Comments about ‘Anti-gay comments by 'Duck Dynasty' patriarch fires up his religious, political defenders’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Dec. 20 2013 9:37 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Charles S
Freedomville, AZ

I challenge anyone, including the writer of this article AND the headline writer, to show any comment of Phil's that was "anti-gay".

The correct terminology is homosexual behavior.

Please actually READ what he said and then come prove his comments fit the headline of the article.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

I hope all the people on the less religious left remember this discussion when some leftist in Hollywood says or does something a large group doesn't like, and their life, career and reputation gets destroyed to pander to this group.

When this happens to someone you agree with and the religious-right or his employer destroys him... I want you to remember how you said "it's all fair and fine, it's not like they are throwing him in solitary for his comment".

---

I agree it's not a first amendment issue, but so many who defend A&E ending his show... are the same people who expressed OUTRAGE when Larry Miller wouldn't show Broke Back Mountain in his theater (it's his business, and completely a decision he has the right to make). But do you remember all the first amendment complaints from the gay community then??

I think what happened was OK in BOTH situations (it's A&E and Miller's right to decide). But be consistent. You can't complain about the Broke Back decision, and then have no censorship concerns when A&E does the same thing.

Contrariuser
mid-state, TN

@Tators --

"I'm quite certain the article did not mention the Dixie Chicks at all... not once. "

It also didn't mention:

the Tea Party (one vote and Redshirt)
Martin Bashir (Redshirt)
medical supply manufacturers (oragami)
sex ed in schools (pepino)
Miley Cyrus (David)
Dennis Rodman (Shaun)

or many other things.

So what??

These are discussion threads. Discussion happens.

"On the other hand, this article is about a person's moral beliefs"

You think the Dixie Chicks weren't expressing moral beliefs when they spoke out against Bush's policies?? Seriously??

As Reverend Nate Pyle said: "By no means am I advocating that you don’t say what you believe. But don’t get graphic with body parts and innuendos and slurs to make your point. Those have consequences."

Speech has consequences. Don't be surprised when negative speech has negative consequences.

bandersen
Saint George, UT

Tyler: Comparing single blend fabrics to destroying God's construct of family and eternal progression is hardly coherent. Common sense has been thrown out the door regarding biological truth, so any "myopoic obsession" criticism of Christianity regarding gay marriage is unfounded.

cougarsare1
Las Vegas, NV

Contrariuser - Did A&E fire Phil for using the names of body parts? Or did they fire him (indefinitely suspend) because he declared that homosexual acts is sexual sin?

Furthermore - Did Phil declare himself perfect and sinless? As a born-again Christian preacher, I dare say he recognizes himself as a sinner like the rest of us.

He was asked what he considered immoral. He said it. Declaring certain behavior or acts as immoral is "negative speech," apparently.

Ranch
Here, UT

@Charles S;

Comparing homosexuals to those who are into "bestiality" is certainly anti-gay.

Everyone should go take a look at Bagley's cartoon over at the Tribune. It's priceless!

Ranch
Here, UT

@Charles S;

Please google the article:

"Dear Phil Robertson, You Can't Group Homosexuality With Terrorism and Bestiality and Then Use the Bible as Your Defense"

by Michaelangelo Signorile

He explains it much better than I could and he has more than 200 words to explain it in.

Kalindra
Salt Lake City, Utah

@pepino

I do have a school age child and while teachers do use some of the words Phil used they do not use them in the same vile context sorry. As fro California again they do not utilize crude words and context to describe gay marriage or homosexuality and they do not teach anything I do not already teach my child.

Ranch
Here, UT

"Women with women. Men with men. They committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions. They're full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."

-- Phil R.

"But in 2013 it is still perfectly OK for people to publicly state that queer people are disordered, corrupt, evil beings. And if you call someone a homophobe for being a homophobe, suddenly you're the bigot.
...
Because while I love homophobes like Westboro for making my job easy, our real work is uncovering the wicked truth hiding beneath those who claim they love us while they bludgeon us with their Bibles."
--
Noah Michelson

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@Tekakaromatagi – “The Bible condemns a lot of things that Christians believe are immoral.”

I’m struggling to understand your point here – mine was, are you (or any religious person) following ALL of these prescriptions or do you pick & choose based on other non-religious criteria (like personal prejudice or disgust)?

And yes, if your “Good Book” says, for example, black people are cursed by God and thus inferior (either morally or in some larger sense), then yes, you are a bigot? Hiding your bigotry behind religion does not change that fact.

Re: GLAAD – being made to feel inferior and 2nd class has a funny way of bringing out the worst in people – not an excuse, just an explanation.

@bandersen – “Comparing single blend fabrics to destroying God's construct of family and eternal progression is hardly coherent.”

I completely agree!

I’ve been trying to comprehend the incoherence and moral relativism of the Bible for years and still can’t. Best I can tell “obey God” is about the only consistent commandment offered.

But that doesn’t stop believers from beating us over the head with their Bronze Age book…

cougarsare1
Las Vegas, NV

Ranch -

A) Please cite a source, otherwise it is a made-up quote.
B) Why didn't A&E fire Phil prior to this weeks' comments if these others were made previously?

UtahBruin
Saratoga Springs, UT

@Ranch

You say: "Comparing homosexuals to those who are into "bestiality" is certainly anti-gay."

When did he compare homosexuals to bestiality? He never did. You are listening to the media and not reading it for yourself. No where in his comments did he make this comparison. You are suppose to stop at periods. If not, everything can be taken out of context. He said that he believed homosexuality was a sin (Period), then he went on to name other things that he thought were sins, thus the bestiality comment came in.

Got to read first before declaring understanding, it is important.

Ranch
Here, UT

@cougarsare1;
Google: "Phil Robertson Homophobic Past Resurfaces In 2010 Sermon"

It's a video of him saying exactly what was quoted. You can read right along with him preaching.

You don't fire someone for past misdeeds after a contract is signed; but for continuing behavior...

aghast
SYRACUSE, UT

I have heard and read the comments and would have no problem if the DN had of used the language in this article, but likewise respect their choice not too. Prefacing this response to the article and the DN I will also write that I would feel the same way about Phil Robertson. His choice of language is suspect, but what to you expect from somebody who has gained celebrity status for standing up for what he believes in and being.... uh oh - I have no politically correct words here to describe Phil Robertson's character without offending his ancestors, neighbors, family and the like. It should be stated I heard or read nothing in the interview that I have not heard in a Sociology and Biology class in high school or college.

Well, being of above 50, born rural-american, white and somewhat backward I have just got to say - Show em what us rednecks are made of Bill and take the show to another network!!!!

patriot
Cedar Hills, UT

I find it quite ridiculous when someone quotes the Apostle Paul in the New Testament and we call that anti-gay. I guess there are also lots of anti-adulterers , anti-fornicators, anti-Muslim, anti-atheists and so on in the New Testament. The fact is, Jesus gave commandments and he didn't apologize in the sermon on the mount or any other platform where he spoke concerning who he might offend because of his commandments. Commandments in and of themselves imply a standard that must be met before entrance into heaven is allowed and those who "choose" to break those commandments will be judged accordingly by the giver of the commandments. Is that hurtful or offending somehow? I guess Christianity as a whole is offending because it is anti-sin. Someone is going to be offended when someone tells them their choice is wrong. The real question here is do we have to now parse scripture to make sure it doesn't offend someone or can we still feel free to quote from the bible without fearing a pink slip in the mail from the word police?

Charles S
Freedomville, AZ

Ranch says, "You don't fire someone for past misdeeds after a contract is signed; but for continuing behavior..." Go tell that to Paula Dean.

As I have said from the very beginning, no one here who is complaining has actually read what he said. He never compared homosexuality with bestiality. He didn't compare homosexuality with terrorists.

Let me be the first to break the news to the homosexual crowd --- just because I disagree with your behavior does not mean I hate you nor does it make me a homophobe, bigot, or whatever name you want to try to call me.

To Christians who actually read the Bible, homosexuality is a sin. If you do not believe in God, Jesus or the Bible then move on.

Society does not have to accept or condone the chosen behavior of homosexuality. On this issue, I stand with Christ and I also stand with Phil.

ps, no one has been able to show where Phil was "anti-gay" in his comments. Ya'll should trying reading his actual words, not just the headlines.

NeilT
Clearfield, UT

There is a chapter in Larry Millers auto-biography on how the Broke Back Mountain controversy was handled. Worth reading. (title is Driven) Larry met with critics and established a dialogue. I don't believe someone just decides to be homosexual. I am becoming convinced people to some degree are born that way. I still find same sexrelations abhorrent, however I find nothing is accomplished by hating people who are different. As President Uchdorf so eloquently said "don't judge me because I sin differently than you".

Eliyahu
Pleasant Grove, UT

@ Tators:
"Gay and Lesbians are constantly asking for tolerance, but seldom ever offer it to those they are usually addressing... those who perhaps disagree with them. It's actually quite hypocritical."

I'm not sure what you're asking of them. I've yet to hear any gays make anti-heterosexual comments or remarks, which is what "tolerance" in that direction would prevent. Or by tolerance, do you mean that they should be accepting of hatred directed toward them without complaint or dissent? The gay people I know are quite accepting of straight people, which is what one would want when asking for "tolerance." Tolerance doesn't mean that they have to be okay with people attacking them, treating them as inferiors or evil-doers, and wanting to run them out of town, or that they should suffer such attacks in silence without replying or complaining.

Tyler D
Meridian, ID

@ - “He said that he believed homosexuality was a sin (Period), then he went on to name other things that he thought were sins, thus the bestiality comment came in.”

I think tea party people are bad. (note the Period)

I also think Nazis, terrorists, slave traders, child molesters, and the Hussein family (former dictators of Iraq) are bad.

Now I’m not comparing tea party folks to child molesters… just listing things I think are bad.

Head shaking incredulity and sarcasm off…

@Eliyahu – “Or by tolerance, do you mean that they should be accepting of hatred directed toward them without complaint or dissent?

Great comment!

This word “tolerance” is strangely confusing to many people – used to be only liberals were confused by it but when conservatives began adopting the “we’re victims” (e.g., the war of Christmas) strategy too, they became just as confused.

Like somehow it syllogistically follows that tolerance means we must be tolerant of everything, including intolerance.

You explanation was helpful.

sharrona
layton, UT

RE: Tyler D,, Christians cannot ignore our Lord's commands that instruct us to make judgments. In John 7:24, Jesus said "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment ",Here we are clearly commanded to judge with righteous judgment. E,g..

ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool(James 2:3).

Jesus) Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them. .(Mt 7:19-20)

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments