think. I believe you drip hate like poison, and everyone around you is slowly dying of the poison, while you thrive on it, like a venomous deadly snake. I believe that the world would be a better place without people like you in it. I hope you don’t have children, but if you do, I hope they recognize you for the poisonous cloud that you are, and get away from you, far far away, where your poison can’t reach them. I guess that is about all, except for this: DON’T BE AN ASSHOLE. That is all. Have a nice day

    • don't be gay? says:

      people like you are the reason i struggled with suicide as a kid. homosexuality isn’t a choice. if it was, why the hell would anybody choose to be gay in a nation filled with homophobia and discrimination. think about how what you say affects other people, its the christ-like thing to do.

    • BCasey says:

      That is the most ridiculous thing I have heard. Who would choose to be gay? Really? Did you choose to be straight? Is there some survey you do as a child where you’re supposed to check if you want to grow up to like boys or girls? Did I miss that? He has every right to say whatever he chooses to say but that does not mean he will not have to deal with ramifications that come from that. His employer (A&E) has every right to terminate him due to a misrepresentation of their brand (because they OWN Duck Dynasty) on a national level. If you’re Christian…cool. If not, cool. What does that have to do with me? Nothing. If you are so against marriage equality, don’t marry a female. If it does not apply to you, why cause a ruckus? And in regards to your statement, “Who cares if you hurts someone’s feeling”, would Conservative Christians be offended and/or be upset if a reality star went on an interview and said the bible is nothing more than a book and the chance of it depicting an accurate account of history is the same as the Flying Spaghetti Monster depicts an accurate portrayal of aliens? Um, yes. So I know many people who would “care” if it was THEIR feelings getting hurt. I don’t understand why Christians want this country to be all about them (their deity on our money, in our pledge of allegiance, etc) because within the same guidelines that they love to hold up it also states there is to be a separation of church and state. Yet again, the majority of Conservative Christians picking and choosing what parts of the Constitution they would like to acknowledge, just like the do with their bible.

      • Jeff says:

        Where in the Constitution does it state there is to be a separation of church and state??? You do realize that that phrase was in a letter to a pastor and not any official document don’t you??

      • Doll Fan says:

        “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

        It’s called the 1st amendment.

      • Jeff says:

        Yes I am well aware what the amendments and the text say. I asked about your use of the phrase seperation of church and state. It isn’t there. Never has been. What that amendment says it that the state is not to create or interfere with religious expression in any way shape or form. It does not say freedom from but rather freedom of. You do see and understand the difference, I hope so.

      • Doll Fan says:

        The phrase is an interpretation but the forefathers were very clear with “respect no religion”. History shows that church leaders of the day wanted that to stop state interference of the state in church practices like was occurring in the Church of England. Clearly separation of church and state is the concept. So, yes, it is in the constitution as a concept, just like equal protection under the law, and the implied right to privacy in the 4th amendment.

  153. Greg says:

    Olivia needs to learn how to spell correctly. And a bit of education on how to think logically would not be hurtful either. I thought the article was spot on. Oh, and yes, haters, I’m a big ‘ol liberal and a gay guy. Screw you!

  154. Marco says:

    Although you have good points my friend, the truth is the truth, call me stubborn blind or whatever you want, I agree with you when it comes to treat gay people with respect, but do I agree with what they do absolutely no. I think we ought to pray for them to change their wicked ways and I know just the only person who can do that, the bible says nothing but the blood of Jesus.
    Now let me say something I think you are very wrong, when some movie star or singer or whoever they show on tv doing something very bad like “twerking” or abusing drugs or abusing family members or singing about killing or let’s get high type or deal, is it right there their right of speech? I think this is a really messed up situation I don’t know if you have kids but how would you feel if he/she would start mocking Miley Cyrus doing drugs, sleeping with as many guys or girls as he/she wants, I don’t know you but I definitely don’t want to raise my daughter in this society or at least I won’t let her watch tv. But going back to the point, when this guy Phil Robertson wants to speak his mind everyone I. This satanic society jumps right in saying “he is a bad example” he is homophobic, just so you know the guy was just using his right to speak openly about his beliefs, if you think that’s the worst thing on tv let me just tell you you’re messed up in the head and they already brain washed you my friend, the guy later say that he wouldn’t treat anybody with disrespect just because they are different than him but he stands his ground, why is it no one talking about this last comment he made or guess why cause he’s already the bad guy, but ill tell you something I know the god in the heavens is watching an d I have no doubt he’s gonna get rewarded for trying to bring god to this society!!

    • Pax says:

      Mr. Robertson’s rights are in full swing. He was not jailed or arrested for his comments. He was suspended from his TV show because his employer did not like the way he was representing their brand. If I said something offensive to my employer, I too would be suspended. See how that works?

    • BamPowKate says:

      Just FYI, I have a son who is 16. He doesn’t “copy Miley Cyrus and do drugs”, and that’s because he was talked to openly about sex, drugs, etc, it has nothing to do with being a certain religion. He is a great kid who has never made any major life stumbles and does well in school. With the way some kids at his school have been taught to be hateful via being “Christian”, I am glad he has been raised to make his own choice about religion. I wouldn’t give a rat’s ass if he told me he was gay…OR Christian. He’s a good, thoughtful person because he was raised to respect people and was told the truth about what was out there. He has Christian friends, and he has experienced bullying from what I can only say are kids who were taught to be hateful by their parents and possibly their churches.

      But I guess parents who raise their kids via TV and lies have a lot to worry about, I’ll agree with you there.

      As a person who is not Christian but has read the bible, the real Jesus would probably be mortified by his followers twisting his words and using them to attack people instead of loving them. Just a guess.

  155. Zack says:

    Nice excessive use of Caps and Bold font. Almost like an opinionated facebook rant.

  156. Angie says:

    Thank you for sharing this, I thought I was the only 1 of my friends who thought this way, especially after reading all the discussions on FB yesterday.

  157. Victoria says:

    Oh, for goodness sake. “Don’t be gay.” Do you think gays wake up one day and decide to be gay? When did you wake up and decide to be straight? God made you – and them – that way, so don’t judge.

  158. linda says:

    The best article I’ve read since all of this nonsense surfaced. You are exactly right, it’s simple.consequence for your actions.

  159. Steve Hull says:

    You know what is just as offensive as a negative LGBT comment is to them? When people like you say things like “those supposedly ‘Christians” to Christians. That is very offensive to me, it demeans my beliefs and the life of faith I live. How can you generalize a population by comments made by a minority? You are doing exactly the same thing to me and my way of life. So I guess that means I can put you in the same catagory as all those crazy left wing radicals that I see spewing their retorict around and lump you in with them. When I do that, you loose your voice as well. Think about it, you did the exact same thing…….

    • theboeskool says:

      I’m a Christian, Steve. Here’s what I believe: If you are a person who only seems to spread hate (not saying that you are. At all) and believes that following Jesus is about telling everyone who doesn’t believe the same as you that they are going hell, I would say that (in my opinion) I wouldn’t consider you a Christian. Is that fair? I’m not saying that ALL Christians are like that…. I’m saying that a Christian who is full of hate is no Christian at all. They’ll know us by our love, right?

      • evilrobert says:

        I have to say I’m glad I bit my tongue before engaging in a response to Steve. The lessons that Christ brought is to love everyone no matter who they are or what they believe; and that no matter what they do to you, that doesn’t mean you do anything less that show them the love that Christ and the Lord have shown you.

        Although, I do personally think that criticizing someone else for their choices or “how God made them” as if we’re superior to them is completely non-Christian thing to do. That falls under the whole “judge not, lest ye be judged” clause of salvation.

      • phil says:

        Jesus also would end most of his sermons with go and sin no more.

      • theboeskool says:

        Phil–Except that the sinning that Jesus spent his time talking about had nothing to do with same-sex relationships. The thing he talks about most? Loving money. So great, I agree with Jesus on that: Go and sin no more.

    • Matt says:

      Steve, let me explain to you why the phrase “supposedly Christians” gets used like that. Instead of lining up at homeless shelters, hospitals, and jails ministering or helping others, you guys are lined up at Macy’s, Toys R Us, Target and these other places on Black Friday like a bunch of greedy jackals. Oh yeah, and Chick Fil A too. Instead of being outraged that George Zimmerman got away with killing a defenseless teenager, you guys not only defended him but you also offered to get him another gun and you defended Florida’s law instead of God’s law “thou shalt not kill.” So man’s law trumps God’s law? Ok, gotcha. Instead of your churches investing their money in building more schools, residential housing for the less fortunate, homeless shelters, or even investing in a business that can contribute positively to the economy by creating jobs, what do you Christians do? You build mega-churches, fund greedy corporations and politicians, and spend your money on countless other miscellaneous garbage that has nothing to do with healing lost souls, helping the sick, and less fortunate. Oh and lets not forget about that mansion your pastor lives in that you people fund every Sunday.

      Now Steve you or someone else could easily come on here and lie and say I’ve never participated in or felt like that about any of those things, or my church does wonderful things for the community and blah blah blah. You don’t have to convince me of anything anyway. Your actions and comments keep solidifying my thoughts towards Christians. The comments that I have been reading on social media and new sites that so-called Christians have been posting are just downright disgusting, misinformed, and downright pathetic. But yet, not one single prayer has been uttered of your mouths about the cancer patient dying right now, but this clown from Duck Dynasty gets your attention. Prasie the Lord everybody and don’t forget to leave a little for something for me, uhh, I mean the Lord in the collection plate!

      • Laura M. says:

        Matt, I can understand how disappointed you feel but I don’t think is fair that you generalize that way and is even more unfair that you are not leaving any room for us to defend ourselves.
        I’m not going to tell you all the works of charity that my church does because I’m not trying to convince you of anything. But I have to tell you that you are plain wrong if you think that all churches are the way you say they are. Please remember that those Christians you’re reading don’t represent the whole church just as I don’t think that all the homosexuals who look so perverted in the “gay pride” parade don’t represent all the homosexuals in the world.
        I’ve noticed that people fill their mouths criticizing the church/Christians without even bothering to know better.
        There are so many good Christians just as there are so many Atheist who are good people. Please, never generalize.

  160. Jan says:

    There is more here than meets the eye and it’s getting old. The media, news outlets and internet create this chaos and promotes this hatefulness. GQ asked Phil a question and Phil answered it based on what he believes so it was his honest answer. If he can’t answer honestly then why ask the question. Phil also was into drugs and drinking and cheating on Ms. Kay during their marriage. He claimed to have found Jesus and thinks it’s wrong. He is a sinner like everyone else. The media, news and internet get all these groups into a pissing match pushing buttons to get people to react. Tired of it!

  161. Regardless of what motivated the points you made, you are spot on in the context of how we should be communicating with each other.

  162. He quoted Corinthians, and based his statement of homosexuality’s sinfulness on Romans 1:26.

    How is this not a biblical belief? It certainly is, just not one you accept. Then read your second point.

    He also said, “we love em, we just give them the goodness about Jesus Christ”. How did you end up interpreting “what you’re doing is wrong, and I will show you love anyways. ” as being hate speech not protected. By the first amendment?

    • D. DuJour says:

      I was raised in the evangelical church, educated in “Bible college”, and spent decades studying on my own: the actual original languages, history of its preservation and translation, and the numerous and widely varied interpretations of these texts. What so many “conservative Christians” refuse to understand is that their beliefs about “what the Bible says” are not necessarily obvious, logical, or unassailable. What you believe is “doctrine”–and doctrine is simply what you’ve been taught about what Jesus and the Bible said. I know so many people who just read the English translation and then believe they have correctly understood it without ever bothering to truly study it.

      Example: I note that a previous posting quotes a modern English “translation” as listing homosexuals among those Paul said would not go to heaven. But the problem with that is the original Greek does not have a word for “homosexual”–so it simply could not have said that.. The KJV translation used the questionable word “effeminate” to translate a Greek word that most likely (from comparative language studies) meant “self-indulgent”, “lover of luxury”, or possibly “cowardly”. There are hundreds of instances in the KJV that demonstrate the doctrinal biases of the translators–but there are many, many more instances in the modern translations that do so, mostly because they relied on their interpretation of the KJV more than returning to the original language.

      f this disturbs your sense of spiritual security, I would gently point you to Paul’s exhaustive lectures (particularly in Corinthians) about why you should not base your beliefs on “the law”–a general term for any of the written scripture–but rather on a spiritual heart experience with the Holy Spirit. Jesus said something very similar to the woman at the well. You may certainly embrace any doctrinal interpretation that seems right to you, but please know when you say, “This is what the Bible says!” that there are many sincere students of the Bible who will see it differently.

      • phil says:

        I agree with a lot of what you said. the levitican laws that say homosexuality is an abomination were written when the isrealites had left egypt, had no country and were basically walking through the desert. Survival was the most important thing for the people at the time and it was logical that the alternative life style would be shamed in those types of situations. We are now at a point that survival is not that big of deal anymore and really are overpopulated. but it does show that homosexuality is not recession proof so to speak. I do not believe homosexual tendency was the problem, it was those wanted to avoid responsibility of their people or tribe by not taking a wife and have kids which in fact was crucial for the survival of the tribe.. In Catholicism the definition of witchery is the “avoidance of responsibility”

  163. CC says:

    I have no idea what a Christian is anymore. They certainly don’t follow the words and teachings of Christ. If anyone is in for a big surprise on where they’re going to end up after they die, it’s the modern day “Christian”.

  164. Dwr Wrd Rdw says:

    1. Freedom of Speech does not mean “Freedom to say whatever you want without any consequences.” This should be one of those things that goes without saying, but apparently, it needs to be said. We all have the freedom to go on TV and scream “My boss is a jackass!” But that freedom comes with some ramifications…. (( I disagree with that statement. As long as a person says “In my opinion” in front of whatever they are going to say it is considered freedom of speech in which shall not have any consequences. Legal or otherwise. If this person would of read the actual constitution Starting with article one paragraph one, this person would of learned that. This blogger clearly did not look at the facts before posting their statement In which constitutes as fraud. In my opinion I could careless on what goes on on tv.

    • shannontapia says:

      Actually, if you read the constitution it is quite clear in saying that the “government ” shall not in fringe in your rights, it is not a protection in any way from a private individual or corporation.

    • Chris H says:

      Actually your response is not correct. he signed a contract with the network, that included behavior clauses, so they can fire him all they want. If he didn’t like that…he shouldn’t have signed the contract.

  165. Emily says:

    Upon reading the interview in it’s entirety, it becomes clear that all your points are invalid… Except the chick-fil-a comparison. That one was just wrong even if you hadn’t read the full interview.

  166. Joe says:


    The video will be available soon. The sermon explains very explicitly what the Christian Bible believes about the LGBT lifestyle.

    In essence, the Bible says that to be Gay is not a sin, because it is consequence of ‘the fall’, however, acting out homosexual acts IS a sin in the eyes of God. That said, homosexuality is no less forgivable than me going out and murdering an innocent person. Our debts have been paid for by Christ already and all we need to is accept God’s Grace.

    My .02¢

    • Laura M. says:

      To accept God’s Grace and repent. Jesus told to the adulteress: “Then neither do I condemn you, go now and leave your life of sin.”
      We’ll be forgiven as long as we accept that we’re sinners and are wiling to live in grace.

  167. Lisa says:

    This is the best written ‘discussion’ I have read on this topic!!! Very very well said!

  168. The first amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” It specifically addresses Congress and no other entity. It does not say that your employer cannot limit your speech – opinion or otherwise – as a term of your employment. Many employers do just that through various clauses in employment contracts. In the real world, there are most definitely consequences for your actions.

  169. Kaylee says:

    The person who wrote this is stupid. He quoted THE BIBLE. There is absolutly NOTHING wrong with what he said and we arent “supporting” him in his “money,” we are supporting what he said, and that isnt to “offend” the gays. He has a right to his opinion, and damn straight he has a right to express it. Sorry that if someone isnt for something, they damn well cant be against it. That is ridiculous and I am so sick of people not being able to be honest and open with what they have to say. Thats what gays want right? To be able to be open and honest? Its all about EVERYONE being EQUAL. AKA, letting him say what he wants and have an opinion on things. Sorry he is an older man who read from the bible. He did not ONCE say he hated them or would judge them now did he?

  170. Gil Gonzalez says:

    This is an excellent post. Thank you so much for sharing it.

  171. Laurie Bates says:

    what was in the contract that he signed with A & E , IN order for this show to air is another question. and for him and his family to get paid for it. and so far A & E is still airing it, it was on last night after the first 48.I myself tried to watch it for a few minutes and just didn’t see the big deal about this show not my kind of show. and I agree with anything we say , we have to be ready for people who believe different to came back at us. sure we have freedom of speech but where do we all draw the line of what comes out of our mouths. There are ways to say things without offending others beliefs.

  172. Boeskool, I do not always agree with your posts, but I applaud you on this one. I am not a Christian, nor am I a gay man. What I do know is that if I am rude or intolerant to anybody my insides hurt. People are people people. Everyone has feelings regardless of their ideals.
    If we just saw each other as equals across the board, we might realize that the kind gentleman who held the door for me was a gay man. I choose to shoot him a smile and offer my thanks.
    Happy Holidays to everyone(yes, even you Olivia).

  173. Pingback: 5 Things To Remember When Discussing This Duck Dynasty Mess | Very Sharp Things

  174. Doll Fan says:

    What’s also being totally ignored is that fact that i guarantee that there are gays within the Duck Dynasty. They are closer than you think (just ask Dick Chaney). Now they certainly won’t come out because “the Commander” has made it clear what’s acceptable and what’s not.

  175. Megan says:

    I feel compelled to leave a comment in regards to this whole DD situation. I’m a Christian. I believe and agree with the comments Phil made. Is it wrong in believing this, I’m not sure. I’m just going by what is stated in the Bible. I’ll be the one who is judged for my actions and beliefs when I meet my Creator. I also don’t think it’s wrong for Phil to express his beliefs in the manner he did. He was asked a question, he answered it and also gave scripture to back up his beliefs. He talked about love for one another, not hating each other because we think differently. As Christians, we should show love, but we also must stand up for what we believe is right and just. There is a fine line when it comes to showing these two things. like I said, I’ll ultimately be the one who is judged for how I lead my life just as you will be judged with how you lead yours. We can love each other even if we do not agree with each other.

    • Sherri says:

      Well said, Megan.

    • I have just one question, one that I usually ask when they use the Bible to defend their take on homosexuality, and I never get a straight answer. Mind you, I am not judging you; it’s moreso a challenge, but also at the same time, something for my personal understanding:

      The billboard quote in one’s defense against homosexuality is Leviticus. In the same book, it speaks of cursing the deaf and blind, mixing fabrics in clothing, tattoos, even selling land. Do you, or anyone else that abides by that, give the same regard to those who commit those mentioned acts, as you do to those who identify as homosexual/bisexual, etc? They’re from the same long list, and yet we as a society harp on one line out of hundreds, If it was such a case where we love one another even if we disagree, then why is this still such an issue?

      • Megan says:

        That is a great question and I really hope I can answer it the best I can. Anyway, I believe that The Old Testament is a great source to look at for the life before Jesus Christ. But I am saved by Jesus Christ because he is The Lord our God who came to save us from our sins. Because of that, the New Testament gives us better knowledge and reasoning (again this is my belief, I’m sure there are many others who do not believe this). There are versus in the New Testament that offer more clarification of who will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Corithians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:8-11 are just a few versus. Not only does it say homosexuals, but it also says the sexually immoral and greedy among others. I fully believe that these things are sins. Have I committed some of them, yes, and that is why I will be the one who must stand before God at the end of my time on earth and endure the judgment.

      • Megan says:

        Also I wanted to add that as being apart of society, I don’t harp on that one scripture. I don’t ask someone their sexual preference upon meeting a new person, nor do I ask if they are an adulterer. I feel that the media has harped on this question far more than people as a whole. I have friends who are homosexuals but I don’t judge them for their way of life just like I hope they don’t judge me. I hope they would pray for me and pray that my ultimate place will be beside God.

      • Michael says:

        Tasha, this is a good question. Many people are confused by passages in the Old Testament because it was written so long ago, and applied specifically to a particular group of people. It seems archaic and strange, if not outright offensive at times. Is it still relevant to our lives today? Absolutely, but context is important.

        Judaism actually divides most of these laws into a variety of categories: those given to Noah, dietary laws, laws of morality etc. Many Jews believed only those given through God’s covenant with Noah applied to non-Jews i.e. do not murder, no stealing, no sexual immorality no idols etc. Some of the laws only applied to the Jews. God’s prohibition of homosexuality was a reflection of God’s character (morality law – no sexual immorality), and as such, also applied to non-Jews, and still applies today – God’s character is unchanging. Clothing restrictions, such as mixing cloths, was not considered as such. Many of the Jewish laws served as an arrow, leading people to God, or at least that was the intention.

        In the New Testament, Paul, discusses a new covenant removing the necessity for some (not all) traditions of the past. After Jesus died as a penalty for sin, a new era resulted (called the New Covenant). In the new covenant, God promised to write His law on peoples’ hearts (Jeremiah 31:31-34) and Paul argued that many of the laws of the Jewish tradition were no longer applicable. This however, even caused disputes within the churches in Paul’s time because of the mix of Jews and non-Jews attending together.

        Ultimately, I think what you’re trying to get people with when you ask them that, is do we as Christians know, and abide by, what we tell others. You ask that by pointing out that we also fail in abiding by the law, and you are correct. Even if I obeyed most of the OT laws, I would still fail and be a hypocrite, because I have still disobeyed God in many other areas, so you will always win that argument. However, I choose to believe that God loved me, and everyone else so much, that despite the horrible atrocities committed in the world today and despite my own failures, He chose to manifest Himself as a human in the person of Jesus, die a horrifying death so that you and I, should we choose to believe and follow God, will inherit life – even after death. Everything in the Bible points to the singular person of Jesus and his sacrifice.

  176. be high says:

    We need good writers. You are not one.

  177. Steve says:

    Whoever the guy is that wrote this article obviously did not read the entire interview in GQ or he’s intentionally leaving out half the facts to further promote the liberal agenda that has done nothing but separate this country for over 70 years.

  178. chad smith says:

    Phil is not a bad man. He is a man who found the lord and believes in following god’s will. But, he is a modern man interpreting a book that has been translated 10 times over the centuries, and that today uses many of our modern words in which there were no equivalent meaning in that time. Not important though…just like him, you are absolutely sure of what God meant for us because look, it’s right there in black and white. Old testiment Leviticus says gays are an abomination! And of course we are so sure of what God wants because lucky for us, we found one verse out of 31,000 versus in the bible that we interpreted and they just happen to fit perfectly with our own desires and prejudices. But you’re a biblical scholor right? You already know there wasn’t even a word for gay or homosexuality in biblical times. Whatever word is closest to our meaning and ideas will do. Wake up. There are 6 versus in the bible that talk about issues of same sex behavior – all with disputed meaning with regard to lust and cultural behavior at that time. There are thousands that talk about love and feeling the pain of others, and the value of community and the importance of not being alone. But hey, the really important thing god cares about is taking people born with a sexual identity and destroying their lives, sending them into exhile, and forcing them into solidute with no hope of marriage or love. God is love!! Please people, give yourself the gift of biblical education and love this holiday season. Just one hour will do you and this planet so much good. Please sit down and watch this sermon for just one hour and then come back here and post. http://www.upworthy.com/every-biblical-argument-against-being-gay-debunked-biblically.

  179. Loved this read… fair, balanced and insightful… even Christ like… I couldn’t stomach most of the comments and quit reading as not to fill my head with more hate speech from those who didn’t bother to really read what you stated here. Had to share it. Thanks. Jimbeau Hinson

  180. Michael says:

    Many of these comments stem from a lack of understanding of the nature of God. The writer of this blog seems to think God is simply a loving, merciful God who does not judge. Other commentators on this blog think God is a judgmental God who condemns anyone for being homosexual. Both are wrong and neither reflect what should be the foundation for any Christian’s stance on this topic: the Bible.

    As the author points out, hatred is not a Biblical belief, but let’s be clear: God does hate. He hates sin. God however, does not hate humans who were created in God’s image (Genesis). And, as most of you are probably aware, God hated sin so much, He even took human form and sacrificed Himself by taking on all sin, in order that we might have the option to believe in Him – meaning we believe what He says, not just that He exists. If we believe what He says, we will follow it.

    With that in mind, I noticed the author uses circular reasoning to conclude that since God is not a hateful God, that the verse in Corinthians was used to justify hatred towards the homosexual community and as such must have been taken out of context etc. First, I noticed no one actually bothered to quote the real verse from Corinthians (6:9 by the way). Here’s what it says:
    Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

    The bottom line: God will not accept anyone into heaven who is a “sinner.” Just as a homosexual lifestyle will result an eternity in hell, so will those who commit adultery, and drunkards, and slanderers and everyone else. That should cover just about everyone. The one exception to this rule? Those who choose to believe in God’s sacrifice. Yes, God is loving, and yes God is also a judgmental God. He hates sin and will eventually eliminate both sin, and those who chose not to believe in His sacrifice. That is ultimately a choice each person must make, and for those reading this who consider me narrow minded, realize that regardless of my opinion, regardless of A&E’s opinion, regardless of Duck Dynasty’s opinion, if God is real, then His opinion is the only one that will matter at the end of your life.

  181. michele says:

    the Salvation army also doesn’t believe in homosexuality. If you are gay, didn’t you drop money in the bucket? If you walked by and didn’t even give change, you are hypocrite. Grow a tougher skin. Whatever happened to the “preschool” saying about sticks and stones….. grow up. Not everyone shares or cares about your life style, understands you, will like you and will accept you no matter of your sexual preference, race, religion, etc. And if you are whining, you are a hypocrite. Because at some point in life you, yourself, have made an opinion about another person based on their religion, race, or political stance. I don’t think by him reference the Bible about “his” opinion you as a person did not bleed, were not hospitalized, did not lose your job, etc. Oh, your feelings are hurt, that is called life.

  182. Bopen says:

    Dear Love4All, your voice in this discussion gave me a sense of hope for how those of faith can open doors rather than close them. I am not a member of a church but I feel that we share a view of love.

  183. Lisa Hess says:

    I really think you should read the article before you express your thought’s. It was nothing like what you just said here and nothing about hate. It is funny how people are so quick to judge him when they don’t know him and know how he feels in his heart.

  184. SteveFB says:

    It is remarkable that the author believes himself to be tolerant in any way! I am a Christian who believes the Bible to be the Word of God. (And, please notice that I am not typing in all capital letters …) Holding a belief that homosexuality is a sin is not homophobic any more than believing that adultery is adultery-phobic. It is merely a belief that some actions are sinful and others are not. The essence of this matter, as I see it, is that the author and many others are Christ-phobic. You will notice that they never bother to ask devout Muslims about the eternal consequences of homosexuality, only Christians. The reason that people are Christ-phobic is that there is power and authority in the name of Jesus that challenges the cultural norms of the day.
    My prayer is that those who do not know Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord will find the truth in Him and His holy Word. May the Lord bless you this Christmas season and forever!

  185. Ariana says:

    If you’re saying that his comments were hateful, then you clearly haven’t educated yourself on what was said in the full interview. “…part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together. However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.” -Phil Robertson

  186. i don’t care what he said either… not even enough to google it. but i do think it’s rather ridiculous for them (whoever they are) to expect him to be filtered…when his ‘job’ is all about how ridiculous and unfiltered he is. come on. this is a d*mn show. it’s a show where people get paid a significant amount of money to act ridiculous and ‘backwoods’. i mean, what do they expect? yeah, i may be at my job and think some offensive comment… i don’t say it. because my job is accounting. i’m expected to be a professional. if i was a field construction worker, who would care then? no one, that’s who. this isn’t a blanket decision that works for ever job scenario.
    p.s. i skimmed your blog post but still… the main point is this… has nothing to do with religion. it has more to do with us taking these reality shows and trying to over-censor the content therefore creating… just another stupid sitcom.

  187. katie says:

    The thing that is being over looked is that it is the LGBT is the group that brought this all about. If this certain group could have shrugged it off and ignored it as “thats his opinion,” then this would not be an issue. He has a right to say what he wants just like gays have a right to do what they want.
    LGBT can express their Hatred towards Christian groups but throw hissy fits if something is spoken they do not agree with. I have people in life close to me that Are gay and I love and support them. That doesn’t mean I agree with it, but I love them and I know God does as well.

  188. kevin says:

    #4 is a completely false lie and only mine-quoted to make the point. Any reason you didn’t include the rest of Phil’s statement that would have disintegrated your point? After all, he stated that he loved all humanity and didn’t judge humans and leaves it all up to God to do.

    To state that what Phil said is offensive is a mis-guided attack at the messenger. Your comment is directed solely at God who wrote the Word. Good luck with that later.

  189. I Just do not get it. If some one is American, African, Russian, Christian, Hindu, Atheist, married, single, or what ever. they all have their own way of looking at things. If I was to say that seat belt laws are bad for us because they take away our freedom I would not be surprised that some small percentage of other people would agree. If I said that trans fats should not be regulated by the government because that’s takes away from our freedoms again some small percentage of people would agree. People say that marriage should be between an man and woman, others say that its not fair and any one in love ( not that everyone that is married is in love ) Man and Man and Woman and Woman should be allowed to get “married”.
    Everyone needs to have a “compass” in their life to navigate by. Most use their parents or guardian “compass” at first then they find or develop their own. People like this duck dude thinks the bible tells him thing should be this way or that ( His compass for guiding his life )! Others people use a different religious text perhaps or they have thru personal introspection, life experience, or the guiding’s of other people created their personal “compass”.
    At this point in history the liberals ( I hate labels we put on people, Just saying ) want a even playing field for everyone. Does not matter that I might like Christmas it should not have any religious over tones ( its not fair to every one ) It does not matter that I think school uniforms in public schools are wrong ( its fair for every one ) It does not matter that I had good health care thru my company but now have to use Obama care and the market place ( its fair for every one ) It does not matter that this Duck dude believes the way he does, he needs to shut up and go along ( fair for every one ) It does not matter if I do not like to hear the F word or the N word or the B wordin the movies and in songs on the radio I should just not say anything ( freedom of speech fair for everyone )! The point is the man expressed him self ( not at work ) and he being penalized for it. Just like the ( lack of better term ) Gays in the military don’t ask don’t tell or you fired ( its not right that who you love)! Just like the Catholics, Mormons, Baptist and other Christian Churches. if you don’t like the abortions, Gay marriage or If you celebrate Christmas ( its not fair the way you believe to everyone so you need to change ) Only the group that has control of the media or has the most influence in the government gets a say in what’s right or wrong, in what should be or not be at any given time. That does how ever cut both ways!
    So after all the words WHY CANT WE ALL GET ALONG. That is what I just do not under get …….. I guess like my father told me as humans we all have the gift of reasoning which we can justify a lot of our beliefs with and all we can do is live our life as best as we can and stay true to our selves! Or to put it a different way every one has opinions best just keep to your selves because they are like arm pits and some peoples just stinks!

  190. Meagan\ says:

    #4? Really? Before you wrote this post did you read what he was asked and what he said. If that was offensive then you really need to get a grip and quit whining. There was nothing offensive about it….the end

  191. Ourcountry isbackwards says:

    I get it may be AEs right to suspend him. I do hope they fire the person that did not ensure there was an AE person at the interview. I do hope this family/show starts playing on another network. I will watch it. Its fun and comical.

    In regard to what he said. I get that words may hurt someone. However, does that mean he should not of said them? It is what he believes. You don’t have to believe the words. You can think he is wrong. Many shows, speeches, words from coworkers/friends/strangers, hurt people every minute of every day. He should have the right to speak his words an you have the right to think he is wrong, turn him off.

    My issue with all if this….time and time again individuals that have Godly/Christian views and speak about them are judged much harsher than those with opposite views. I can’t wrap my brain around how AE did not think he would say the words he said.

  192. Arandompasserby says:

    What is really hilarious is that it all comes down to 1. Most (mainly Fundamentalist) Christians believe the Bible actually condemns homosexuality. 2. They do not realize that most of the Bibles they are reading are from incorrect translations, such as the King James. 3. They do not understand the historical context, thus the reason the Bible would be saying these things, and thus they miss the whole point of the damn message.

    As not only a History major with a Religion minor, but as also doing my thesis on the quote of the Bible he is using in Corinthians, it’s wrong. It’s mistranslated. The Greek word that was actually used in that circumstance did not say “homosexual.” It said basically “effeminate men”. Do you know why? (Probably not because that is the stuff Bible School likes to leave out) Its because Hebrew, Greek, and Roman societies were built on the standards of a “masculine” patriarchy in where acting in anyway like a “woman,” such as being penetrated, was considered weak and wrong.

    It had nothing to do with sin or morality. It had to do with ancient ideas of gender roles, which are still ever present today. And as not only a woman, but someone who is and sees others constantly held down by the “Boys Club” (which should read, “WHITE MIDDLE AGED PROTESTANT CONSERVATIVE BOYS CLUB,”) I will fight against it any time something like this springs up.

    So when people start to fight for and use “their Bible” to ok their hatred and condemnation of other people, maybe they should actually read and understand the damn thing first?

    • Paul says:

      You state that the Word of God today is not accurate when evidence points in the polar-opposite direction. allabouttruth(.) org/origin-of-the-bible.htm Though you are correct on the effeminate meaning in the scripture Phil used, you are forgetting other passages that are consistently stating that active homosexuals and sexual perversions are not going to inherit the kingdom of God.

      Your last few paragraphs indicate that you might have some knowledge of the scriptures in your head, but haven’t been able to use the wisdom you possess to understand what you memorized to pass the classes.

  193. Proud Phil Supporter says:

    You can’t get mad because he told the truth. He didn’t say it with hate he said it with love. It is okay for someone to express how much they support Gay rights and how important “tolerance” is. But as soon as someone has beliefs differen than theirs, that “tolerance” they have is nowhere to be found. Practice what you preach. Phil is more tolerant than most of you gay rights supporters. You guys bash anyone who believes differently from you.

    I agree that you words can have consequences, but part of being a Christian is being willing to be spit upon, cast out, and blah blah.. I don’t want to bore you guys. Jesus didn’t care what others thought of him, and he what he said was very offensive to people, but he said it with love. Oh and showing love doesn’t always mean being nice.

  194. Josh says:

    I find this blog one of the most comical that I have read yet. Here is someone posting their opinion (which I find great and all the power to you ) but comes out and says: 1- I don’t know who this guy is nor do I care to. Maybe you should do a little research on exactly who Phil Robertson is and what he stands for. 2 – you state “There is absolutely nothing surprising or noteworthy about an old, white, southern, Christian hunter being grossed out about gay sex or believing that all the gays are going straight to Hell. There is nothing rare about this.” I ask you this please since you speak for all the old, white, southern Christians who are grossed out by gay sex or believing that all gays are going to straight to Hell… where is your non judgmental approach in such statement and are you 100 % sure you are speaking for all of said people and how they feel? You want us to stop and think before we say something and as we are typing, picture what we type as if we were saying this to a person. Did you do the same before writing this blog ? Because I am pretty sure you just clumped a whole group of people into one category and by doing such shot you whole premise of think before you type to little itty bitty pieces. 3- Phil Robertson never condemned gays to Hell. I please ask you to show me where he said they are all going straight to hell. Once again your ignorance has gotten the better of you by not doing any type of research and has gone against your entire blog post. Phil Robertson actually stated his opinion that he thought it should be a man and woman because he believes in the bible, he also stated he loves everybody and it is not his place to judge. Phil has shown more tolerance in his controversial statements than your blog has. In your blog you also state this is not Religious Persecution, I care to disagree. Please look up the definition of persecution or let me tell you some of it .per·se·cute: ˈpərsəˌkyo͞ot/Submit verb 1.subject (someone) to hostility and ill-treatment, esp. because of their race or political or religious beliefs. If this definition does not say that yes it is persecution I don’t know if you are as logically thinking as you claim to be. Or for you is persecution only a term that swings one way? Because all the time I hear the LGBT community use this term. So when a Christian mentions persecution it is obscene and of heard of to think that anyone could persecute a Christian for their beliefs as that just does not happen. Once again I am glad you wrote your opinion I just wish you would have done more thinking before you wrote what you did, like you said in your own blog. God Bless you and yours and have a Merry Christmas.

  195. A-man says:

    It seems everyone on here is just saying “you’re stupid” “No you’re stupid” back and forth while putting forth their best educated voice.

  196. Dee says:

    Being a gay male, I wasn’t offended by what he said. Let me explain. Growing up in the church, reading the bible, and going to different conventions, I know what’s in the bible, so why should I be offended because he stated that men should be with women, women with men. I know in my heart that I’m not going to hell, because of my relationship with Christ! God made us all different – and he loves us all the same.! So many people are wanting the relationship with Christ that others have, when we should all be trying to have a personal relationship with him. We all sin, please don’t look at homosexuality as being the only sin. I’m not going to quit watching the show, nor burn the dvds, because the show is entertaining..

    P.S: You are what you answer too..

  197. Amy says:

    Homosexuality is a sin. Period.

  198. Get Over It says:

    I think perhaps they should stop allowing people to comment on this article. Just read it, agree or not, and move on with your life.

  199. Justin says:

    Does anybody care that we have lost 6 more members of our American family in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan? Or is the DD debacle everyone’s priority?

  200. So What.... says:

    A&E gave them a show knowing they was a strong Christian family….did they think if interviewed and asked a religious question they wouldnt give their honest and open beliefs? Of course they knew…like any religion u ask a question u get a raw answer….what u are saying is he said offensive comments…its not a comment its a belief just like Santa clause, Easter bunny or whatever else people chose to believe…sounds to me like u picked a side to and are a hypocrite yourself..who cares what he said it wasn’t offensive nor hurtful..its what one man believes..A&E can do what they want its there network but the show ends with them all sitting around a table in prayer…. They knew what they had and shouldn’t have expected less of him.