Quest4Water
@Quest4Water
12 Years
Comments: 0 · Posts: 407 · Topics: 16
Duck Dynasty Debate
You are on page out of 2 | Reverse Order
Posted by Prince_Pisces
Yeah, apparently this is a big deal LOL! Last time I checked, they were just a bunch of dirty rednecks that lived out in the swamp. Not sure why anyones listening to them in the first place.
Because first of all, there is a thing in the US Constitution called the 1st amendment. If you are a US citizen, you have every right to express your opinion, whether you are a Christian, an Atheist, Straight or Gay, Male or Female.
Secondly, this country was founded upon Christian and Judeo principles. If you don't like it, you can always move to a more tolerant society as Iran, Saudi, Afghanistan or even Russia where gays are killed simply for being gay.
Thirdly, The Robertsons are not only good people, they built an empire on hard work, innovation and principle. I realize you don't share in their core values. That's fine. It's your choice.
Years ago, they removed God from the public educational system. When I say they removed God, I don't mean religion. I mean they gutted the system of teaching core values and moral accountability. Since then, we have seen how our culture has been debased.
Although everyone is afforded freedom of speech, in the past 15 years or so, there has been a media onslaught to attack anyone who espouses Christians values in this country. You may not believe this. That's fine. There are many examples. There is a double standard in this country.
Phil Robertson is suspended from his family show for only stating his personal beliefs, yet libs like John Podesta, a former Clinton aid, can refer to Conservatives as "Jonestown Cult", he gets a free pass. Christians are ridiculed on TV, in the movies, and in the press. It's allowed because of those with an agenda also control the majority of those venues.
Yet, how dare ONE person state his personal beliefs based on the Bible, and he should be destroyed. Where's the "TOLERANCE"? Oh yea, that's only afforded to NON Christians. It's about standing up for freedom of speech. When you allow a small percentage in the country to dictate what you can express, that is NOT freedom of speech. That is censorship. And the reality is that someone as you who doesn't understand the true message being sent in all of this, will be one of the first to cower when your freedom of speech is threatened.
Posted by gemini64Posted by Prince_Pisces
Yeah, apparently this is a big deal LOL! Last time I checked, they were just a bunch of dirty rednecks that lived out in the swamp. Not sure why anyones listening to them in the first place.click to expand
Because first of all, there is a thing in the US Constitution called the 1st amendment. If you are a US citizen, you have every right to express your opinion, whether you are a Christian, an Atheist, Straight or Gay, Male or Female.
Secondly, this country was founded upon Christian and Judeo principles. If you don't like it, you can always move to a more tolerant society as Iran, Saudi, Afghanistan or even Russia where gays are killed simply for being gay.
Thirdly, The Robertsons are not only good people, they built an empire on hard work, innovation and principle. I realize you don't share in their core values. That's fine. It's your choice.
Years ago, they removed God from the public educational system. When I say they removed God, I don't mean religion. I mean they gutted the system of teaching core values and moral accountability. Since then, we have seen how our culture has been debased.
Although everyone is afforded freedom of speech, in the past 15 years or so, there has been a media onslaught to attack anyone who espouses Christians values in this country. You may not believe this. That's fine. There are many examples. There is a double standard in this country.
Phil Robertson is suspended from his family show for only stating his personal beliefs, yet libs like John Podesta, a former Clinton aid, can refer to Conservatives as "Jonestown Cult", he gets a free pass. Christians are ridiculed on TV, in the movies, and in the press. It's allowed because of those with an agenda also control the majority of those venues.
Yet, how dare ONE person state his personal beliefs based on the Bible, and he should be destroyed. Where's the "TOLERANCE"? Oh yea, that's only afforded to NON Christians. It's about standing up for freedom of speech. When you allow a small percentage in the country to dictate what you can express, that is NOT freedom of speech. That is censorship. And the reality is that someone as you who doesn't understand the true message being sent in all of this, will be one of the first to cower when your freedom of speech is
^^ Nailed it. Very well said.
(Sorry for 2 posts. PITA from phone)
(Sorry for 2 posts. PITA from phone)
Saying that employers have every right to ban/fire people for their speech effectively removes the first amendment. The vast majority of Americans are employed, so should every employed citizen be subject to this same treatment? IE, some cashier getting fired from Walmart because of some personal opinions she posted on Facebook? Really? Let's just scrap the first amendment if that's the case.
Just to be clear, I don't really have a dog in this fight. I'm not christian and have no ill feelings towards gay folks. Gay marriage? No problem from my POV.
This *IS* a point of interest to me because I don't think Phil actually maligned the gay community. His opinions were brought forth from a question, and they are religiously based. To me, those elements are crux. That said, if some christian person ran around talking about gays going to hell, I would not even be considering this.
This *IS* a point of interest to me because I don't think Phil actually maligned the gay community. His opinions were brought forth from a question, and they are religiously based. To me, those elements are crux. That said, if some christian person ran around talking about gays going to hell, I would not even be considering this.
Posted by seraph
I'll reply to this at length once my headache is gone. Might be tomorrow sometime.
But in the meantime, the answer couldn't be simpler: if the network does nothing, they condone homophobia. If they do something, they send a message that's it's unacceptable.
The 1st Amendment is noble in its intent, but absolutely abysmal (too often to ignore) in its execution and invocation. It is regularly trotted out as a means to justify bigotry under the "freedom of expression" war-cry, and people are led to assume that it gives them a license to say whatever the hell they want without repercussion.
The rigidity of Constitutional Amendments (particualry the 1st), means that it is extremely difficult to devise just and reasonable exceptions to them, or at least methods of remedy that don't run afoul of it somehow. But they all do, unfortunately. This is the reason your Supreme Court can't bring itself to catch up with other modern democracies in the area of Hate Speech laws.
Simply put, your 1st Amendment rights don't give you a license to abuse them. Good on the network for doing the right thing. And from a purely pragmatic point of view, it's their show to begin with and they can determine the content and message as they please.
I 100% agree with you, but what happens when a person says: "based on the bible, homosexual is immoral" vs "them damn gays are gonna swim in a lake of fire!"
Shouldn't there be a distinction made here?
100% agree-as in people do try to abuse the first amendment. The first amendment is there to protect the opposing or unpopular opinion, not to slander the 'other.'
Posted by RabbitPosted by Quest4Water
Saying that employers have every right to ban/fire people for their speech effectively removes the first amendment. The vast majority of Americans are employed, so should every employed citizen be subject to this same treatment? IE, some cashier getting fired from Walmart because of some personal opinions she posted on Facebook? Really? Let's just scrap the first amendment if that's the case.
If you've signed any document as a condition of your employment that states you are to act/speak/represent your employer in a manner consistent with the employers values, and you violate that agreement, then yes.
Don't like it? Don't sign away your right to free speech in exchange for money.click to expand
But wouldn't it be simpler and more cost-effective for the employer to state that 'John' does not represent our company's views instead of responding to an emotional back lash?
Scribble, I'm not intentionally ignoring you, but you're not actually rebutting anything. You're just posting more of your personal thoughts and I don't know how to respond to that. Like I said, I'm pretty much split on the issue.
Posted by Rabbit
It's a harsh reality...but having an employee with controversial views is an extreme liability these days for some companies. Social media has given the average joe the ability to turn molehills into mountains.
But again, and this is to you and Seraph, how do you define which is more important, someone's sexuality vs someone's religious tenets. They are both highly personal and very individual-often volatile in said defense. Indeed, it can and will make mountains of molehills but should that cost peoples their careers or worse?
Posted by seraphPosted by Quest4Water
But again, and this is to you and Seraph, how do you define which is more important, someone's sexuality vs someone's religious tenets. They are both highly personal and very individual-often volatile in said defense. Indeed, it can and will make mountains of molehills but should that cost peoples their careers or worse?
If religious tenets teach and promote hate, then they fall under the "abuse" category (and are thus open to remedies, accordingly) and need to be used with greater care and mindfulness.click to expand
I guess what I'm asking, "the bible says homosexuality is immoral" vs "them damn gays will make a fire swim!" I believe the latter statement is hate, and the former is expressing a belief. I think Phil's statement was more along the lines of the former. It's what makes this interesting to me.
Posted by size zero superheroPosted by Quest4WaterPosted by Rabbit
It's a harsh reality...but having an employee with controversial views is an extreme liability these days for some companies. Social media has given the average joe the ability to turn molehills into mountains.
But again, and this is to you and Seraph, how do you define which is more important, someone's sexuality vs someone's religious tenets. They are both highly personal and very individual-often volatile in said defense. Indeed, it can and will make mountains of molehills but should that cost peoples their careers or worse?
Sexual preferences are not consciously predetermined, whereas religion & which particular components of faith are emphasized is 100% choice.
Then, there's the issue of how one chooses to incorporate these beliefs--he's free to think this way & apply these standards to his personal life--but that's not enough.
He had to condemn gay people, and wonder out loud, how "a man's anus could take the place of vagina", going on to explain that he feels God & Jesus specifically banned such deviance.click to expand
I agree with your point that he went too far, but I don't think it was nearly as extreme as some statements we've all read/heard. I daresay that was more jest than hate. I disagree on the predetermined point though, because as far as I know, homosexuality hasn't been explained/proven, empirically yet. To me, it makes sense that some folks may be gay naturally, but that personal thought is not really irrelevant.
relevant*
What does his appearance have to do w/ anything? There are many metrosexuals that hold similar beliefs I think.
Should he have been banned? YES. He violated the morality clause in his contract. Anybody who violates that clause voids out their contract. These contracts are legally binding. He shouldn't get any special treatment.
This isn't about his freedom of speech. Freedom of speech may keep you OUT of jail but it doesn't keep you IN your contracts.
This man had full knowledge of that clause in his contract, signed it & violated it anyway. He's allowed to have his own opinions on things but when the network warned him about publicly sharing potentially offensive views, he signed a contract swearing that he wouldn't violate its conditions, but did anyway.
What are we really fighting for?! For people to be able to still get benefits even though they've violated a contract they signed?! That'll never happen! This argument is plain silly. This guy is not above the law. He doesn't deserve special treatment.
These high profile celebrities are briefed on these things & their consequences from the beginning. No excuses.
This isn't about his freedom of speech. Freedom of speech may keep you OUT of jail but it doesn't keep you IN your contracts.
This man had full knowledge of that clause in his contract, signed it & violated it anyway. He's allowed to have his own opinions on things but when the network warned him about publicly sharing potentially offensive views, he signed a contract swearing that he wouldn't violate its conditions, but did anyway.
What are we really fighting for?! For people to be able to still get benefits even though they've violated a contract they signed?! That'll never happen! This argument is plain silly. This guy is not above the law. He doesn't deserve special treatment.
These high profile celebrities are briefed on these things & their consequences from the beginning. No excuses.
I don't think it's 'plain silly' based on the feedback this event has stirred. And, what law are you specifically referencing?
This is absolutely silly! He was briefed on the morality clause in his contract. He violated that morality contract. Millions of people are offended & threatening to boycott the network. Next step: The contract is now void! When people violate morality clauses in their contracts, they are not subject to criminal punishment b/c of the free speech amendment, but legally it is permissible for the contract holder to terminate all benefits. Come on guys this isn't rocket science!
DISCLAIMER: TO EACH HIS OR HER OWN - don't care what people do with their genitals or life
With that said.....How many of you followed ALL of the links to the exact OPINION of this man? (I see a couple have)
Hey Seraph..You calling this man a Homophobe makes you a bigot & prejudiced!! You clearly did not read that this is HIS opinion, and that opinion is from his religious belief and personal preference. This would group and classify you with the homophobes for knocking this man down for his right to religion, his religious beliefs and right to freedom of speech/opinion.
These are the comments he made, which INCLUDED all sexual behavior!!!!! (but you didn't read, as always you just assumed)
"A lot can happen in 24 hours. Exhibit A: On Wednesday, GQ released some rather blunt remarks Phil Robertson made on the topic of homosexuality. When asked about his definition of sin, the reality star said, "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."
Less than two hours later, as news of these remarks spread like wildfire, prompting the "Duck Dynasty" star to clarify his statements.
"I myself am a product of the '60s; I centered my life around sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll until I hit rock bottom and accepted Jesus as my Savior," he said in a statement issued by A&E on Wednesday. "My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and 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 of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other."
"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," he warned. "Don't deceive yourself. It's not right."
What's more, according to him, it's basically incomprehensible. "It seems to me, a vagina — as a man — would be more desirable than a man's anus," he explained. "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."
Hey Seraph..You calling this man a Homophobe makes you a bigot & prejudiced!! You clearly did not read that this is HIS opinion, and that opinion is from his religious belief and personal preference. This would group and classify you with the homophobes for knocking this man down for his right to religion, his religious beliefs and right to freedom of speech/opinion.
These are the comments he made, which INCLUDED all sexual behavior!!!!! (but you didn't read, as always you just assumed)
"A lot can happen in 24 hours. Exhibit A: On Wednesday, GQ released some rather blunt remarks Phil Robertson made on the topic of homosexuality. When asked about his definition of sin, the reality star said, "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."
Less than two hours later, as news of these remarks spread like wildfire, prompting the "Duck Dynasty" star to clarify his statements.
"I myself am a product of the '60s; I centered my life around sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll until I hit rock bottom and accepted Jesus as my Savior," he said in a statement issued by A&E on Wednesday. "My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and 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 of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other."
"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," he warned. "Don't deceive yourself. It's not right."
What's more, according to him, it's basically incomprehensible. "It seems to me, a vagina — as a man — would be more desirable than a man's anus," he explained. "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."
Not ONCE did this man knock anyone, not ONCE did he come across anywhere near a homophobe. He simply stated what his beliefs and opinions are.
Those that knock this man IN MY OPINION are fucking bigots and prejudiced against religion, and makes you no better than the homophobes.
People like you are no better than the instigating media. Freedom of Speech is a RIGHT. Get that through your thick skulls.
Those that knock this man IN MY OPINION are fucking bigots and prejudiced against religion, and makes you no better than the homophobes.
People like you are no better than the instigating media. Freedom of Speech is a RIGHT. Get that through your thick skulls.
Posted by Rabbit
FYI...he also said in the same interview that blacks in Louisiana were "happier before civil rights".
Don't pull a Seraph, and make this about Racism please. What this man said about sexuality does not make him a homophobe.
I for one AGREE that sexuality today is out of line. ALL OF IT.
People of all skin color have sex. Start another thread about racism.
He also said this in the same article:
"As far as Phil is concerned, he was literally born again. Old Phil—the guy with the booze and the pills—died a long time ago, and New Phil sees no need to apologize for him: —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—
Read More http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson#ixzz2o1GT3QNq<BR>
I don't agree with his statements but I find it odd that he was suspended because-
Anyone who has ever watched even one episode of this show will tell you that the Robertsons are a very conservative Christian family, and Phil, in particular has a lot of ideas and makes comments that would be considered outrageous by a lot of liberal people. I think that's part of the appeal , though, the fact that they are who they are and they make no apologies for it.
"As far as Phil is concerned, he was literally born again. Old Phil—the guy with the booze and the pills—died a long time ago, and New Phil sees no need to apologize for him: —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—
Read More http://www.gq.com/entertainment/television/201401/duck-dynasty-phil-robertson#ixzz2o1GT3QNq<BR>
I don't agree with his statements but I find it odd that he was suspended because-
Anyone who has ever watched even one episode of this show will tell you that the Robertsons are a very conservative Christian family, and Phil, in particular has a lot of ideas and makes comments that would be considered outrageous by a lot of liberal people. I think that's part of the appeal , though, the fact that they are who they are and they make no apologies for it.
What does skin color have to do with sexual preference? Are you making that a double standard? I'm not!
Oh ok...so we are going to go off topic now about why this man was fired. Well that makes A & E a bunch of assinine hypocrites, because if everything man has said in the social media is going to be dug up on him after the fact, why didn't A&E do that before they hired him?
Posted by Rabbit
My view is this...I personally don't give two shits about his beliefs. They're his, not mine and he's entitled to them.
But A&E had the right as a private entity to suspend him if he violated terms of his contract by making those remarks in the interview.
That's just the way things work these days especially with media hyper saturation.
Understood and you are correct. A contract is legal and binding.
However the assholes here that call him a homophobe based off of why he got fired are completely OUT OF LINE.
I also bet there's a lawyer out there that will take that contract on behalf of this man, go through it completely and find issue with it. I don't care what legal contract is out there, none supersedes the constitutional right to FREEDOM OF SPEECH. That's just the way it is.
Posted by Rabbit
My view is this...I personally don't give two shits about his beliefs. They're his, not mine and he's entitled to them.
But A&E had the right as a private entity to suspend him if he violated terms of his contract by making those remarks in the interview.
That's just the way things work these days especially with media hyper saturation.
Totally agree.
It just doesn't seem to make sense to me for them to punish the guy for being who he is; who is exactly the same person you see on the show, and who is making your network a ton of money. In the article, Phil does say that he is often censored in the show- many of his comments don't make the cut. That is because they are outrageous by a lot of people's standards.
A&E, GQ, and everyone in America knew before this article (or could guess) what his viewpoint would be on this topic, based on the fact that he is a conservative Christian, and based on remarks that he makes on a daily basis, on and off the show.
He didn't knock ANYONE down, he shared his personal beliefs. His right to freedom of religion is being violated, and he's being punished for it. No different than a bunch of homophobes beating down a gay man.
Posted by Rabbit
Well, you're right.
If you hire someone from rural Louisiana, don't be surprised when they have the beliefs of someone from rural Louisiana.
They are ENTITLED to their beliefs, just as a gay man is entitled to his sexual preference!
Posted by Rabbit
Paula Deen is another one...
If you hire an older lady from the south, and you find out later she (gasp) acts like an older lady from the south....who's fault is that?
What were her comments compared to this man sharing his opinion and beliefs. Nevermind I'll google it.
Doesn't matter, the constitution and law prevailed here too:
Paula Deen Race Discrimination Case Thrown Out By Federal Judge
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/paula-deen-racist-comments-judge-throws-race-discrimination-19944913
Paula Deen Race Discrimination Case Thrown Out By Federal Judge
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/paula-deen-racist-comments-judge-throws-race-discrimination-19944913
Posted by Rabbit
That's because quite a few people in this country are more concerned with what other people are doing/thinking/saying than what they themselves are doing/thinking/saying
Yes^^^better known as the "THOUGHT POLICE"😢
Posted by seraph
Incorrect. If he signed a morality clause then he has no legal recourse under the First Amendment. The network owns him in his capacity as talent/actor and can dismiss him based on his violating what he agreed to not violate.
No one violated his right to free speech. He exercised it. And A&E exercised their rights as an employer.
Simple simple, folks.
Oh no you don't *princess*...don't spin this to the legal contract. You outright called him a homophobe because you didn't READ. Now you are doing what you do best, and detracting..AGAIN.
Posted by seraph
But in the meantime, the answer couldn't be simpler: if the network does nothing, they condone homophobia.click to expand
THIS IS A NO SPIN ZONE
Posted by seraph
The fact of the matter is that if you think you can't or will not be held accountable for what you say in life, you're in for a a rude (and quite justified) awakening.
....and this is the part where I shove the United States Constitution straight up your Canadian ass!
Posted by seraph
And yes, he *is* a homophobe, and apparently the network thinks so, too.
WRONG AGAIN *PRINCESS*
ho??mo??pho??bi??a (hm-fb-)
n.
1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
2. Behavior based on such a feeling.
ho??mo??phobe
/??ho?_m—?fo?_b/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-fohb] Show IPA
noun
a person who fears or hates homosexuals and homosexuality.
Your Canadian dictionary must be different eh? This man spoke of no fear, in fact he should be commended for having the courage to share HIS feelings and opinions. His behavior was not homophobe, and in fact he says he LOVES all mankind. How many more holes you want shot up into your SPIN Seraph?
Posted by seraph
Ignorance under the mantle of religion is no excuse. Piggybacking bigotry on religion is a common tactic. And it's gratifying to see that there are at least *some* mechanisms out there (in this case a sense of moral responsibility on the part of a network) that can address this.
So I call you out on the definition of "HOMOPHOBE", and you want to SPIN it to religion now.😢
"Piggybacking bigotry on religion" would be the weak liberal's trying be the THOUGHT POLICE. I'd bet my house if this guy took this to court he'd WIN HANDS DOWN..just like Ms. Deen did.
The Constitution is the shot gun for those who try to infiltrate it. You just remember that.😉
How's your liberal Mayor doing over there? I saw the latest on that circus you live in, and it doesn't surprise me that the influence of this jackass overflows onto it's residents and the shit you spew in dxp smh:
Posted by seraph
I have no idea what one has to do with the other.
At this point it's obvious that you've taken leave of your senses. Again.
Translation: Seraph was called out on the carpet & the spin machine and the only thing left to say is BULLSHIT.
Typical..
Posted by Rabbit
That's because quite a few people in this country are more concerned with what other people are doing/thinking/saying than what they themselves are doing/thinking/sayingclick to expand
^^^^There's the money quote right there.
Posted by Prince_Pisces
Yeah, apparently this is a big deal LOL! Last time I checked, they were just a bunch of dirty rednecks that lived out in the swamp. Not sure why anyones listening to them in the first place.
It's always humorous to see the double-standards of homosexuals on full display.
They can speak in condescending ways and call others names such as "rednecks."
But if one calls them "faggots," well...
That's simply not allowed, now is it?
Homosexuals tend to consistently be hypocrites.
Posted by seraphPosted by LetltBPosted by seraph
And yes, he *is* a homophobe, and apparently the network thinks so, too.
WRONG AGAIN *PRINCESS*
ho??mo??pho??bi??a (hm-fb-)
n.
1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.
2. Behavior based on such a feeling.
ho??mo??phobe
/??ho?_m—?fo?_b/ Show Spelled [hoh-muh-fohb] Show IPA
noun
a person who fears or hates homosexuals and homosexuality.
Your Canadian dictionary must be different eh? This man spoke of no fear, in fact he should be commended for having the courage to share HIS feelings and opinions. His behavior was not homophobe, and in fact he says he LOVES all mankind. How many more holes you want shot up into your SPIN Seraph?
Ignorance under the mantle of religion is no excuse. Piggybacking bigotry on religion is a common tactic. And it's gratifying to see that there are at least *some* mechanisms out there (in this case a sense of moral responsibility on the part of a network) that can address this.click to expand
Dickbreath,
It's not a fear, you ignorant asshole.
Fear is when you see a spider, and run the other direction.
Fear is when you hear gunfire, and run the other direction.
There is no such thing as "fear of homosexuals."
Normal people who don't like homosexuals and their agenda tend to do so for variety of justifiable reasons.
1.) The homosexual disease ratio is enormous, and certainly more prevalent than normal people. I have cited CDC data multiple times on this website indicating the truth about it.
2.) Homosexuality is a mental illness that is on par with schizophrenia and kleptomania. Whether or not these people are born mentally dysfunctional or become that way based on environment, does not matter. There is indeed something very wrong with them, and it's our right to speak up about it.
3.) Homosexuality is killing queers off left and right. Even as I type this, the homo men in California are getting something at random from some new unknown disease that scientists cannot even diagnose yet.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/08/09/us-californian-doctor-diagnoses-gay-patient-with-chronic-homosexual-disease/<BR>
Posted by seraph
I think it's rather that I realize that I can't argue with crazy.
You're at that point again where you just end up having a conversation with yourself.
Don't they refer to themselves as rednecks?
Posted by AriesIntrovert16
Don't they refer to themselves as rednecks?
PrincePisces used the word "redneck" in a derogatory manner to describe the people on the show.
Of note is that he and other homosexuals cannot stand being called "faggots."
Like I said, hypocrisy and homosexuality go hand in hand, as is the case with most other mentally ill people.
Posted by Rabbit
The more and more I think about it, the more this whole situation smells like cat shit.
A&E is loving the publicity they are getting.
They may like it even better if the family decides to not do the show for A&E anymore, as the family has been implying.
Posted by Rabbit
And their time is almost up anyways.
When you get a Chia Pet made out of you...you've pretty much jumped the shark.
Yeah, I suspect the show has pretty much run its course.
All the franchise stuff alone has made the family and A&E a lot of money.
A Canadian who thinks he can spin Americans into thinking he's right.
Crack must be really good up there.
Crack must be really good up there.
...And now the board becomes a spam session wherein Dickbreath tells everyone that they cannot speak up about ANYTHING he disagrees with lest he brand us all as "hate speech and violence."
I swear, Dickbreath has no sense of reality.
I swear, Dickbreath has no sense of reality.
Posted by Arietteheart
Why are people so fucking confused about freedom of speech? It doesn't protect you from being criticized, suspended or fired...it only protects you from being arrested.
Yep, this. Exactly.
Join the Conversation. Explore Yourself. Connect with Others.
Discover insights, swap stories, and find people. dxpnet is where experiences turn into understanding.
Create Your Free Account →Related Topics
So, I was given a ride home the other night from a bar I frequent by a bartender at another bar I frequent. The bartende
Cheese porn.
Share your stories of how privilege has benefited you.
I've been reading a lot about it and I'm curious if there are any other people feeling that are this way. I'm definitely
first post
Do people in your life know about dxpnet? Partners, friends, family? My Aries bf constantly teases me so you're on t
Has anyone heard of this new little trend? I was readying in I believe the Huffington post; of a guy that did this w
I live in Colorado. There was another shooting today. No it's not a dangerous place. BUT LETS BLAME GUNS! And than
Apologies.
What if in every dimension on earth; there was another vessel exactly like your own. The thing that keeps you connected
you people would not make a pimple on there asses HUM MAYBE I COULD GET A 3 SOME GOING OUT OF THIS
Nurture; Nature and Astrology Going to keep this simple, Nurture- our upbringing( values, morals, religion and
seeing that a lot of you need one, i don't charge much and for you ladies its free for the first hour but after that its
HAS ANYONE HERE SEEN MY OLD FRIEND BLING CAN YOU TELL ME WHERE HE;S GONE HE SUFFERD A LOT OF HEART ACHE AND PAIN THE
Is it fair to your child or not? What are your experiences?
HOW BAD DO YOU HAVE TO BE TO GET BANED? I KNOW SHABOOM GOT BAND BUT I DO NOT REMEMBER WHY
Share the best christmas gift you received from a significant other. Mine: Diamond earrings last christmas
Hope you are having a perfect day bri! Love ya Bawse —
Let's talk about it. I'm on a high protein diet. I'm getting improvements. My only prob is that I feel dizzy and my head
Link here: http://tv.yahoo.com/blogs/tv-news/-duck-dynasty--drama--controversy-continues-to-build-over-phil-robertson-s-homosexuality-remarks-180934306.html<BR>
I normally entirely disagree with people commenting on sexuality, but I'm not quite sure if the disagreement is based on a religious belief. I would have a different opinion if Phil volunteered his thoughts, but because it was done during an interview I think that changes things.
Thoughts?