Pages

Digital clock

Total Pageviews

Thursday, December 19, 2013

79th Rant: “Duck Dynasty” and homosexuality

SupportPhilRobertson

I had never seen the show “Duck Dynasty” which appears on A&E. However, I had seen members of “Duck Dynasty” appear on various shows on Fox News Channel (“The Five” and “Fox & Friends” in particular) so I not totally unfamiliar with them. I have to say that what A&E did in suspending Phil Robertson, the Patriarch of the Robertson family which is the centerpiece of “Duck Dynasty”,  is messed up in many ways just because he spoke his mind on the topic of homosexuality.

For those of you who do not know what I am referring to, here is just a small clip of his interview (taken from Middletown Transcript):

“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.”

Phil continues, "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."

You can read the entire thing at GQ. Now I will admit I am a Christian and DO view homosexuality as a sin. However, I do not judge or shun anyone who does it. God does tell us to love the sinner but hate the sin. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (New International Version) reads as such in regards as to who will not inherit the kingdom of God:

9 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[a] 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 words men who have sex with men  in vs. 9 translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts.)

And 1 Corinthians 5: 9-11 (New International Version) reads as such

9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[a] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people. (The Greek word for brother or sister [adelphos] in vs. 11 refers here to a believer, whether man or woman, as part of God’s family; also in 1 Corinthians 8:11, 13.)

Now, earlier I said that God tells us to love the sinner but hate the sin. In so doing we follow the path of Jesus who actually ate with the sinners. Now did he participate in what they had none? No he did not. In fact, if memory serves me from reading the gospels many of the sinners Jesus associated with gave up their sinful ways to follow him. Zaccheus and Levi (who was renamed Matthew and became a disciple of Christ and later an apostle in the early church) are prime examples of that.

Now Robert Stacy McCain (no not THAT McCain but the OTHER McCain) brings up a good point in his entry “Is Phil Robertson Wrong?”

You’ll excuse my confusion, but amidst the hyperventilating screeches — GLAAD claiming that Phil Robertson was pushing “vile and extreme stereotypes” — maybe I missed what it was the Duck Dynasty patriarch actually said that was wrong.

“It seems like, to me, a vagina — as a man — would
be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me.”

Is it a “vile and extreme stereotype” to say that gay men engage in anal sex with each other? Or is it in some way objectionable for heterosexuals to say that they prefer the opposite sex? Why is this offensive? To whom is it offensive and why?

You can read the whole thing here.

I know many do not like Neal Boortz (formerly of WSB 750 AM and 95.5 FM out of Atlanta; also known as @Talkmaster on Twitter) for one reason  or another, but one thing he says really puts things into perspective. If two people of the same sex want to be together, what harm does that do to my life, my liberty, or my property? In other words, I do not care what people do  in their bedroom or in public as long as they do not infringe on my life, liberty, or property.

SupportPhilRobertson2One thing we need to do, one thing we CAN do is support Phil Robertson because he just spoke his mind but those on the left got their thongs in a wad and complained. however, if it were someone on the Left (like when Alec Baldwin shouted a gay obscenity at a reporter) who said something like this and we complained, they would say that we are infringing on their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Basically, the mantra of the Left is “Free speech for me but not for thee.” Apparently the Constitution means one thing to the Right but something totally different to the Left.

And this is not the first time that A&E had done something like this. In 2012 A&E decided to cancel the hit show "Dog the Bounty Hunter" after 8 seasons. “Dog” was about a family of bounty hunters who prayed prior to going out on the hunt and who had talked to the fugitives they captured about second chances. Granted, there were some internal issues (some of which were brought out in front of the camera and probably which caused the cancellation of the show) but one thing about Duane “Dog” Chapman and Company is that they were a family who preached about second chances and making things right. Then when the family had brought the fugitive to the jail, they would pray with the fugitive at times to try to get him or her right with God.

The issue with Phil Robertson and also (I think) with Dog Chapman is a first amendment right to free speech.  Dog and his wife Beth are back on TV with another show on CMT. Phil should be back on TV as well and the sooner the better. We need more people like the Robertson's and the Chapman's, and less people like the Kardashian’s, to be on TV.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons license.

No comments:

Post a Comment