‘Duck Dynasty’ Defenders: Have You Committed the Sin of Gluttony? (Opinion)

'Duck Dynasty' Defenders: Have You Committed the Sin of Gluttony? (Opinion)

As you sit down to Christmas dinner, consider that the Bible says more about gluttony than homosexuality

Writing about “Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson's anti-gay views, I've received many messages this week from people telling me what a sin homosexuality is.

I've read that gays are defiling their bodies, that they want to indoctrinate kids, and that God is punishing them.

If these sound like your beliefs, a question: Are you overweight?

Also read: ‘Duck Dynasty': Twitter Apologizes for ‘Mistakenly’ Blocking IStandWithPhil.com

No offense, but some of you probably are. A third of American adults are obese. And almost all of the fattest states are in the Bible Belt.

That's interesting, because the Bible contains about three times more exhortations against gluttony than against homosexuality.

“Be not among drunkards or among gluttonous eaters of meat,” says Proverbs. “And put a knife to your throat if you are given to appetite.”

Also read: ‘Duck Dynasty’ Pastor Says Phil Robertson Knows Gays: ‘We've Had People… That Struggle With That Sin’

If gluttony is a sin, and prayer is the answer, it seems strange that the most religious part of the country is also the most obese. It makes me wonder how people are supposed to pray away the gay when so many Americans can't pray away fat.

Religious leaders hardly ever speak out against obesity the way they do against homosexuality. Maybe they don't want to insult one-third of their congregants. It's easier to pick on gays, a group estimated to make up 10 percent or less of the population.

Also read: With ‘Duck Dynasty’ Censorship, Twitter Does More Harm Than Phil Robertson (Opinion)

Or maybe conservative Christians take it easy on those who have committed the sin of gluttony because they're exercising basic kindness, or understanding, or empathy. Good for them.

I wonder if they might extend that compassion.

Can I get personal a minute? When I was a kid, I was indoctrinated into a world of sin. A mysterious cabal – one that spent $4.6 billion last year trying to recruit people like you and me – lured me into the temptations of fatty foods.

Being fat was embarrassing and isolating. It was painful to know that no matter what I said or did, or how good a day I was having, someone could make me feel like less of a person by pointing out how fat I was.

Why were other kids picking on me, I wondered. I wasn't hurting anyone else. I wasn't telling anyone else what to do. I wasn't doing anything but being myself.

If fat kids have it hard, I'll bet gay kids have it a lot harder. At least fat kids don't have to worry about their church or elected leaders telling them they're sinners. In fact, when I went to church, we had cookies and juice and sometimes ice cream afterwards. And there was a bakery next door.

Some people have written to say God is using AIDS to punish gay people. Huh. If you truly believe in a Joffrey God who punishes people with physical ailments, what do you make of the fact that obesity is a leading cause of preventable death in our country?

The Bible says gluttony is a sin, after all, and gluttony leads to obesity, and obesity leads to preventable death. So when someone dies of a heart attack, is God punishing him for eating too many nachos?

Probably not.

As any overweight person knows, there's a big genetic component to obesity. If God made us in his image, he made some people in a way that makes it hard for them to lose weight. They're born this way.

And we shouldn't cast stones at people because of how they're born, right?

Merry Christmas.

  • DD

    You obviously missed the part where he named tons of other sins in the Bible verse he quoted. He never said he didn't sin and neither did we. Ya'll are just picking up on that one thing and running with it to push buttons. Merry Christmas.

    • tim.molloy

      Merry Christmas. Obviously no one takes issue with him being against terrorists. The gay stuff is what's controversial. Anyway, thanks for reading and enjoy your holiday!

    • Ak

      …and you obviously missed the point of the article, which is not arguing against Phil Robertson's interview but rather the bible-thumpers who are defending him in a hypocritical way.

    • Meh Dynasty

      Their God teaches them to hate. Very sad for humanity.

      • Bishop-Debra Parke Schmidt

        Our God never teaches hate. He tells us how certain sins affect mankind. He does not tell us to go kill or begin holy wars. Get your religions right. Plus if you knew what you were taking about you would know that religious christians are not true christians. it is all about relationship.

        • Actions Speak Louder

          So, writing off hundreds of millions of people as “sinners” for something that's perfectly natural is an example of . . . what? Your god's love?

        • Timothy

          Man people really don't read the whole bible . “Bishop” of not; It's not just the New Testament statement which “Paul” said was of God; But the Old Testament in which Jesus honored and said His “GOD/Father” upheld. Which His Father's Yahshua aka Jehovah approved. Paul was an evangelist and a self appointed Apostle-This should give anyone plause. Remeber “there is a time and place for anything
          Ecclesiastes 3:1-8; Did people forget this? Romans 12:9; Psalm 97:10; Psalm 36:4; Proverbs 8:13; Amos 5:15 et……..

  • Bill


  • hupto

    Since the Bible also says that eating meat and dairy together is a sin, I'm afraid all those pizzas and cheeseburgers have condemned the Robertsons to be roasting in Hell along with the rest of us. Happy New Year!

    • Osiris Munir

      Sometimes we should learn to use our inner voice not all of our most personal thoughts need or have to be shared with an entire globe. There is a Japanese quote which states,” fortune comes from ones mind, misfortune comes from one's mouth”.

    • RevealHim

      Seriously, pick up a new living translation (written in our tongue) not 16th century and enjoy the read. Study and show yourself approved, In the New Covenant food type becomes a choice but we should not look down upon others who do or do not eat meat. Choice. Hupto, you do not have to roast in hell, accept God's forgiveness through His Gift to all, Jesus Christ, He paid our sin debt. Honor him by living right and continue to struggle to do good. It won't be easy, you will screw up just like me, but Christ forgives all who call on His name. Merry Christmas.

      • dave

        OK, gluttony is a sin and we as Americans are doing things about it, like lap band surgery, diet groups against overweight, Weightwatchers, etc., etc., etc., so now lets start surgical fights, groups against, and “gaywatchers” to help people fight the fight against homosexuals.

    • guest

      That is in the OT and God said that all is good for food after that, which you might know if you actually read instead of picking out a quote to go with your opinion.

      • For Pete's Sake

        You mean like the quotes from Leviticus (in the OT, as you say) calling homosexuality a sin, while ignoring the gay-positive passages like the parable of the Roman soldier? Is that the sort of thing you mean about picking quotes from The Bible to support a self-serving opinion?

    • GAIL loves the word of God

      Sorry that your statement is incorrect above, but good try. Jesus himself said, It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles the man but what comes out of it. Thanks for the attempt to teach the word though.

  • Bernadette

    Skinny people can be gluttons. Bulemics are gluttons practically by definition. The problem is, no one is saying that gluttony is a virtue, on par with balanced eating and having self-restraint. That's the difference. Something you miss when you attempt to draw your little parallel.

    • Not Quite

      Shrewd cookie.

      Except your rebuke falls apart over the fact that no one ever claimed that being gay is a virtue. No more than being straight is a virtue. It's just a thing that is, like eye color and skin tone.

      You thumpers are the ones that try to make it out to be something it's not. You'd ought to have a little more care with throwing that word “sin” around.

  • stuart W

    Changing the subject doesn't alter the equation. Your labeling of Robertson's speech as “stupid” remains the issue and obviously 24 hours has found you no more enlightened; the while penning an argument better fit for a Health & Fitness mag than Showbiz” By your lights we'd best be concerned which kids in our society have/had it worse; gay or fat? Doubtless this an issue absorbing mankind since inception. You chose “gay” and I'll choose “fat” the latter being a bit more difficult to conceal. That as they say “is what makes horse racing”, but hardly serious argument.

    Thanks the Christmas greeting, back at you and a New Year filled with health, luck, love and laughter (T.R.) to you and yours.

  • Sharon Fowler

    for pete's sake, it's christmas, drop it why don't ya, go do something that makes you feel good instead of the constant bashing, huh?

    • Gay Bash at Christmas

      You're talking to Phil, right?

  • Christopher Fuentes

    Hi, I want to encourage you that many believers do take this stance, and I want to affirm this stance. Every sin keeps us from God but no sin cannot be overcome by His grace. No one should be picked on or left out, of made to feel like they aren't trying hard enough, or that they are just making up how internal it feels to how God made them. It is hard to describe, but I think we all hope that following Christ will make us better – I don't think becoming permissive is the goal, but neither should be judgement or exclusion. Merry Christmas.

    • Name


    • StefJam

      1) Permissive of what? Wanton consumerism? Warmongering? Not doing onto others…, etc? Many things are arguably “sins”, many of which are openly permitted (even advocated by) many Christians and their churches.

      2) I presume from your missive that you must strongly disagree with what Phil Robertson did, right? He was very judgemental AND exclusionary.

      Frankly, I think if JC were to come today he would be very disappointed with the state of Christian belief and the Christian Church. I also think many atheists would be more likely to win his favour than many so called Christians.

      Happy Holidays.

  • Name

    If you don't want to know the truth about what others opinions and thoughts are on selective subjects then DON'T ASK!!!!! GQ asked Phil what his thoughts on the subject was and he answered them in his honest opinion. Seems to me in my opinion the GQ set him up for scandal. Sounds like a bunch of self centered whiney crybabies that need to get a life.

  • dickybird

    Could it be that obesity comes not from overeating, but a poor, unhealthy diet? If your parents are big people, chances are you will be, too. Bone size and structure have a lot to do with it. I am 5' 10” and my family physician says I can easily carry 240 to 250 lbs, but all the charts say I am obese. Go figure. At 76 I've outlived a lot of those who write those charts.

  • DoobieDooer

    When you cherry pick the bible, you can be as self righteous as you want while completely ignoring your own faults and everything else it says, like not building your fortunes on earth, and the one about whores having a better chance of getting into heaven than rich people. It's time to grow up, let go of your imaginary friends and join the rest of the world on a human level as opposed to holding onto an ancient twisted ideology where every body is your enemy because you are kept in a state of fear and paranoia. His whole remark actually goes against the bible but I highly doubt the Duck Dynasty guys have ever read anything short of a Donald Duck comic.

    • Exetarian

      Maybe it's time for you to grow up and accept that people you disagree with have the same rights as you. Imaginary friends? Prove it. You preach tolerance while showing unbelievable venom and intolerance for people of faith. “Twisted ideology”? Agree to disagree. Because you're hardly one to be throwing stones.

      • LT

        Your god is imaginary. The magical aspect of your myth is the first clue.

        • Exetarian

          Be kind if you want others to be kind to you. Go into the world and do some good. It's Christmas. Don't be a jerk.

          • Irony

            Except to homos. It's okay to be a jerk to homos. The Bible says so.

    • Bishop-Debra Parke Schmidt

      And your an idiot. Phil has a Masters Degree in Education and he is a well educated man. But oh no he has a beard, that must mean he is ignorant.


        Is he educated enough to know the correct usage of the contraction “you're,” so as not to make the mistake of using the possessive modifier “your” in its place?

  • anotherdave

    No one in an interview or short statement can cover the complicated details of sin. They can only offend those who don't know enough to understand what they mean, or see that “acceptance” does not also mean agreement. All sin has it's consequences. Some of them may lead to physical death but all of them lead to spiritual death. Most Christians don't even recognize them. Every day I find new things in my life that are sin and must work to change them and pray for forgiveness. Humility is not a sin, but prideful piety is. There is way too much of that, maybe even in this comment.

    • Bible Says

      Also, women should be stoned to death for menstruating in public.

      Don't forget that bit.

  • Derrick

    I have been a Christian all my life and have also ranted and raved at others about their being obese. I realize it talks about it in the bible and so do all Christians that actually take the time to read and understand their bibles daily. Along with all the other sins that it speaks that distances us from God more and more as we commit them. That is why Jesus was in the world to die for all our sins and give us the most important commandment, “To love others as you love yourself and do to your neighbor as you would have them do unto you.” I think if we all remembered this especially the night before Christmas it would solve all our problems.

    • Pin a Rose on Your Nose

      So you're neither fat or gay? Congratulations! You win at life.

      Please exit thru the Gift Shop. Pick up the keys to Heaven on your way out.

  • Richard Travis

    if you didn't have this agenda you wouldn't have a job at all…….your going to reap what your sowing here, Mr. Molloy.

  • brando

    Wonderful article, it perfectly illustrates the hypocrisy of most Christians. But the bigger point is that in our American society, someone's religious beliefs are irrelevant. Our government is not a theocracy and our society is not theocratic in nature, we live in accordance with a secular government and in a secular society. We have agreed to live together in harmony based on a system of laws, and your religious beliefs have no bearing on how our laws are to be written. If you want to espouse a particular belief in your church, including the condemnation of homosexuals, more power to you, but outside of your church, the rest of us don't want to hear it. And the majority of good, patriotic Americans won't tolerate your religious condemnation of others in our larger society. It's un-American.

    • Exetarian

      Yes. We have agreed to live in harmony. And a good way to start is for you to refrain from insulting comments like asserting “the hypocrisy of most Christians.” That also means accepting that you ARE GOING TO HEAR people's beliefs outside of their church. Whether you want to hear it or not, they have a right to free speech in the public square just as you do. The “majority of good, patriotic Americans” WILL TOLERATE their religious condemnation of others, because it is AMERICAN to tolerate ALL VIEWS in the larger society, no matter how abhorrent they may sound to you. That's the price you pay for the tolerance of YOUR views, which someone else may also find abhorrent.

      Now who's the hypocrite, Brando?

      • LT

        We won't be tolerating intolerant Christians anymore. It's over. Christian gay hate lost.

        • Exetarian

          In other words fight hate with hate. What a lovely Christmas sentiment. Why don't you go into the world and do some good? You aren't doing any here.

          • Walter28

            Jefferson Davis and the Confederates tried to use the Bible to uphold slavery — but that didn't fly. America went to war against them. How's that for “tolerating religious beliefs”? If your beliefs happen to infringe upon others’ rights, America will not tolerate them.

          • Exetarian

            There is nothing about the belief that homosexuality is sinful that infringes anyone's rights. Vegetarians believe that people who eat meat are also committing a kind of sin, and meat eaters still get along okay. Actions against person or property is one thing, but beliefs alone are no offense against anyone's rights.

          • Hypocrisy

            You, yourself, point out that vegetarians have every right to condemn meat-eaters as murders. But, you rail against people who condemn Phil for his racism and homophobia, because . . . The Bile?

            Sorry, honey. That dog won't hunt.

          • Bishop-Debra Parke Schmidt

            People say Phil is stupid. What about all of these people who think they are so smart but do not even know what was said. There was no bashing or racism except in your own minds. Maybe you should eat more carrots so you can see better and learn to spell as well.

          • Harvey the Rabbit

            I'll eat more carrots if you'll actually read the GQ article, hon.

            If you don't immediately see the prima facie homophobia and racism, then there are adult education classes available at your local Learning Annex that can help you develop your reading comprehension skills.

          • Exetarian

            If any of my vegetarian friends condemned me as a murderer, I'd slam them right back. You can believe it's wrong, but to call me a murderer for doing so is going too far. Likewise, to disagree with someone who believes homosexual behavior is sinful is fine. To take that the extra step and call them racist, homophobic or a bigot is a step too far.

          • Words Have Meanings

            How is condemning homosexuality as sinful not homophobic? How is implying that black people were happier and “better behaved” under Jim Crow not racist?

          • Exetarian

            His comments are being intentionally taken out of context. He never implied black people were happier and better behaved. He simply said that in HIS PERSONAL EXPERIENCE he never saw a black person mistreated and that he, as a white trash laborer in the farm fields, always got along with them and knew them to be happy. If that was his experience, that was his experience. He came from rural Louisiana. There weren't exactly a lot of lunch counter sit-ins going on in that neck of the bayou. It was not a blanket statement on the era, even though people are trying to twist it that way.

            Secondly… and primarily… to say that something is “sinful” is not homophobic because it's not borne of hatred. It's borne of a concern for that person's soul. Evangelicals who make pronouncements about sin aren't motivated by a desire to condemn people to eternal torment but rather to save them from it. Again, you can disagree, but it's not hateful or homophobic. It's an expression of their faith as they understand it.

          • Words Have Meanings

            If I lived somewhere where I could be lynched for pissing of a member of the ruling class, I'd make sure they “thought” I was happy, too. His statements about HIS PERSONAL EXPERIENCE are dismissive of the realities of the situation that any person who hasn't had their head up their rectums for the last 50 years is well aware of. That's why they're bigoted.

            Oh, I see. It's not that YOU hate me. It's the GOD hates me. That's so much better. And you want to deny me the right to marry the person that I love because . . . YOU LOVE ME! And my lovers family has the right to bar my entrance to his funeral because . . . THEY LOVE ME! And it's okay for my boss to fire me from a job that I'm great at just for being gay because . . . HE LOVES ME! And Phil Robertson thinks the fact that I'm more turned on by a man's rear end than a woman's vagina is totally sick and gross . . . BECAUSE HE LOVES ME!!!

            Oh, you've really opened my eyes about this whole “sin” business, Exetarian. I've never felt so loved in all my life.

          • Exetarian

            Again… you're making no effort to actually understand the other side. You're just making knee-jerk judgments, the same thing you think you're condemning.

            His statements may have seemed dismissive. They certainly weren't elegant. But they weren't racist or bigoted. At worst they were insensitive. Save the harsher words for when they're warranted, otherwise they lose their meaning.

            And no, saying something is sinful doesn't mean that God hates you. It means that it distances you from the spirit of God. That has nothing to do with gay marriage — STICK TO THE SUBJECT! This is strictly about whether his words were hateful or simply an expression of legitimate belief. Maybe you don't feel loved… but that doesn't mean that from his point of view it isn't about love.

            There are two things going on here which the gay community needs to keep separate. One is the fight for equal rights and treatment before the law, the other is acceptance in the popular culture. They are not the same. If you're gay, you have every right to expect equality under the law. But you cannot expect to legislate or guilt people into accepting your lifestyle and behaviors as moral and inoffensive, especially if it collides with their faith. You'll just have to resign yourself to accepting that you're going to live in a society where some people have the right to legitimately disapprove of your lifestyle. And yes, that also means accepting that if a photographer is a Bible-believing Christian, she has an absolute right to refuse taking photos at your gay marriage without fear of being sued. Go find another photographer. Leave their convictions unmolested.

          • Words Have Meanings

            The Bible says homosexuality is a sin. It doesn't say anything about taking pictures at a gay wedding being sinful. When you offer a service to the public in a state with an anti-discrimination statute, you don't get to exempt yourself from the law because you're a bigot.

            I accept that there are people who think awful, repugnant things about me because I'm gay. I do not accept that their religious beliefs earn them any special privilege that should prevent me from telling them the wherefores and whys of how stupid those awful things they think about me are.

            As for A&E, at the end of the day they're a business. Having an avowed bigot on their network stands to hurt their profits because gay people and their friends and families aren't going to support a company that supports bigotry. Suspending him is the absolutely least the network could have done to show that they disagree with his comments. All you loony fundies coming out of the woodwork to rail against the “mistreatment” of Christians have really lost the plot.

          • Exetarian

            You're right. Forcing someone to take pictures at a gay wedding doesn't offend the Bible. It offends the United States Constitution which grants that the free exercise of one's faith will not be abridged and that we can be secure in our persons and property. Anti-discrimination law is generally unconstitutional but has been granted constitutional exception (which I disagree with) for certain protected class, of which sexual orientation is not one. In this case it's not the sexual orientation that's the issue but the activity — the “wedding.” To object to it isn't about bigotry, it's about a fundamental belief that marriage is about a man and a woman. She's entitled to that belief. If you can refuse to serve someone “no shirt, no shoes, no service,” you are entitled to a religious exemption as well.

            There is a distasteful self-pitying narcissistic victim mentality on the part of too many in the gay rights movement that leads them to attack anyone and anything that doesn't make them feel loved and appreciated. Your'e welcome to that, but not to intentionally misrepresent their views because it makes you feel more victimized and portrays them as more vicious. That's just intellectually dishonest. At least get their views straight and address them accurately, not hyperbolically.

            What A&E does, I don't really care. And calling me a “loony fundy” is just more proof of your presumptuousness. I'm not an evangelical. Not a fundamentalist by any stretch of the imagination. But I will defend their right to believe what they want and to express it openly until my dying breath. Just as I'll defend your right to live as you want until my dying breath. Welcome to the awkward world of libertarianism.

          • Words Have Meanings

            Ah, Libertarian, eh? So, “contrarian internet troll” it is. And – this is me being presumptuous, again – but, I take it you agree with your buddy Rand Paul that we should just get rid of that whole Civil Rights Act. Yeah?

            Photography isn't an exercise in one's faith. It's a service offered to the public. The law would infringe upon her religious liberty if the state forced her to marry a lesbian. That's not the case. Her bigotry, *cough* sorry, “religious grounds” for objecting to same-sex marriage don't hold water as an excuse to break the law. And they make for sucky business acumen, to boot.

            Well, everyone's a narcissistic victim to a Libertarian, aren't they? “I've got mine, so to Hell with everybody else.”

            You chose to see my characterization of your arguments as hyperbole because otherwise you'd come to the conclusion that I'm right and your wrong and that you've spent this whole time defending an indefensible position. Who's the narcissist, now?

          • Exetarian

            If you're trying to figure out what to label me and what politicians to associate me with so that you can assign a stereotype to me, you'll be disappointed. I believe in treating everyone equally and giving equal respect to all viewpoints no matter how abhorrent. Criticize them civilly, but at least be accurate. Angry denunciations do a disservice to the discourse.

            And yes, photography IS an exercise in one's faith if the person providing that service says so. It's not up to you or the government to decide what's an exercise in one's faith. It's the person exercising the faith. For people of faith, religion extends into every aspect of their lives, including their work. If a person of faith views their work as an extension of their Christian duty, then it is very much a part of their faith. And it's not your place to dispute that. You have no right to their service and they have every right to deny it to anyone they choose. But you're right — it may make for sucky business acumen. So take your business elsewhere. Her loss.

            And no, not everyone is a narcissistic victim to a libertarian. Just people who cannot ever see anything from anyone else's point of view, but who will twist anything to mean what they want in order to feed their sense of whining self-pity. I respect people who shrug their shoulders and just get on with it. Which is what I'm going to do now.

            So stop whining. You're not a victim. Stop pretending you are one. Accept that life isn't perfect, not everyone will love you and just get…on…with…it.

          • Words Have Meanings

            I see your point of view. I see that your point of view is wrong. Stomping your feet and shouting, “YOU'RE NOT LISTENING TO ME!!!” doesn't make the patently false things that you say any more true.

            I don't pity myself. People like you paint the righteous indignation of people like me with that brush to make yourselves feel better about dismissing the validity of our complaints out of hand. Don't you worry your little head about my self-image, one bit. Trust me. I'm fabulous.

            Life isn't perfect. Not everyone will love me. Granted, on both counts. Of course, neither of those truisms have jack squat to do with what you and I have been arguing about. And you know it.

            What about Satanists for whom murder is practice of their faith? Does the government get to decide if that's permissible or not? Go on. Bang that “Religious Freedom” drum, now.

          • Exetarian

            You're upset because someone considers your lifestyle “sinful” and you believe — erroneously — that such speech is dangerous because it serves as a pretext or or an incitement to violence and other heinous acts. I'm here to tell you that speech is one thing, actions are another. And when you seek to attack speech based on the actions you fear that it entails, you make a dangerous association that serves as a pretext for limiting everyone's freedoms. Especially if you intentionally distort or misrepresent that speech.

            For Satanists, if they want to preach whatever beliefs they have, that's fine. It's the actions for which they're accountable. Speech and actions are two different things. And actions are only an issue if they infringe someone else's rights. If they're just exercising their property rights, that's nobody else's business.

          • Words Have Meanings

            Actions like denying services that are openly available to the public to certain individuals based solely on their sexual orientation, who have the right not to be unjustly discriminated against under the law. Now you're getting it!

            I am upset that someone considers me, who I am and how I love “sinful.” Yes. Quite right. Because there's nothing “sinful” about me. And every rationalization you or anyone else can come up with to support that hurtful assertion is pure, unadulterated poppycock.

            No one is trying to take Phil Robertson's right to be a venomous, foaming-at-the-mouth, anti-gay bigot away from him. That's your “erroneous” take on the situation. What we take issue with is him profiting from it and using his platform to spread his vile beliefs to millions of unwashed and easily influenced voters.

            I graduated from Texas A&M University, which was and is to this day a hotbed of rabid, right-wing, redneck conservatism. I walked past a “GOD HATES FAGS” street preacher on my way to class almost every day. Each time, I walked right past him and paid him no mind. Though it would be incorrect to say I have “no” issue with someone hating me for a completely baseless reason or someone thinking vile, ugly things about me, I completely respect his and everyone else's right to hold whatever beliefs they choose and to proclaim them as loud as they please.

            The difference being that the street preacher was just one harmless nut wandering aimlessly around a college campus. The Robertsons have actually used their clout to influence elections, before. Whether you care to admit it or not, people like them are a very real and imminent threat to the rights and liberties of people like me.

            But the rights and liberties of people like me don't matter a whit to you. Do they, Mr. Libertarian?

          • Exetarian

            Nope. A business belongs to its owners. They may provide whatever service they want, to whomever they want. Or not. It's their call. All businesses discriminate. It's how you do business. Unless you think that Amish or Orthodox Jews who only do business with their own should be forced to be less “exclusionary.”

            May I suggest that you choose to be less upset with someone else considering you “sinful.” If it's hurtful to you, that's your problem. Be less sensitive. Choose not to care what others think about you. Otherwise you're giving power to others to control your feelings. It's their right to think anything about you that they want. And if they believe you sinful, so be it. You don't have to care. Choose not to. That's the price of freedom.

            And please don't misunderstand — I realize nobody is trying to take away his free speech. That's not what I'm bothered by. I'm bothered by the wanton misrepresentation and misinterpretations which are driven by an agenda — an agenda that is to quash and do away with certain ideas by attacking the speech, even if it means using propaganda tools to do it.

            Your concern for how it may influence voters… is a valid concern. But the ends do not justify the means. Speech is not a threat. Actions are a threat. Your rights and liberties mean everything. Just as much as those of everyone else. But, again… the ends do not justify the means.

          • Words Have Meanings

            May I suggest that you choose to be less upset with someone else
            considering Phil Robertson a bigot. If it's hurtful to you, that's your problem.
            Be less sensitive. Choose not to care what others think about Phil Robertson.
            Otherwise you're giving power to others to control your feelings. It's
            their right to think anything about Phil Robertson that they want. And if they
            believe Phil Robertson to be a bigot, so be it. You don't have to care. Choose not to.
            That's the price of freedom.

            See how that works?

            Misrepresentations driving an agenda are certainly at play, here. But it's not me and mine who are guilty of that, Good Sir. Phil's beliefs are there in the quotes he gave to GQ for the whole world to read. Hollering “YOU'RE TAKING HIS WORDS OUT OF CONTEXT” as your defense means nothing when the context is perfectly clear. People like you rushing to his defense because it makes you uneasy when Christian fundamentalists, racists and homophobes get pilloried in the media for things that any right-minded individual would naturally find abhorrent are the propagandists, I'm afraid. It's very sad that you either can't or simply refuse to see that.

            As for exclusionary businesses, I expect all business that operate within a jurisdiction subject to anti-discrimination statues to comply with the law. I don't care if they worship the two-headed goat boy of Borneo. Anti-discrimination legislation maximizes individual liberty. That's why they exist.

          • Exetarian

            Anti-discrimination laws are anti-liberty because they infringe the rights of business owners under the guise of maximizing the liberty of certain patrons. In truth, it's not “liberty” they're maximizing but economic access, which is not the same as liberty. Liberty is about the freedom to control what belongs to you — not have unrestricted access to what belongs to someone else.

            Keep up with that attitude and religious liberty will win out in the end and all anti-discrimination law will go down in flames under a steamroller of religious liberty. So learn to accept that the religious will discriminate on their terms and you'll have to live with that. Don't like it? Start your own business, solicit a competitor… you have options.

            There's also no equivalency here between your position and mine. Phil expressed his beliefs. You aren't rebutting them with your own. If you were, I'd defend you too. You're misrepresenting his. That's where I take exception.

            And so that we're clear — the people who think you're sinful and going to hell… also think I'm just as bad and also going to hell. They've told me so. And I'm okay with that. You should be too.

          • Words Have Meanings

            If you're truly okay with that, you should really think about repeating that “self-pity” pep talk of yours while standing in front of a mirror, bud.

            In what way have I misrepresented his beliefs? By quoting his very own words?

            Anti-discrimination laws maximize individual liberty by protecting the rights to equal treatment under the law to entire swaths of the population by curtailing the unfounded animus (which no person has a right to put into “action,” by your own admission) of a misguided few.

            What if the only grocer for hundreds of miles refused to serve black people? In a town with no restaurants in an arid region with little wildlife and sparse vegetation. What happens to all those black people who can't feed themselves because you insist that the racist grocer's right to be a dickbag needs to be preserved? What if every doctor in the country felt the same way? There are far more citizens of minority ethnicity than there are doctors.

            Legalizing bigotry doesn't serve the greater good. Anti-discrimination legislation protects far more liberties than they curtail. But explaining utilitarianism to people whose concept of individual liberty stops at straight, white, Christian privilege is a mostly futile endeavor.

            And another comment from you proving me right in . . . 3, . . . 2, . . . 1, . . .

          • Exetarian

            As I suspected, this ultimately boils down to your personal politics, which is a politics of the collective, not the individual. And that's a different beast.

            Look. I'll keep this simple. You misrepresented his beliefs by adding a value judgment — calling him a bigot, suggesting that he opposition to homosexual behavior is predicated on hate and not credible religious convictions. This is what most people are doing. It's a propaganda tool — use inflammatory language to color a particular idea as bad without actually having to address the idea itself. It's an abdication from civil debate. And it's dishonest.

            Anti-discrimination laws, by definition, cannot enhance liberty because they pick and choose. They infringe one person's property rights in order to presumably enhance “access” for another. That means no one should feel secure in the unfettered use of their own person and property. And if no one can feel secure in their own property, no one can feel truly free. Liberty is about constraining us from harmful behavior, not compelling us to helpful behavior. Equal treatment under the law does not guarantee you equal access to private goods and services. Phrases like “unfounded animus” and “misguided few” are subjective value judgments, not objective fact. People have a constitutional right to their animus and to be misguided. And you have the right to ignore them.

            Your grocer analogy is just silly. What if there were no grocers? Would the government be within its rights to force some random person to open a grocery? What if the president were dying and only one person had the kidney to save his life? Could they force that person to give up their kidney? He/she could still live with only one. The need of one person — or a billion — is not justification to ever infringe the rights of a single individual. That's why there are no caveats in the Bill of Rights. They are absolute, period. Even if the world is coming to an end, even if billions are dying… they are rights that WILL NOT BE INFRINGED, ever, for any reason at all, period. The rights of individuals supersede the needs of the masses. Always. Even if respecting those rights results in deplorable consequences, you respect them because the ends don't justify the means. Morality is not relative. Actions are right or wrong, regardless of their consequences. People are accountable for themselves. Need does not constitute a right to the property or services of another human being. The goal of a just society is not to serve “the greater good” but to protect individuals from whatever tyrannical edicts an unjust government my justify by “the greater good.” Remember, anti-sodomy laws were once justified that way. Same with anti-obscenity laws.

            This may come as a shock, but we do legalize bigotry. Because the law doesn't care what a person thinks. It only cares what they do. Good luck defining bigotry. But we know when someone has been harmed by an action, regardless of motives.

            To defend anti-discrimination law by saying “it protects more liberties than it curtails” is to concede the point. You admit that it curtails liberties. Liberty is not about finding the sweet spot where “fewer” liberties are curtailed. Liberty denied in any degree to anyone is liberty denied for all. It's about curtailing NO liberties. And that means curtailing no one's right to use their talents, person and property as they see fit. Provided that their actions do not infringe the self-same freedoms of others. Again… we curtail harmful actions. We do not compel helpful ones.

            That said… I'm a bit more pragmatic than most libertarians. What you fail to recognize in the Arizona photography case is that it is markedly different from a market refusing to serve black people. Without getting into the legalities of private clubs, schools, etc. that have race-based or gender-based or age-based restrictions (all ruled legal, by the way) the issue here is that it's not the sexual orientation that is an issue for the photographer but the activity, the marriage itself. Freedom of conscience is our most precious freedom, and it entitles us to object to actions and activities we consider objectionable and to not be compelled to sanction them, privately or commercially. Actions are choices. Race is not a choice. A marriage is a choice. If you make a choice and I believe that choice morally repugnant, I am under no obligation to sanction it. A photographer therefore has a right to say that she will not photograph gay weddings, interracial weddings, circumcisions, orgies, etc. Any activity that represents a choice with which she morally disagrees is an activity she is rightfully entitled to reject. By the same token, should a mohel be compelled to perform circumcisions for non-Jews? Some liberal ones will, but should they be forced to? If someone religiously believes marriage is between a man and a woman, how is that any different than believing that circumcision is a covenantal ritual only when it involves a Jew?

            So, you see, it's not about straight, white, Christian privilege. It's about individual liberty. All individuals. So enough with this “privilege” nonsense. “Straight privilege” and “white privilege” are all terms derived from “Critical Theory” which originates with the Frankfurt School's attempts to develop a more organic way of infusing Marxist thought into Western capitalistic societies. “Critical Race Theory,” “Critical Gender Theory.” Etc. So anyone who whips out the “privilege” terminology, whether they realize it or not, is deploying Marxist ideological arguments. The same ideas that were used to slaughter tens of millions in just the past century alone. So don't expect that to get any traction with me.

          • Words Have Meanings

            Oh, I don't expect to get any traction with you, hon. I haven't from the outset.

            Your “misrepresentation” argument is propagandist canard. You're trying to spin the situation in Phil's favor by claiming bigotry isn't bigotry. You have no interest in civil debate or honesty. You aren't combating “inflammatory language.” You're combating accurate language with obfuscatory language. You can call hate “credible religious conviction” if you want, but good luck making a silk purse outta that sow's ear. And you have the gall to admonish me about honesty? Please.

            There is no protected right to act like a bigot! You said it yourself, the government has a vested interest in regulating actions. Bigoted merchants are in no way harmed by being forced under the law to act like decent people. They can think, “Faggot, Faggot, Faggot” all they want. They can even say it, but as long as they serve gay people the same as everybody else, liberty is maximized because the gays receive equal treatment and the bigot is out nothing. NOTHING! Not one one single, solitary, bleeding thing.

            You can blather on about Marxism and post all the TL;DR screeds you want, but let's call a spade a spade here. Liberty isn't what matters to you. Your single, solitary vested interest is in excusing away the deplorable behavior of desicable people. Full stop.

          • Exetarian

            Obfuscatory? Okay. Because I won't throw out word-bombs that get people riled up. That's Al Sharpton stuff. If someone says they think you're a sinner and want to save you… no matter how hurtful you may think that to be, no matter how inaccurate… unless they tell you they hate you… you're going to have a very hard time actually making your case for hate stick. You can use the word, but be prepared to back it up if asked. And if asked… don't get indignant and evade. Back it up.

            In your example “the bigot is out nothing,” you are making it a purely economic consideration. Freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, these things are not inconsequential. If someone denies me my freedom to express myself, am I out nothing? If I'm forced to compromise my principles and put my labor forward toward supporting an activity I find morally objectionable, you call that “out nothing”? You have a very narrow view of things. Purely oriented toward your own sense of victimization. You are NOT entitled to someone else's labors or property. Your liberty entitles you to the use of your own — not theirs.

            So before you talk to me about single, solitary, vested interest… just remember… everything you posit here is about your own sense of victimization. You aren't putting yourself in the other person's shoes. Whether you consider someone despicable or their behavior deplorable… not relevant. All that's relevant is who owns what. If you don't own it… you've no right to it. If you do… you can do what you want with it.

          • Words Have Meanings

            There aren't two sides to this story, bud. There's right and there's wrong. You've chosen your side. Good luck with that.

            My view is narrow? Mine? You talk a good game man, but everything you've said can be boiled down to 3 words:


            I'll tell Al Sharpton, “Hi,” for you, if you'll tell Sean Hannity, “Get bent,” for me. If you can pull his balls outta your mouth for long enough, that is.

          • Exetarian

            Well. There's debating the ideas on their merits. Congrats on conceding the high ground. “Whitey” is so much less offensive than the other words that you find so offensive and “bigoted.” If this is how your side makes its case, I'm not the least bit worried about future elections.

          • Ellis

            The true liberal speaks.

          • Diane Livingston

            It appears to me that those opposing the viewpoint of Phil Robertson find it necessary to resort to name calling toward anyone who doesn't agree with them. For me that speaks volumes of hatred. RPL not Diane.

          • Get a Clue

            You mean names like “Sinner?” “Terrorist?” “Dog rapist?”

            You're right. The hatred, it speaks volumes.

          • Paula Schultze

            I'm sorry that you were hurt in the past due to some person's insensitivity. I really am. Since I don't personally know you, I agree with you that it would be wrong for me to hate you or to think vile, ugly things about you. (You sound like a nice person anyway, so I'm sure I would not feel that way.) I don't think that a true “Christian” would hate you anyway just because you are gay. That's ridiculous! I don't base my feelings for people on what they choose to do in bed, or on the partners of theirs whom they choose to love. I just don't see the point of trying to change people like Phil Robertson….if you get my meaning. Also, someone wrote and told me that gay people don't have equal rights to marry under the law. I thought they did due to the Supreme Court ruling. And I never knew you could get fired or evicted from your house for being gay. I've never heard of that. So hopefully by discussion over all this the past week many uninformed people such as me will find out the truth.

          • Words Have Meanings

            That's all we want, hon. Not to change people, but to inform them. Because the more you know about gay people and the more gay people you know, the less likely people are to hold onto view's like Phil's.

            The hatefulness in them becomes too real.

          • Ellis

            Now we get to the real issue you do not like Phil because he has a business and is making plenty of money, but if I and old guy that is poor or middle class we would not have a problem. That's the way liberals are, name callers and etc. If you would happen to be a conservative gay you probably wouldn't have a problem with Phil and there are gay conservatives. Take a deep breath.

          • Get a Clue

            Gay conservatives are quislings. It's like being a Jewish Nazi.

          • Ellis

            No they are just Gay and belief differently when it comes to politics and God. The gay liberals don't hold all the cards.
            There you go again with the name calling, may you are the traitor.

          • Ellis

            Hope you are not offended Aggie Jokes……. No I'm not going to do that.
            LSU, LSU, LSU

          • peg

            This CHRISTIAN Will Never Watch A&E Again

          • Ellis

            So what you are saying is if you are a photographer and a straight couple wants you to take pictures at their and you know their feeling towards you that by law you could not say no. I believe your wrong.

          • Get a Clue

            Bigotry is not a protected class under anti-discrimination legislation. You're counterargument is specious.

          • Ellis

            Bigot? Depends on your point of view, doesn't it.

          • Balou2u

            To argue against the notion that ALL have a rightful place on this planet is NOT the message of Christ and God. The problem with the Bible/Scripture is that through its ambiguity, it is used to support the narrowest of views and often with mal intent. It is well understood that an ambiguious document is to be conscrued against the drafter and here we have approximately 40 of them. This of course does not include the scores of re-writes, translations, tran-literations etc…all to tailor “Gods words” to fit the agenda of a group. Most “Christians” who opine on biblical scripture or dish out judgments predicated on what scripture “says” are not Christians. To be a Christian is to follow Gods ten commandments (“If you love me, you will keep my commandments”..John 14-15… no ambiguity there…) and to follow Jesus’ way…which was not only tolerant but embracing of all.

          • Exetarian

            All entirely beside the point. Whether true or not, you're entitled to your opinion and interpretation and Phil is entitled to his. He clearly doesn't believe that gay people don't belong on earth. He simply believes that gay sex is sinful. Sorry if that bothers you, but it's his right. Just as it's the right of Jews to believe Christians are followers of a false prophet and the right of Muslims to believe that Jews and Christians are infidels. Just as it's the right of atheists to believe the whole lot of them are crazy. Deal with it.

          • Balou2u

            I'm sorry but I believe that you actually miss the point….People or groups that label themselves – in Phil's case, Christian – will be taken to task when spouting their personal myopic dribble and citing biblical passage or scripture to support their non-Christian rants. If you don't believe in equality then you believe in non-equality. Belief in equality, respect and reserved judgment for all is the message of Christ ( along with many other doctrines) and anyone who is even marginally enlightened. Luke 6:37 – “Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be
            condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven”..John 8:2-11 “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone….”
            These passages seem to be too ambiguous for “Phil the Christian” ……And that is why all the fuss – simply put, ignorant and hypocritical and certainly not the Christian BS from “Phil the Christian” will be met with either rolling eyes, intellectual confronts or mere indifference.
            In my case, I understand that one can't discuss physics with a 3 year old and so I don't….

          • Exetarian

            If you want to disagree with him theologically, fine. Have at it. But you, as well, misrepresent what he said. There is nothing in his statements that has anything to do with equality or non-equality. It was about “sin.” Nothing about secular laws or secular equality. It was about “sin”. He didn't judge, he didn't condemn. He was crude and inelegant in what he said, but it was clear he was discussing his view of “sin” in answer to the question at hand. As it happens, I don't share his Biblical views or interpretation. But I defend his right to have them. And I will defend his right to not be intentionally misquoted.

          • therrendunham

            But, isn't that the crux of the who debate to begin with? Not Phil Robertson's beliefs, but the comparisons to bestiality and pedophilia? To murder? Was that not a step too far as well?

          • Exetarian

            He didn't compare homosexuality to bestiality. He quoted a scripture that enumerated sins of a sexual nature. The media reports that he was comparing are irresponsible journalism. That's like suggesting that the Ten Commandments compare swearing with murder. They don't. They're simply enumerated as things you're not supposed to do.

          • therrendunham

            My interpretation of what was printed suggests he did.

          • Exetarian

            Then take it up with the Apostle Paul:

            1 Corinthians 6: 9-11

            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 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.

          • therrendunham

            You'll twist whatever scripture you can out of context to make your point. Sad.

          • Exetarian

            Didn't say I agreed with the interpretation. Merely pointing out that Phil was quoting a scripture as he understood it. Whether or not it's being twisted out of context, that's another matter. Phil is a fundamentalist. They take scripture literally. Many others — I'm one of them — do not. But to condemn him as a bigot for a particular read on scripture is intellectually dishonest. Theologically disagree if you want. But recognize that Christians have been fighting over the “intent” of scripture for close to two millennia. He's welcome to his. You're welcome to yours.

          • therrendunham

            In all truthfulness, the only one here who has made this a religious issue is you. While I don't agree with his comments, I've never explicitly called him a bigot, and I find it equally dishonest to promote this issue as Christians being persecuted when they're not, or that the concept of freedom of religion implies that one has the right to force your private views onto the public.

          • Exetarian

            Freedom of religion isn't necessarily the issue here, though if we're segueing into the issue of the Arizona photographer, it is. The issue where Phil is concerned is a religious issue because it's a religious issue for him. And I'm taking issue with people who insist on waging culture war against religious beliefs simply because they don't like the fact that people believe differently than they do.

            It's always about putting yourself in the other person's shoes. I hear that from gay activists all the time — and I appreciate it from their point of view. But they seem to view it as a one-way street. Putting themselves in the shoes of Christians who believe fervently that homosexual behavior is sinful… is something they are unwilling to do. They consider the belief itself hateful and hurtful. They're wrong on both counts. But they won't appreciate why they're wrong unless they make a concerted effort to appreciate that there IS another side to the issue. And so far, they refuse to concede that.

          • Get a Clue

            “Judge not that ye be not judged.” (Matthew 7:1)

            Heard that one?

          • Exetarian

            Disagree with him theologically, fine. Just don't mis-label him a bigot.

          • Get a Clue

            Tell me, O Great Arbiter of Semantics.

            Who counts as a bigot in your book? I want names, not abstracts.

          • Exetarian

            I assume we're talking about anti-gay bigotry here. Brian Camenker, Peter LaBarbara, Fred Phelps and every legislator in Uganda and Russia lobbying to criminalize gay behavior. That's not about calling someone sinful and being concerned for their soul. That's about punishing people here on earth. Seeking to actively do someone harm, physically or legally, is my definition of bigotry and hatred.

          • Get a Clue

            And what do all of those guys point to as the basis for their actions, prey tell?

          • Exetarian

            For some it's religious. For others not. Certainly not for the Russians. But at that point it's irrelevant — it's the actions that matter. When Phil supports laws that strip gay people of equal protection, then I'll declare him a bigot and a hypocrite. Until that time, there's a chasm of a difference between someone whose view of homosexuality is that it's simply sinful and someone who is actively promoting harmful legislation.

            If you start equating speech with action, you're on a slippery slope as far as civil rights are concerned.

          • Get a Clue

            Slippery slope is a logical fallacy. And “irrelevant” to you, maybe.

            Uh . . . certainly not? Google “russian orthodox gay” and have a read.

          • Exetarian

            So cutting to the chase — you make no distinction between actions that attack gay people and speech that declares a religious objection to gay behavior — because in your mind, the one inevitably leads to the other, therefore the speech must be attacked, discredited and squelched, even if it means attacking the underlying faith. Correct or not?

          • Get a Clue

            The world would be a much better place without the Christians and the Nazis.

            I'm not comparing Christians to Nazis, mind you. I'm just enumerating.

          • Exetarian

            You just proved the point.

          • Get a Clue

            I sure as Hell did.

          • Exetarian

            Not like you think you did. Your statement is not comparative. Even though you intended it to be. Take an English course.

          • Get a Clue

            Grab a dictionary and look up the word “imply.”

          • Exetarian

            “strongly suggest the truth or existence of (something not expressly stated).”

            If you think there are any Evangelicals who “insinuate” or “imply” rather than expressly stating their beliefs, you clearly don't know any. If an Evangelical believes something, they tell you straight out. If they don't, they don't. If you need to “infer” something that you think they “implied,” then it's not there. It's all in your head.

          • Robert L

            “But, isn't that the crux of the who debate to begin with? Not Phil Robertson's beliefs, but the comparisons to bestiality and pedophilia? To murder? Was that not a step too far as well?”
            Why? Why do you consider the non-standard sexual practice known as homosexuality superior to the non-standard sexual practice of bestiality or pedophilia? The argument here basically boils down to “no one has any right to put limits on my sexual behavior.” If that is true, why shouldn't other non-standard sexual practices also be allowed?

          • therrendunham

            False premises all around.

            First, you're trying to detract from my critique of Exetarian's post, and his assumption that the comparison of his brand of Christianity to murder, bestiality, etc. is a bridge too far but viewing homosexuality in the same light is OK. Second, I'm straight as an arrow, happily married, and believe that the sexual relationship with my spouse is the only one I'm concerned with (for me, the only standard sexual practices are the ones that exist in MY bedroom). Third, yes, there ARE legal prohibitions against certain sexual behaviors (pedophilia, bestiality, adultery in the military), but for the most part, homosexuality isn't one of them. I don't mess with God's law, but evangelical Christians still have to acknowledge the laws of man (Matthew 22:21).

          • Robert L

            I'm not going to comment on your first post because I really don't understand your point. Your second point, what your sexual preferences are, is irrelevant to my post. I never said or implied that you are homosexual. Your third point, that certain forms of sexual behavior are illegal and everyone has to follow the law, we both agree on. My question to you is this: why do you consider homosexual behavior to be superior to bestiality or other forms of non-standard sexual behavior?

          • therrendunham

            Simply put: I don't. And it's fallacious to assume I do.

            While I don't agree with that lifestyle, I'm not going to degrade people who do; I just live my life. And who's to say that one way is superior to another (again, we're conflating gays with those who practice sex with animals. That's not fair). One would argue that polygamy is non-standard, though it is an accepted practice in the Bible. One can argue that adultery is non-standard, but the Bible implies it's okay as long as you are one of God's chosen (i.e. David).

            But since the question deserves an answer, I submit this: the laws of this nation say homosexuality is not an illegal practice. As long as that's the case, then you cannot legally equate being gay to sleeping with first cousins, children (though Moses did it. Twice.), or animals.

          • Robert L

            “we're conflating gays with those who practice sex with animals. That's not fair).”

            But WHY isn't it fair? Both are practiced by a very small minority of people, both can make the claim that they are not hurting anyone else, both can claim they are just being persecuted for being different, etc. You really are claiming one is superior to the other, why?

            “But since the question deserves an answer, I submit this: the laws of this nation say homosexuality is not an illegal practice.”
            Now we are getting somewhere, but do you mind telling me when the law that says homosexuality is legal was passed? The last law I am aware of was the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which specifically said same sex marriage was illegal.

          • therrendunham

            Not quite. DOMA did not ban gay marriage; it simply stated that the federal government would not recognize them. Big distinction. Also, it allowed individual states to decide for themselves whether they would recognize it. In any case, it is not necessarily illegal to marry a person of the same gender; it just means that gay couples do not have the same rights as straights in many jurisdictions.

          • Get a Clue

            Ethics. Heard of them?

          • Robert L

            I'm sorry Clue, what is your point?

          • Get a Clue

            My point is ethics. They're kinda like morals, except they're based in sound reasoning and require logical thought to understand.

            It's unethical to engage in sexual activity with someone or something who lacks the capacity to or is incapable of giving their consent. Animals, Children, Coma Patients, Mute Quadriplegics, etc.

            Don't straight people know this stuff? It's kinda sick if you don't.

          • Robert L

            We have different definitions of ethics Clue. Under my definition you do not strip people of their right to vote, and unfortunately that is exactly what your side has done.

            “It's unethical to engage in sexual activity with someone or something who lacks the capacity to or is incapable of giving their consent. Animals, Children, Coma Patients, Mute Quadriplegics, etc.”

            First the good news – we are in agreement that it is ethically wrong to have sex with coma patients. I'm not so sure about the rest of your paragraph though. The mute quadriplegic can still communicate consent – blink once for yes and blink twice for no is one of several ways. In the case of animals, the last time I went hunting 30 dollars will give you a hunting license that allows you to shoot them. Do you think the animal gave their consent to be shot? You are aware the majority of male animals on a ranch are castrated right? Do you think they gave their consent to that? If I can shoot the animal or literally cut off a prized part without their consent, why do you need to have their consent to have sex? Death, castration or sex – if an animal had its choice, which of the three do you think it would consent to? Your argument that the animal must give consent seems to fall short…

            As far as your argument that children can't consent to sex I would agree with you wholeheartedly IF there was a natural distinction between child and adult, but there isn't – it is completely arbitrary when you stop being a child and become an adult. Biologically you are an adult when you hit puberty, but some girls are hitting puberty now at 10 or 11 and that is clearly waaaaay too young to grant them age of consent. I can prove it is arbitrary too – where I'm at for drinking alcohol purposes you are an adult at 21, for joining the military you are an adult at 18, for driving you are an adult at 16. The lack of a standardized age pretty much proves it is an arbitrary decision The age when you can give age of consent shows a similar confusion on when you make the transition to adulthood. My question to you Clue, is – if society can arbitrarily decide that it is okay to have sex with a person on their 18th birthday, but it is not okay to have sex with them when they are 17 years and 364 days old (biologically there is not difference between those two ages) then why can't society arbitrarily decide you cannot have homosexual relations? Please answer this one, I have asked it several times and homosexuals always run away.

            “Don't straight people know this stuff? It's kinda sick if you don't.”
            ??????? Seriously, is that how you debate? I'm looking forward to your response, but leave the cheap insults out or I will be forced to respond in kind.

          • Robert L

            Stupid website refuses to post my reply. I hate this idiotic blog!

          • Robert L

            “My point is ethics.”
            Clue, In my world good ethics is you don't strip people of their right to vote without a very good reason and unfortunately that is what your side has done.

          • Robert L

            “It's unethical to engage in sexual activity with someone or something who lacks the capacity to or is incapable of giving their consent. Animals, Children, Coma Patients, Mute Quadriplegics, etc.”
            First the good news – we both agree it is unethical (and illegal) to have sex with a comatose person. The rest of your paragraph I'm not so sure about though. As far you can't have sex with animals because they can't give consent goes, they don't give consent to being shot either, but that doesn't stop us. The majority of male animals on a ranch are also castrated without their consent. If I don't need their consent to shoot them or castrate them, what makes you think lack of consent should stop someone from having sex with them? Death, castration or sex – of the three, which one do you think the animal would choose if they could? Your argument seems to fall short…..

          • Robert L

            As far as cannot have sex with a child goes, I would agree with you wholeheartedly IF there was a natural distinction between child and adult. Unfortunately for your argument, it is an arbitrary decision. Easy to prove it is arbitrary too – the age when you become an adult for drinking alcohol, drive a car and join the military are all different. Biologically you are an adult when you hit puberty, but some girls today are hitting puberty at 10 or 11 and that is clearly waaaay too young to make that the age of consent. My question to you Clue is: if society can arbitrarily decide that sex with a girl on her 18th birthday is okay but sex with a girl who is 17 years and 364 days old is not, then why can't society also decide that homosexual sex is wrong? Please answer this as I've asked several homosexuals this question and they always run away.

          • Robert L

            Don't straight people know this stuff? It's kinda sick if you don't.
            ????? Serioulsy, is that how you debate? I'm looking forward to your responses to the posts below, but please leave of the cheap insults or I will be forced to respond in kind.
            Sorry for the rushed nature of my responses, I spent a lot of time on my reply earlier and this stupid website didn't post it. I broke this into different posts just in case length was the problem.

          • Ellis

            Just because all those things were mentioned together does not mean they are the same they are just a list of sins, no comparison. Do you really think being gay has the same negative value as a murderer to anyone.

          • therrendunham

            NO, but apparently Phil Robertson does, and that was the point of my critique.

          • Get a Clue

            Being gay has no negative value. The implication that it does is what's so insulting.

          • Ellis

            Your too close the situation to give an honest opinion!

          • Clarity

            More like fighting ignorance with reason. A battle for the ages.

          • Exetarian

            Reason cannot be used to disprove religious belief. Faith, by definition, lives in a different realm from reason. The things most people believe in are neither rational nor arational. They cannot be proved, they cannot be disproved. The existence of God cannot be proved or disproved because there are as many different definitions of God as there are people, and unless you're familiar with them all… it's a fruitless endeavor to even begin. So you're best just accepting that some people will believe… you choose not to. Agree to disagree. Show a little respect.

      • Walter28

        “Both thy male and female slaves, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy slaves. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession they shall be your slaves forever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigor”. –Leviticus 25: 44-46

        That was the exact passage ol’ Jeff Davis used to justify the African slave trade (that and the “Curse of Ham”). But guess what? His abhorrent religious beliefs were not tolerated by the rest of the Union… thankfully. Point being — when the Bible is used to infringe upon others’ rights, Americans do not tolerate it. And gays were persecuted for centuries due to Biblical passages, while others were not. Fat people, as the author points out, have not been similarly condemned by the Church and outcast from society because of the Biblical passages that reference them. Neither have adulterers, drunkards, greedy people, the uber-rich, etc..

        • Ellis

          Walter28, You know I'm beginning to think that most of the people against Phil have never read the whole article. First Phil did not deny gays the right to have their brand of sex, he said it was a sin according to scripture and he agreed. He also indicated that it did not make sense to him but he loved all mankind. You do know that Phil is not the only person that believes like this. You see we are all considered sinners so gays are not in a boat by themselves.

      • Civics Lesson

        Free Speech doesn't mean what you think it means.

        The protections of the 1st Amendment allow American citizens to speak against the government without the threat of being imprisoned or punished by the state for doing so.

        Free Speech is not a “Get Out of Jail Free” card that entitles someone to say something dickish without suffering the consequences. Only dicks make that mistake.

        • Exetarian

          The 1st Amendment also guarantees the freedom of religion will not be abridged. So I would respectfully request that you show a little bit of respect for people's religious views without automatically labeling them “dickish.” There exists, in Christianity, a thing called “sin.” If you don't like it, fine. Don't be Christian. But don't condemn Christians for being “dickish” simply because they don't think that everything everyone wants to do is okay and peachy-keen. The point I'm making is simple. Seeing someone's behavior as “sinful” is not the same as hate. You can love someone and mourn their sinful behavior. Happens all the time. It just happens that in our day and age it's now hip to be gay, so suddenly it's taboo to think anything untoward about the gay lifestyle. Real tolerance means accepting that some people simply are going to view gay behavior as sinful. Whether you like it or not, that's how it is. Accept it, agree to disagree and stop name-calling.

          • Civics Lesson

            Uh, . . . “Homosexuality is sinful.” “Homophobia is dickish.” Let me get this straight. It's “name calling” when I do it, but when you do it, it's not “name calling.” Because . . . The Bible?

            Yes. it's real trendy to be denied equal treatment under the law in a country that supposedly espouses the belief that all men are created equal. And it's real trendy to be treated like some unclean leper that carries the plague of “sin” by “tolerant” Christians. And it's real trendy to be gay in places like Uganda, where “tolerant” Christians pass laws that make homosexuality a criminal offense so that being discovered to be gay earns you a life sentence. You can see why all the cool kids are doing it, these days.

            If you don't enjoy having your own idiocy thrown back in your face, you shouldn't post your nonsensical tripe on the internet.

          • Exetarian

            Name calling? To call something sinful is name calling? Sorry, but try again. You misunderstand the concept of sin. Learn about something before you take offense in it. And nobody is talking about equal treatment. This isn't about gay marriage. It's about a man being lambasted as a bigot for saying that he believes a certain kind of sexual behavior is sinful. Nobody is talking about Uganda or Russia or anywhere else here. Keep to the issue at hand. This is about one guy who's being attacked for saying that homosexual behavior is sinful. Gay people are GOING to be viewed as sinful by a large segment of the religious population. That's how it is. Accept it. We don't have to all agree or like each other in order to get alone. Viewing someone as sinful is not the same as hating them. Quite the contrary. And if you had any understanding of the concept, you'd appreciate that. FWIW, I'm not an Evangelical. In fact, I've been told many times I'm going to hell. I don't take it personally. It's not an expression of hatred. It's actually borne of concern. I actually consider that concern an expression of love. Hard as that may be to believe.

          • Civics Lesson

            Nope. This is about Christians twisting themselves in knots to defend indefensible behavior.

            And that's not just how it is. All of the arguments you make are the exact same arguments that racist Christians made 50 years ago to keep interracial marriage illegal. Racism isn't an intrinsic part of Christianity any more than Homophobia is. The civilized world now recognizes slavery to be an abhorrent and immoral practice, despite the fact that The Bible says it's okay. Hopefully, in fewer than 50 years from now, Christians will have figured out that all of your “sin” spin doesn't entitle the “faithful” and “tolerant” Christians in the world to treat other people like they are less than.

            But, we won't ever get to that point unless we call out people like you who use their faith to justify bad behavior. That's what Phil is experiencing now.

          • Exetarian

            Phil is experiencing nothing but what he views as the usual persecution to which Christians are accustomed in their history. That persecution has never done anything but steel their resolve and faith.

            You deeply misunderstand Christian dogma, faith and the concept of sin. You appear to have made up your mind about what these things are, regardless of whether true or not, because you have an indignation you feel compelled to validate. That's unfortunate. Because you are truly misinformed.

            No one is suggesting that gay people be treated as “less than.” But religions the world over are not going to be dissuaded from the view that sexual relationships outside the bounds of ordained heterosexuality are immoral and sinful. That goes for unmarried straight people having sex as well. So “calling out” people you disagree with and condemning them based on a wanton misread of and misinterpretation of their beliefs will do nothing but prove to them that you aren't interested in understanding them… you're just interested in ramming your views down their throats and silencing them.

            And that attitude never works. So good luck with it. The backlash against political correctness in this case has already done nothing but help Phil's side. People are tired of the thought and word police telling them what they can and can't think because this or that person finds it offensive or hurtful. You have the right to not be offended. Exercise that for a change.

          • Civics Lesson

            Christians have never been persecuted in America, since its inception. They have always been and continue to be the majority of the population. In a democracy, the majority population holds all the power. What you mistake as Christian Persecution are people who have suffered at the hands of “good” and “faithful” Christians rising up to say we don't deserve it and we won't stand for it any more. That uneasy feeling in the pit of your stomach that you call “persecution” is actually your own terror at your privileged position to treat people as awful as you please and wave your misdeeds away with,”That's just what we believe!” slowly eroding away.

            I was raised in a strict religious home. I was made to attend church every Sunday & Wednesday, my whole childhood. I was also dragged out of bed, every morning, at 6 a.m. to complete an hour of Bible Study before school. I know full well from whence I speak and I see all of your protestations to contrary for exactly what they are. Pathetic posturing to cast a “Christlike’ light on your own bigotry.

            If Christians view homosexuality to be just as bad as premarital heterosexual sex, then how come Phil didn't go on and on to GQ about how gross the vaginas of women you aren't married to are?

            As for “Political Correctness,” it used to be called “being considerate” before hateful people, such as yourself, got tired of bothering.

          • Exetarian

            Would you like a laundry list of the Christians who were persecuted in America? Are you really that historically ignorant? “Christians” are not monolithic. Here are some Christians who have suffered sometimes staggering persecution in America: Quakers, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses just as a starter.

            Point two – we are not a democracy. We're a constitutional republic that is designed to always put the rights of the minority ahead of the wishes or needs of the majority. What I'm defending is belief. People are entitled to believe what they want and not be assaulted and mislabeled and misconstrued as a result. They aren't entitled to attack your rights or mine — but what they want to believe about us, is protected. As are our rights to believe differently about them. But let's at least keep our beliefs civil and accurate, even if they aren't cordial.

            You're assigning my beliefs “bigotry” ? How so? Because I'm defending someone else's rights to their beliefs and to be treated civilly? Don't assume I share Phil's views. I don't. But I appreciate that allowing him his right to have his views and to not attack him for what he believes is the price we pay for all being able to do likewise.

            If you want to take issue with his comment about vaginas and anuses, fine. Call him a pig for his wording. But his beliefs are his beliefs. And no, political correctness is not the same as being considerate. Political correctness is about methodically attacking certain viewpoints and making them taboo in hopes that people will abandon those views. It's not about the appropriateness of the expression… it's about the appropriateness of the ideas themselves.

            So stop being so damn self-pitying. Learn to accept that some people are going to disapprove of your lifestyle and your behavior. And just get over it. People who disagree with you, who disapprove of your lifestyle are not hateful. They simply believe differently. You are not a martyr. Get over it and move on. You are entitled to equal rights. You are not entitled to force people to grant you their approval.

          • Civics Lesson

            Ah, but at whose hands did the Quakers, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses suffer their persecution? Could it be the same “good” and “faithful” Protestant Christians that are so persecuted and put upon (or so you say), these days? Not really helping your case, much.

            We are a constitutional republic, but . . . would you call Prop 8 an example of our government putting a minority's rights ahead of the wishes of the majority? You can cast a furtive wink to your “persecuted” Mormons for the assist on that one. Right?

            But, you see, you say you are, but you're really not defending someone else's rights to their beliefs and to be treated civilly. You're defending hatefulness as a valid “belief,” Phil Robertson's bigotry and asserting that his Christian faith should earn him a pass for the things he said. The only two possible explanations for such an action are that 1.) you, yourself, share his bigotry or 2.) you're simply a contrarian internet troll. Which is it?

            The price that Phil Robertson is paying is the price we all pay when we go out of our way to denigrate people that never did a thing in the world to us. None of this is about making Phil Robertson or you or any other bigot love gay people. The point is that real people have suffered and died at the hands of people that share Robertson's views. And real people continue to live as second class citizens because people like Robertson claim that equal treatment for everybody infringes on their right to live in a position of hateful privilege. That cannot be allowed to go unanswered.

            A&E carrying his show puts money in his pocket. Money that gets spent to support politicians and organizations that actively work to marginalize gay people. You yourself say that gay people deserve equal treatment under the law. Well, that's never going to happen if people like Robertson are allowed to rake in the cash from equality supporters and continue to spend their cash to foster inequality. That's what this controversy is about.

            But, no. “Christians are persecuted! Durr, hurr!”

          • Imperfect as we are

            So perfectly stated. And Exetarian really needs to crack open a few more books to discover who was inflicting the majority of persecution, torture, and “righteous” murder throughout the history of Christianity. Claiming to be better informed than others while presenting inaccurate and specious argument is the hallmark of a defender of the indefensible.

            I could go on and on, but instead, I think I'll concentrate on removing the plank from my own eye.

          • Balou2u

            Good intillectual beat down of Exetarian! To argue on behalf of all as having a rightful place on this planet is the message of Christ and God. The problem with the Bible/Scripture is that through its ambiguity, it is used to support the narrowest of views and often with mal intent. It is well understood that an ambiguious document is to be conscrued against the drafter and here we have approximately 40 of them. This of course does not include the scores of re-writes, translations, tran-literations etc…all to tailor “Gods words” to fit the agenda of a group.

          • Doreyjo


          • junkerjunk

            There is a key called Caps Lock that most people above the age of about 8 to 10 know how to use. If it is not used properly most people scan right past what is written because you come across as an obnoxious idiot.

          • Ellis

            So Civics Lesson it appears that you were forced to go to a Christian church even though you didn't want to and in the process you learned of the sins in the Bible. Since you found out that your views were not in line with the church you just gave up on the Bible and became a none believer. Now you feel you must fight anyone that disagrees with your views especially Christians. You seem to know a lot about the Bible and religion it would be a shame to give up on that knowledge. Don't be so bitter no matter what, it is not good for your soul.
            This just what I think.

          • Civics Lesson

            It's not quite correct to say “[my] views were not in line with the church.” More like, I figured out by the age of 11 that the whole enchilada is one big crock.

            But, thanks for your heartfelt concern!

          • Ellis

            It has been found the human brain has not fully matured until about 21 years of age.

          • talktothe hand

            That's correct, nor can you religious freaks legislate your archaic beliefs on the rest of the country. No one cares what you think of the LGBT community. Nobody cares and it will never be the law so talk about it at church tomorrow.

          • Exetarian

            Irrelevant. No one is talking about legislation of beliefs. A man was asked what he considered sin. He answered the question honestly. If you don't care, then ignore it. But apparently a lot of people do care, and they have devoted a lot of energy to smearing him as a bigot, which is effectively smearing his religious belief in sin as bigotry. And that is intellectually dishonest. If you disagree, fine. But you will not escape being called out for intellectual dishonesty if you attempt to equate religious belief in sexual sin with bigotry. Just because someone doesn't see you the same way you see yourself doesn't make them hateful. It just means they have different beliefs. Deal with it.

          • talktothe hand

            Not irrelevant at all. You bible thumpers push your beliefs down my throat all of the time. My favorite is the prayer in school. There shouldn't be prayer in school, government offices or sporting events. That is how you freaks try to shove your beliefs down my throat. If you want to pray in school, go to a private christian school and keep your beliefs out of the public schools. You deal with it, you POS!

          • Exetarian

            What do you mean “you Bible thumpers”? You automatically assume that because I'm defending them, that I'm one of them? I'm a civil libertarian. I'm standing up for them not because I agree with them but because my rights and yours and theirs are all inextricably tied together. NO ONE is talking about legislation, prayer in schools etc. We're talking about wanton misrepresentation of someone's beliefs, which they have every right to state publicly. And you, by descending to name calling — especially when you have no idea what my personal convictions are — having the temerity to call me “POS” show that you have zero credibility, no class, no sense of civility.

            You're a sorry representative for your side. Grow up.

          • Get a Clue

            Son, you wouldn't recognize honesty if it bit you on the butt.

          • Ellis

            Talktothehand, so why are you all so frigging upset!

          • Get a Clue

            You're gross.
            You're a terrorist.
            You're like someone who rapes animals.

            Wait. Why are you so upset?

          • Ellis

            That there is some funny!

          • e92m3

            Oh those poor Mormons…

            Extarian, you are a sinner and you will BURN IN HELL FOR ALL ETERNITY unless you mend your ways!

            Comply too my world view, NOW.

            Hah, you're just a delusional little fool with the mental capacity of a thimble. Add in your clear failure of basic grade school grammar, a penchant for fantasy, maybe a little fear that you do not posses a conscience or any level of self control without the specter of fiery torture on the near horizon and you end up with a person who is mentally conditioned to feel inadequate, ready to be taken advantage of by one of the oldest cons in the game: religions that do nothing but serve the interest of those who promote them, an illusion that calms the fears of the weak as they ask you to rob them blind.
            You are weak. You are immoral. You are judgmental, just as I am, yet you are incapable of seeing your own stupidity.
            Grow up and leave the fantasy land, little kid. Harry Potter is not real, no matter how much more secure a belief in magic makes you feel.
            Stop asking baby jesus to fix your problems, it's quite pathetic.

          • Exetarian

            So after sarcastically and presumptuously judging who I am (inaccurately, I might add) you proceed to insult me (inaccurately, I might add) followed by an admonition to abandon beliefs that you're not certain that I even hold all based on assumptions from previous posts… followed again by an insult.

            Apart from being the least persuasive admonition I've ever received, it's also the most vapid and devoid of reasoned argument. It's pretty much just an angry rant. Which is fine if it helps you alleviate stress, just don't expect anyone to view it as a proper “argument.” It's not. And it's still entirely beside the point.

            Phil is entitled to his view. He's entitled to express it. And people with good manners ought stop misrepresenting him. He's not a hateful bigot. At worst he's orthodox and narrow in his beliefs. But he's also entitled to that.

            But keep ranting. It reveals just how fundamentally intolerant, misinformed, belligerent and crude the opponents of faith and freedom are. You make it a very easy choice for people with class.

          • Not Quite

            You're misrepresenting. No one is attempting to take his right to his beliefs away from him. We're expressing our disapproval.

            Chiding people for that under the pretext that you're only interested in “civil discourse” is as transparent as it is absurd.

          • Exetarian

            It's not the disapproval I object to. It's the intellectual dishonesty of people who are not willing to address his views on the merits, but who attempt to escape that debate by labeling him a “hateful bigot,” which he clearly isn't. You can call him a religious fanatic, you can label him a lot of things in disagreement. But a belief that a behavior is “sinful” is not hateful. It is, from that person's point of view, a loving acknowledgement, almost like a moral intervention. Disagree if you want, that's fine. Just don't call him a hateful bigot. He's not. I don't know a single Christian who doesn't believe in the existence of “sin.” The whole point of Christianity is about absolution of sin. If we're going to start declaring it “hateful” to believe a given behavior is sinful, then every Christian who declares a belief in a given “sin” is going to be labeled a “bigot” against anyone who indulges in that ‘sin.”

            That is the problem with this gross overgeneralization and wanton misrepresentation.

          • Not Quite

            Okay, let's address the merits.

            You say that we're free to disagree that his belief that a behavior is “sinful” is not hateful. I happen to disagree. So, rejecting the premise that denouncing sin is an act of love . . . what would you call Phil's views about sinners, if not hateful?

          • Exetarian

            You're not free to disagree on that point. Because it's flat-out wrong. You would be dissenting with the entire foundational theology of Christianity. Recognition of sin is not “hate” because Christian theology doesn't allow for hatred of sinners. Granted, you're going to find some like the Westboro group who defy that, but they are exceptions to the rule. And Phil's own statement about accepting everyone validates that. If you view the widely held Christian view that homosexuality is sinful to be tantamount to hatred, then you've just devalued the concept of “hate” to nothingness. 99% of the world's Christians view “sin” as a behavior that separates someone from God — behavior they strive to free themselves and everyone from. The Bible even says none are without sin… in which case, logically speaking, Christians would literally hate everyone including themselves. Does someone who views consumption of alcoholic beverages HATE people who drink?

          • Not Quite

            Now, you're just talking in circles.

            I beg to differ, Big Dog. I most certainly AM free to disagree on that point. You even said so, yourself! That's the whole reason this controversy exists. I'm not a Christian and am in no way bound by “the entire foundational theology of Christianity.” Furthermore, I would argue that if you take them by their actions, the vast majority of Christians don't seem to be bound by it either. Their dogma only means something to them when it can be wielded as a cudgel to beat down the people they don't like.

            You and I clearly come from different worlds if you find the Westboro inbreeds to be the exception. I've found that most Christians do exactly as they please and only point to their Bibles when it conveniently helps them screw somebody else over.

            It's tosh like “Love the sinner, hate the sin” that devalues the word “love.” Come join us in the real world, sometime, and you might see that.

            No really, c'mon. It's nice over here. We have cookies.

          • Exetarian

            I don't engage in generalizations like “the vast majority of Christians.” Not for Christians and not for gay people. Not for anyone. But you aren't free to disagree with definitions. If you equate “sin” with “hatred” then you're simply being willfully ignorant and refusing to define the word as its practitioners define it. And that's what i call intellectually dishonest. You're trying to impose a definition as you see it, not because it's accurate but because it suits your political agenda to marginalize someone accordingly.

          • Not Quite

            And this is where we diverge, because the exact opposite is true from where I sit.

            “Love the sinner, hate the sin” is intellectual dishonesty. That's like saying a devout Christian father is justified in trying to beat the gay out of his son because he wants his son to go to Heaven and the beatings were all done “out of love.” Calling it love, doesn't make it love. The proof is in the pudding. I'm not trying to impose anything. You're willfully ignoring plain truth.

            And while we're at it, I can argue with definitions. Until 1973, homosexuality was defined as a mental illness in the American Psychiatric Association's DSM. They realized they were wrong 40 years ago. So, don't fret. There's still hope for you and Phil.

          • Exetarian

            “Love the sinner, hate the sin” is only intellectual dishonesty to someone who doesn't actually understand the people who declare that as their belief. If you've ever had a loved one who suffered from addiction… you'd understand that sentiment precisely. But your'e not willing to appreciate that it extends into areas of faith and sex and religion as well.

            Most who embrace that ethos don't beat people. That's a straw man and you know it.

            Your definitions point is also entirely off-topic. Apples and oranges. “Sin” is not a definition of the American Psychiatric Association. It's a theological concept that lies at the heart of Christian dogma and has been so for 2000 years. You appear to be arguing that anyone who even believes in such a thing as ‘sin” is hateful. If that's the case, then just say so and declare the entire faith of Christianity predicated on hate because to you the very idea that there could be any sexual behavior at all, gay or straight, that might offend God… is just hateful and divisive. If that's your position, say so. Otherwise you've no leg to stand on.

          • Not Quite

            THAT IS MY POSITION!!!! That's everybody's position that you've been arguing with! How can you only now be getting that?!?!?

            You know what? We're done. It happens I HAVE had a loved one suffer from addiction. Comparing a natural variance in the human condition that happens to make me love differently than you to a vile disease that ruins lives?!? Beyond the pale! Absolutely over the line.

            “Comes from a place of love,” MY ASS!!!!

          • Exetarian

            So you've just admitted it. Thank you. The belief that there is such a thing as “sin” you consider socially unacceptable and hateful. I just want to confirm that. Anyone — including every last Christian on the planet, every last Jew and every last Muslim and Hindu — who believes that there is “sin” in the eyes of God… is guilty of being hateful. Do I have that right?

            You should really try to see things from another perspective. Because what to you is a difference between a “disease” and “natural variance” may not be so different to someone else who sees neither of them as a “variance” or a “disease” but rather the breaking of Biblical law. I don't put jay walking on the same level as burglary, but both are breaking the law. Both of them incur a punishment. For certain religious people, that's the key factor here.

            Maybe if you stopped seeing everything from the standpoint of a victim and tried to appreciate that there is another side — that people who disagree with you aren't looking to persecute you. It is possible to agree to disagree, civilly.

          • billg43

            I love cookies but I still hate sin

          • xpatYankeeCurmudgeon

            “Christians have never been persecuted in America, since its inception.”

            One third of the victims of the terror wing of the Democrat Party ( i.e. the KKK ) were non-black.

            And among those terrorized and lynched were Catholics.

          • billg43

            there is no comparison between race homosexuality. any man and woman of any race con have a child no two men or no two women can have a child that's how God meant it to be. Nothing you can say will change that..

          • Civics Lesson

            And that has what to do with what's being argued here?

            “God” makes lots of straight men and women infertile. Does that make it okay for tolerant Christians to say vile things about them and compare them to terrorists and that them having sex is the same as bestiality?

          • billg43

            Men and Woman share intercourse. homosexuals commit
            Sodomy if you ask any doctor or check any Medical book and you will see there listed as Unsafe sexual acts. No Christians ever said anything bad about people being infertile.

          • Get a Clue

            Plenty of Christians point to the fact that same-sex couples can't biologically reproduce as “proof” that homosexuality is “wrong.” If so, the same logic should apply to the heterosexuality of infertile straight couples.

            Psssst . . . little secret. Lots of heterosexuals practice sodomy, too.

          • billg43

            yes and its a sin and wrong. I sin that does not make it right.

          • Get a Clue

            So, where do you and Phil get off throwing stones from your glass houses?

          • billg43

            Phil was not throwing stones he was in a church talking about right and wrong. We all live in glass houses except maybe you,after all you get to tell us what color the sky is

          • Regina Russell

            Years and years ago, I heard preached from the pulpit that racists will not go to heaven. Also, the Bible does not say slavery is okay. Please quit picking a few verses you don't understand out of a compilation of 66 books to put down the Bible as a whole.
            Plus, I don't know any Christian who hates homosexuals or is afraid of them. It is the anti-Christian statements you have made that shows your own intolerance.

          • Civics Lesson

            When a man strikes his male or female slave with a
            rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If,
            however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since
            the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21)

            I'm glad to take your offer, provided you get your fellow fundies to quit picking the anti-gay verses to validate their own hatefulness while ignoring the gay-positive ones, Reverend.

          • billg43

            Would you object to me saying every child deserves a mother and father ? People aren't trying to make homosexuality a sin. its always been a sin now you want people to say its right . Its wrong.

          • Civics Lesson

            You're free to think that, but I would object to any attempt to codify that assertion into law. Because it's pure bias that is unsupported by fact.

            Studies indicate that children thrive in nurturing, loving environments of all kinds. But if you really wanna look at the score card, children benefit most from growing up with 2 mothers.

            By the way, sin is a construct that only holds meaning for people who believe that a man walked on water. To the rest of us, it's just an insult.

          • billg43

            I agree I am opposed to any law that would discriminate . And encourage any law to protect people . But people are allowed to believe its wrong. .

          • Get a Clue

            People are allowed to think THINGS are wrong. Phil's statements show that he thinks certain PEOPLE are wrong.

            That's Nazi stuff.

          • billg43

            You call people names because you have nothing to say. What Phil said was love the sinner hate the sin. I don t care t what anyone does. the conversation is about right and wrong.

          • Get a Clue


            We're not calling Phil names. We're “loving” him. And you. You're both sinners, right? Well, this is us loving you sinners and expressing our hatred of your sins.

          • billg43

            Calling him a Nazi is your idea of love.

          • billg43

            Name calling is all you have

          • Get a Clue

            You might wanna re-read your own comments, Skippy.

          • billg43

            In all my posts I ve never called any one m

          • billg43


          • Get a Clue

            Did you, or did you not refer to homosexuality as “sin?”

            . . ., Buddy.

          • billg43

            only because it is

          • Get a Clue

            Says you.

            The sky is red. Says me.

          • billg43

            you can keep say that but in morning the sky will be blue and Homosexuality will still be wrong

          • Get a Clue

            You, Phil Robertson and The Bible can keep saying that, but in the morning the sky will be blue and there will still be nothing wrong with homosexuality.

          • billg43

            Read your posts the sky is red just keep telling yourself that

          • billg43

            don t make it so

          • billg43

            Read your posts the sky is red says you keep saying it it don t make so

          • billg43

            when it suits you the sky is red and if that doesen t suit you .You say the sky is blue and your only argument eater way is because you say its so.

          • billg43

            When you wake up in the morning the sky will be blue and homosexuality will still be wrong. Just keep telling yourself the sky is red. Justify

          • billg43

            When you wake in the morning the sky will be blue and homosexuality will still be wrong

          • billg43

            And I did not call you a Homosexual

          • Get a Clue

            No. I called me a homosexual.

            We actually prefer “gay,” just so you know.

          • Get a Clue

            Calling me a “sinner” is yours?

          • billg43

            only if you sin. Its the correct name . someone is not a Nazi because he says what he believes. If I sin I try and change and live a better not try to change whats right and wrong.

          • Get a Clue

            The Nazis believed Jews are a stain on the human race.

            Were they right? They were just saying what they believed.

          • billg43

            No that why there is no comparison

          • Get a Clue

            Cop out. You don't WANT the comparison to be accurate. That doesn't make it so.

            I want a pony. We're both in for disappointment.

          • billg43

            so saying homosexuality is wrong is the same as killing 6 million Jews. accurate comparison ?

          • Get a Clue

            Saying homosexuality is a sin is the same as saying Jews are a stain on the human race.

            Accurate comparison.

            Also, Google “Uganda kill the gays bill.” Or, “Russian Gay Propaganda Law.” Look for the names of Scott Lively, Brian Brown and Rick Warren in the articles that come up. They're “good” American Christians that are putting into action, around the world, things that might remind you of some Germans we both know.

          • billg43

            Yes the whole world believes Homosexuality is wrong We are in the U S no oe is harassing gays we have special laws to protect them, But its still wrong. don t you get you saying it does not make it so

          • Get a Clue

            Don't you get, you and the whole world saying it is wrong doesn't make it so?

            Once upon a time, the whole world had no objections to slavery. We grew up. That's all we're asking of you, Phil and the rest of the world. Grow up. Please, grow up.

          • billg43

            You truly believe there are comparisons between slavery and homosexuality , you compare someone saying your lifestyle choices are wrong with slavery . WOW

          • billg43

            Anything do Justify what you do shame on you

          • billg43

            I have a feeling a lot of Jews would disagree and in fact take offence to the comparison

          • Get a Clue

            So, now you're telling Jews how to feel?

            Well, I'm glad it's not just me.

          • billg43

            Can you even read I said I have a feeling they might take offence. call people names and try to spin what they say . so far the smartest thing you said is the sky is red, Its not.

          • Anne

            I would just like to know where you are getting this information. Don't shoot a bunch of crap out there and think you don't have to account for this, How would you know what happens in Uganda? And aren't you glad you aren't there. Well, many people claim to be Christians who aren't. Just like some claim to be Italian so they can tell people they are connected to the mafia even though they aren't. (?)

          • talktothe hand

            I believe I saw a news story on it within the few years 60 minutes maybe, can't remember.. Why don't you Anne, pick up a book or a newspaper occasionally, turn off the faux entertainment network and gain some insight. You sound incredibly ignorant.

          • OMG The Stupidity

            I know this is a stretch for a far-right Christian, but . . .

            . . . have you ever heard of these things called airplanes and newspapers, my dear?

          • talktothe hand

            I would give you a 1000 thumbs up if I could.

          • Regina Russell

            Saying someone is homosexual is not name-calling. Calling someone homophobic because they disagree with the homosexual lifestyle is name-calling.
            Secondly, we're not in Uganda. I don't think you get to claim self-righteousness because homosexuals suffer there any more than I get to claim self-righteousness because Christians are being murdered in Syria.
            There was no idiocy thrown back in the face of the person you were writing to because your argument about life sentences in Uganda had nothing to do with teenagers in America thinking homosexuality is cool. You were the one being nonsensical and it is very obvious.

          • TomfromNJ1

            I understand what gay sexual activities are, but what is this “gay lifestyle” that people keep bringing up???

          • Exetarian

            Presumably a gay person who is not having gay relationships is not living a gay lifestyle. Conversely, one who is having gay relationships… Is.

          • Not Quite

            We're still gay when we're single, genius.

          • Exetarian

            I was answering a question. And if we're talking about the difference in legality between discriminating against a person for being black versus discriminating, as in the Arizona case, against a “gay wedding,” then the “lifestyle” and not the “gay” is what is being discriminated against, and it's entirely Constitutional, i.e. the activity — the marriage — is what the photographer found objectionable and should not be required to endorse with her services. That being the crucial difference.

          • Not Quite

            Split those hairs.

            Does it hurt your back to bend over backwards that far?

          • Exetarian

            Take it up with the justices when they start splitting hairs. Where the law is concerned, those details matter. Constitutionally, they're of enormous importance.

          • Terry

            The 1st Amendment also guarantees the freedom of religion will not be abridged BY THE GOVERNMENT. A&E is not bound by that although they could suffer consequences for their actions.
            What about people who really take the Bible literally and believe that .homosexual activity should be punished by death? Should their religious beliefs allow them to advocate, encourage or participate in the killing of homosexuals?

          • Exetarian

            Lots of people advocate punishments for various offenses, none of which are legal. There are Muslims who advocate for sharia, including amputation for theft and stoning for adultery. What they aren't entitled to do is act on it. My issue is with the tactic of labeling Phil a bigot and “hateful” as a way of discrediting his religious views without actually acknowledging that they are legitimate expressions of faith that are not hateful. However distasteful his views, he believes they are beliefs predicated on love, and it's dishonest to represent them otherwise.

          • therrendunham

            Again, you don't understand what the protections under the 1st Amendment are. All the 1st states is that the government will not establish a religion; that doesn't mean you can proselytize your beliefs without consequence, or that others are forced to adhere to them. If homosexuality is a moral issue for you, then keep such matters within your home and place of worship; politicizing things reduce them to a p!ssing contest where someone has to be right…

          • Exetarian

            This isn't about the first amendment. It's about misrepresentation. Phil was answering a question. If you don't agree, don't read the interview. But he has every right to speak his mind just as you have a right to rebut him. People of faith will not keep to their homes and places off worship because religious liberty grants them the absolute right to speak their beliefs in the public square, whether you like it or not. If you disagree, then disagree on the factual substance of what they believe, but don't attempt to evade civil debate by slander and misrepresentation. Phil is not a bigot. He's a fundamentalist Christian. The two are not the same thing.

          • therrendunham

            OK, you're defending things that shouldn't be defended. On the fact that this isn't a constitutional issue, you and I agree. However, if you're looking at this from the perspective of the concept of free speech, I'm not saying he couldn't (or shouldn't) speak his peace; what I AM saying is that no man has the right to do so without consequence. And in that regard, this is not an assault on religious freedom, as none of the Robertsons are or have spent a minute in jail for airing their views. Just as critiquing alternative lifestyles isn't necessarily bigotry, critiquing certain applications of Christianity is not an assault on the faith.

            The man aired his opinions, and people criticized it. From there, others criticized his detractors. Aside from some ruffled feathers and hurt feelings, not a single soul was unduly harmed. The American system works.

            You want to see persecuted Christians? Go to Libya. Go to the Sudan. Go visit Iraq. No American Evangelical is persecuted under any semblance of the word.

          • Exetarian

            Let's put it in perspective. It's not an attack on religious liberty, but it is an attack on religious belief. Don't pretend that there isn't a concerted effort on the part of the left and especially on the part of gay activist organizations to culturally marginalize the beliefs of Christians in particular who view homosexual sex as sinful. There is a prevailing view that there is a direct connection between the expression of their views and the ballot box, therefore they view such speech as dangerous and threatening to their civil liberties. Since the Constitution forbids the infringement of such speech, the only tactics left are the propaganda tools of slander, misrepresentation and marginalization to attempt to de-legitimize those religious viewpoints and beliefs without actually addressing them on the merits. As we all know, there is no innocent 'til proved guilty in the court of public opinion. Once someone smears you a racist, bigot, rapist, molester, etc. it's a label you now have to disprove to get your reputation back.

            While that's entirely legal — it's not ethical. It's sleazy. And let's not pretend that Christians are not being directly targeted for persecution in this matter — a photographer in Arizona who declined to photograph a lesbian wedding because she doesn't believe in gay unions is now being sued by those lesbians for discrimination. How utterly tacky and classless. All these years and the pro-gay marriage lobby keeps trying to assuage everyone that changing the definition of marriage won't threaten anyone's religious liberties… and then these lawsuits (there are others as well) come flying in. And their excuse? Oh, there's no religious liberty in the world of BUSINESS! Baloney. If you want legalized gay marriage, if you want equal rights for all gay Americans, you're going to have to live with A) discrimination on the basis of religious conscience and B) the persistent belief by many Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and even Buddhists that homosexual sex is sinful.

            That is the price of equal rights.

          • therrendunham

            You cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation anymore. You just can't. Religious beliefs are no excuse. And likewise, you cannot discriminate on the basis of religious affiliation. So businesses cannot explicitly deny their services based on those criteria. I don't think that the passage of pro-gay legislation can (or will) stop people from airing their misgivings, and that to me is okay. And since you lament the public opinion thing, perhaps it would benefit all of us to be mindful of the consequences of what we do BEFORE we act. But I doubt that people like Phil Robertson really care about what others think of them, so why is everyone else in such an uproar?

          • Exetarian

            The courts will soon rule on this. And you're wrong. The Constitution does not give sexual orientation any special rights, but it does give religious liberty absolute protection. Understand the difference here — in the photography case it's not sexual orientation that is being discriminated against but an activity. It's not the fact that the clients are gay that she has a problem with — it's the “marriage” which is a choice. And there is a thing called “freedom of conscience” that is an essential element to all our civil liberties and which the courts have protected time and time again. You can absolutely choose to discriminate against ACTIVITIES with which you disagree. A mohel who believes that only Jews should be circumcised cannot be forced to take non-Jewish clients.

            This is where it really comes down to. To pretend that people of faith are not threatened by things like “gay marriage” is naive when you look at cases like the Arizona photographer and the other case with the wedding cake baker. Religious liberty does not end at the house of worship. It extends into every element of someone's life. Someone who owns an apartment building has every right to deny rental to gay couples and unmarried straight couples if they feel that sex outside the bounds of Biblical marriage will take place in their building and bring condemnation upon them. It's THEIR building. Their right to religious liberty and personal property trump anyone else's right to housing. Of which, by the way, there is none.

          • therrendunham

            Again, you're trying to assert that religious freedom gives one the right to discriminate against others because their ways run afoul of his faith. NO. YOU. CAN'T. Your religious beliefs DOES NOT protect you from civil and criminal penalties. You can't ban people from public establishments or legally conducting business, only to hide behind your faith. Further, I imagine that the activities that come with same-sex relationships is an inherent part of being gay, just as perhaps praying and going to church are with Christians. Your right to religious freedom ends at the enforcement of the law, which protects others’ rights to live as they please.

          • Exetarian

            The very definition of religious freedom is being allowed to discriminate against activities that fun afoul of your beliefs. Absolutely. And the courts will rule accordingly. And you'll learn to live with it. Because it protects you, too. That is the essence of the 1st Amendment. Again, you can't ban people from public establishments but you can ban ACTIVITIES. You can discriminate against ACTIVITIES. A photographer can decline to photograph an orgy, can they not? They can decline take boudoir photos, can they not? You can try to make the case that activities that come with same-sex relationships are part of being gay, but you'll fail because activities are a choice. Anti-discrimination law protects only those classes of characteristics that the law deems to not be a choice — gender, orientation, race, etc. It is patently unconstitutional and an offense against our guaranteed freedom of conscience to compel someone to commercially sanction an activity with which they disagree.

            Case in point — if a photographer declines to take your wedding photos because you're getting married in a church and they don't agree with the faith of that church… they have every right to do so.

            The right to religious freedom ends NOWHERE. It is absolute and inviolate. Others absolutely have the right to live as they please — but they do not have the right to compel you to use your life, your talents, your property and your means to sanction their lifestyle. Their rights end at your person and property. And yours end at their person and property. That's how it works.

            You will learn to accept that as the law of the land or you will have a culture war on your hands that you won't know how to handle. If you want this country to have any kind of civil future, that's the compromise you will learn to live with. Otherwise… it will be open bloody warfare… and you will not prevail.

          • therrendunham

            Yeah, well the Arizona photographer didn't decline to take those pictures because some gay guys were showing their genitalia; they asked her to take sots of a wedding. You don't have a right to discriminate because you share a different faith than a potential client. And I'm sorry, your right to believe in a deity ends at my house, my television, and my wallet.

            You only have the right to worship freely. You don't have the right to use your faith as a wedge against others. You complain about being persecuted, but you openly advocate using your faith to justify persecuting others?

          • Exetarian

            So you're now going to decide what someone else does and doesn't find offensive to their conscience? You absolutely do have the right to discriminate if your potential client asks you to apply your talents to an activity with which they are morally at odds. Period. They get to decline you. Go find someone else. Honor their conscience. Yes, my right to believe in a deity ends at your house, television and wallet. And your right to my services ends with my decision as to whether I'll provide them. Property is property. Your house, television and wallet belong to you. My services belong to me.

            You are running grotesquely afoul of the Constitution. Th right to WORSHIP freely? I'm sorry, but WRONG WRONG WRONG! How grotesquely offensive and anti-American can you be? The 1st Amendment clearly states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.” It's not up to you to arrogantly decide that “free exercise” just means “worship.” Hogwash! People of faith exercise their faith in every facet of their lives, day in and day out, at home and at work. They are the ones who decide what “free exercise” means. Not you. And if they want to use their faith as a wedge against others, so be it. That, too, is their right.

            You're confusing two very different things, my friend. Action and inaction are not the same. The use of one's person and property is not the same as an action against that of another. If I violate your person or property, that is persecution. If I withhold my services and my property from serving you… that's discretion. Learn the difference.

          • therrendunham

            If you own a business, I hope you've got good umbrella coverage.

            I don't care what you do, how you believe or what your holy book tells you. If you have a problem selling a product or service because of your faith (i.e. a Muslim working in a liquor store), that's exercising religious freedom. If you EXPLICITLY deny someone the right to your product or service because of your faith (i.e. a Muslim refusing to rent an apartment to a Jewish family because you got a problem with Judaism), THAT is discrimination, and is NOT protected under the First Amendment.

            Again, to be clear, you have every right to your beliefs, but you do not have the right to discriminate against others because of those beliefs. The courts are increasingly supporting that for gays, because society is changing. Accept it and be at peace.

          • Exetarian

            Then we are at ideological war. Because the courts will have to rule on this, and I promise you… they will rule in the favor of people of faith. If you explicitly deny someone the right to your product or service? Since when does ANYONE have a “right” to someone else's product or service? What do you think a “right” is? You don't have a right to someone else's talents or property. That's called “slavery.” You have a right to YOUR products and services. Your property. If you want something someone else has, you have to barter for it. You have to pay for it. Meet on equal terms. And if they aren't willing to provide it, tough. Too bad. A Muslim has every right to refuse to rent to ANYONE whose behavior they believe would put their mortal souls at odds with God. If a Muslim believes that two people will be having extra-marital sex in his apartment building, he absolutely can and will refuse to rent to them. If he wants to set a policy that no one in his building can celebrate Christmas or bring in a Christmas tree… that also is his right. You can go find another apartment owner who's not so restrictive.

            That's the essence of the First Amendment. Because the entire Bill of Rights is not about protecting “the greater good” but protecting the rights of individuals FROM what you or I might consider “the greater good.” So you better damn well believe that people of faith have the right to discriminate based on faith… they have it, they will continue to exercise it and the pushback, if you refuse to accept it, will be unfathomable to you. You have no idea what a hornet's nest you'll have opened up. Gay people have a right to equal treatment under the law. They do not have a right to force others to sanction their idea of sexual relationships.

            No one of faith will ever accept that and be at peace. It cuts to the essence of freedom of conscience. To violate that is a totalitarian action and it will not be tolerated.

            Deal with it.

          • therrendunham

            You are just out in left field, and if you don't believe there are limits to certain freedoms–religion being one–then I will leave you to your little world.

            I don't know who (or what) you're at war against, but it is not with me.

            But, your employer has every right to your talents; that's what they pay you for. Renters have every right to a dwelling, provided they meet the criteria established by SECULAR law, not religious ones, and they have a right to live in uninterrupted peace, meaning that once rented, landlords can't dictate what a renter does, so as long as those activities are not illegal and the provisions of the lease are agreed upon. The Bill of Rights protects citizens from the tyranny of government, not the perceived tyranny of the infidels. Freedom of conscience implies the right to hold a belief; it does NOT afford individuals the right to act on those beliefs in such a way that it infringes on the rights of others to live peaceably.

            But since people like you are hard headed, that's why we have equal opportunity laws for housing, workplace discrimination laws for employment, and other civil measures which have been expanded to accommodate people of alternative lifestyles.

            Hey, don't take my word for it; go fight your holy war and find out for yourself.

          • Exetarian

            No, you're the one in “Left” field, as it were. The whole point of the Bill of Rights is that they are the absolute freedoms we are guaranteed, WITHOUT LIMITATION. They are “inalienable rights” which the government is not allowed to abridge because it never granted them to us in the first place. We own those rights by virtue of being alive. Government is constrained in its “enumerated powers” from infringing our “unenumerated rights.” You need a civics course, buddy. The whole point of “rights” is that as long as you're not infringing someone else's rights, they are yours to exercise as you wish. In other words… as long as you're not deploying your person and property to infringe someone else's person and property, nobody has a right to tell you how to use any of it.

            You've heard of “No shirt, no shoes, no service”? That's discrimination. All businesses do it. Because they're protected in discrimination against choices and behaviors. Sure, once rented landlords can't necessarily invade your privacy, but they can absolutely set rules for rental. And if they say, “No extramarital sex is permitted,” you cannot challenge that in court. The Bill of Rights doesn't “protect” so much as it RECOGNIZES that those rights are preexistent. That's why it doesn't grant them — it merely constrains government. Which means government cannot infringe your religious liberty. Because it's absolute.

            You need to seriously understand what a “right” is. If I withhold my services from someone, I'm not infringing their rights. I'm simply exercising MY rights. A “right” is an entitlement to action or property that does not require the consent of another. I don't’ care how badly you need or want what I have… you don't have a right to it. I do.

            My word to you is a word of counsel, because if you think people of faith will take the infringement of their liberties sitting down, you have another think coming. You will learn to live with religious discrimination or you'll be inviting a culture war you cannot comprehend. So back down. Accept that faith entitles the bearer to withhold their services from activities they find offensive. Deal with it. And move on. Otherwise this country is going to rip wide open.

          • Not Quite

            Your word is insane troll logic.

            No shirt, no shoes is justifiable discrimination in compliance with the health code. Anti-gay bigotry is an irrational boil on the butt of the greatest nation mankind has ever known.

          • Honorable Bridge Dweller

            Justice Scalia? What are you doing up so late, Sir?

            Go back to bed.

          • therrendunham

            Then I guess you should be okay with a Muslim girl wearing a headscarf at your child's school, and a group buying land near your neighborhood for a mosque.

          • Not Quite

            Just like there was once a concerted effort on the left to get all Americans to realize that people of African descent are just that, PEOPLE. People deserving of all the same respect and rights as their white enslavers.

            Some things are just true. There aren't two valid diametrically opposed options for there to be this “civil difference of opinion” that you want so badly for there to be on this issue. That's not a possibility, in this case. Snap out of it.

          • Ellis

            therrendunham, so what your saying if I understood correctly is Phil expressed his view of the Bible toward sin and you have every right to be critical of his view but no one has the right to be critical of yours. If that is correct then your view is incorrect. If not what's the problem?

          • therrendunham

            Nope; what I am saying is that people like you will always overlook the obvious because it challenges your narrow worldview, and you either can't accept that or you sorely lack reading comprehension skills. Either case is an unacceptable condition, and yet not my problem.

          • Ellis

            Really intelligent come back. LMSO

          • therrendunham

            You only laugh because you can't counter it, and you know it.

          • doug105

            The two are not mutually exclusive as you seem to imply.

          • Not Quite

            “Phil is not a bigot. He's a fundamentalist Christian. The two are not the same thing.”

            Red is blue. Fire is wet. Saying something doesn't make it true.

          • Exetarian

            Bigotry is intolerance of those who hold different beliefs. Phil isn't intolerant of gay people. He believes their lifestyle is “sinful.” The fundamentalist view — if you bothered to seek one out and ask them (which I have done) — is that they want everyone to receive God's love… for which reason they call all people to repent of all sins. In which case, declaring a behavior or lifestyle as sinful is not a condemnation — from their view it's like a moral intervention.

            Don't shoot the messenger. You can disagree. This isn't necessarily my view. But I”m sick and tired of people lobbing bombs at a man for simply expressing a religious opinion. If America is no longer a place where we can express unpopular religious views without being slandered as a bigot, a racist or worse… it's no longer America.

          • Phil Robertson

            “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.”

          • Exetarian

            Undoubtedly the oddest thing he said. But if you equate that with bigotry, you have a frighteningly low bar.

          • Not Quite

            Uh huh. That's the problem here. Us gay people and our low bar.

          • Exetarian

            If you're going to equate “hatred” with every single straight person who finds same-sex attraction to be off-putting or a little bit disgusting, then you have to assign the term “bigot” to every gay man who has ever declared a woman's genitalia to be disgusting.

            Someone who finds your sexual orientation distasteful doesn't hate you. Good grief, get over yourself.

          • Not Quite

            Phil Robertson's comments about gay sex were hateful. Gay men who call women's genitals “disgusting” are equally hateful. You could call those gay guys “bigots” and it would be semantically accurate. But it wouldn't mater, as much, because straight people don't suffer under institutional oppression at the hands of gay men who find snatch icky. The same can't be said in reverse.

            Someone who finds another's sexual practices distasteful is hateful enough to have bothered to pass that judgement. Most of us gays are forced to watch straight people make out and have simulated sex on tv and in movies, every single day, without giving it so much as a second thought.

            Your opinions show the same lack of consideration for the opposition that you cry foul over in the outrage from people Phil has angered. You might benefit from your own advice, there.

          • Exetarian

            And now we're into hyper-sensitive silly-season. Hate is contempt. Contempt for the person. Not disgust at their lifestyle. I frankly find Phil Robertson's lifestyle disgusting. Hairy, unkempt rednecks who hang out in swamps hunting ducks. It's nasty. I think his beard is nasty. I think the whole lot of them are nasty. But I don't hate them. I just find their lifestyle and manner off-putting. But I've devoted a lot of time here to defending them from those who would declare them hateful.

            And you're now equating anything but a loving embrace of someone's lifestyle to be “hate.” Look. Most people are grossed out by something. If I see someone picking their nose and it grosses me out, I don't hate them.

            Seriously. This is completely off the rails now.

            Suffering under “institutional oppression” is a legitimate gripe. But to label anyone who is put off by same-sex attraction as “hateful” is playing the worst kind of culture war guilt-tripping. Sorry, you're just going to lose that battle. Most straight people find gay sex to be repugnant — and most gay people find straight sex repugnant. That's what DEFINES their orientation. It's not hateful. It's nature.

          • Not Quite

            You make a lot of half-baked assumptions for someone who holds “intellectual honesty” in such high regard.

            Gay people aren't DEFINED by any one thing, but – to put it terms you'll understand – we're gay because straight sex is unsatisfying for us. But for someone who equates condemnation of sin with love, I can understand how the wide chasm of nuance between “unsatisfying” and “disgusting” would be essentially meaningless.

            Thanks for comparing my sex life to a nose-picker's vile habit, by the way. You're a real peach. And for calling me “silly.” Who was it that has railed against “name-calling” all throughout these many comments?

          • Exetarian

            Oh, for crying out loud. In matters of “orientation” everyone is defined by those to whom they are attracted. UNSATISFYING? Give me a break. You're gay because you're not attracted sexually to the opposite sex. People who are straight are not sexually attracted to the same sex. That means that for everyone the thought of sex outside of their orientation is “distasteful.” Give me a break. I'm calling you silly because you've taken hypersensitivity to a level I never imagined possible. You've actually told me that unless a straight person ceases to find gay sex disgusting, they're hateful bigots. That doesn't mean they find the PEOPLE disgusting. That doesn't mean they can't support equal rights under the law or form friendships with those people. Good grief, man. Get a clue here. Your rights under the law and your inclusion in society does not hinge on getting straight people to psychologically and physiologically overcome their aversion to thinking about gay sex. You're looking for something that's not going to happen. And yes, I've had several gay men over the years tell me they find female genitalia disgusting. They're not hateful. They're just gay men. And every last one of them was lovely and charming and had a rabble of female friends. They just didn't want to see them naked. Wow. So hateful.

          • jimbow

            it said congress will not establish a religion, not the state gov or other forms of the gov. read it yourself. In fact most of the 1st states had an state establish churches, and tax or made people give to that church. Even though now days that type of thing is believed to be wrong, also in 1776 a openly homosexuality would of gotten you in BIG trouble too.

          • therrendunham

            Distinction without a difference. First of all, you're referring to COLONIAL churches, which by and large were extinct by the early 1800s (I looked it up). As the Constitution established the provision within the Bill of Rights, the newly established states mostly followed along.

          • Ellis

            Exetarian, Civics Lesson can't help himself he has been indoctrinated into the liberal belief that he is far superior to all that do not believe as he does, so you call them vile names. That way they do not have to explain their ideas because they have none.

          • Not Quite

            Ideas like “liberal indoctrination,” you mean?

            You're clearly a very thoughtful person.

        • lew


        • Anne

          The last time I checked no one was threatened and so there is no need for a get out of jail free card to begin with. This reply doesn't even merit a response. But you answered your own question, yes we can say what we want to whomever we please, and the consequences may be on either party, who? I guess we'd find out. But you know what? Corporate meetings, schools, church, these are all places where sex does not belong whether it is heterosexual or homosexual and the topic should not even be brought up, bottom line.

          • Not Quite

            Phil's the one that brought up sex. Gay people were just minding our own business, living our lives.

            So, who are you wagging your finger at, Busy Body?

        • Crackie McCrackle

          Exactly, Civics. These people seem to think that the first amendment means no one can criticize them or disagree with their religious views. Or that it somehow means these duck people have a guaranteed right to have their own television show.

      • Doreyjo

        NOt only was your comment tasteful and kind, it is absolutely true. I respect my homosexual nieces, cousins, friends, etc.,
        Know this, no one, and I do mean no one, will tell me that I won't address any issue according to my faith in Jesus Christ, and the Bible. You should also be glad that we won't. It is for your benefit and that of all man kind. God is not silent, and he does not sleep. In reality, there is no sinful behavior practiced that wants to fall under the scrutiny of the world of God. Every thing addressed as sin is offensive to every believer and God himself. The truth is larger than the Universe, God runs it, and you nor I, or any other sinful human being can change it. It is not us you hate. It is the God who declared it and it goes for us as well as as you. The prostitute, the adulterer, the abortionist, the murderer,the thief, the liar,rapist or abuser, are under God's wrath until repentance and confession before Almighty God has been offered. Be aware that all your ranting, bullying,and law suits are no match for the living God.

        You should also be keenly aware that the nation's chief Muslim, Louis Farrakhan,has called for the beheading of homosexuals. That is where you had better put your focus. No one is commenting on that statement. I think offensive words are a tad less dangerous than a comment of this nature. You have left the closet and in accordance with his belief, you are an endangered species, which must be removed. I am really praying for you.

      • talktothe hand

        Who's Brando?

    • guest

      Pick up a history book. American was founded by religious leaders. Why do you think it is in our courts, our flag words, our documents, our songs for our country ect… Kids were sent to school to prevent child labor and to learn to read the Bible. Learned it in a college class for teachers; written right in their books. The press is politically correct and don't relate true facts anymore. Voting has shown that nearly over 80% of America don't support gays issues and their forcing people in America to adopt their views. California for one shot gay marriage down with pleanty of room to spare and then the gays didn't want voting after that. What is patriotic about a lifestyle that started the AIDS epidemic and was helped along by bisexuals spreading it to everyone else? Plus why hate religious people. Those duck people are not the only ones that don't support gay issues. Many non-religious gay people are against it and Scientologist are a whole lot more outspoken about being against gays than Christians. Not a duck watcher, but I am a freedom of speech supporter and against witch hunts. Gays and their supporters are continually on witch hunts against American citizens. Let everyone have a voice and opinion.

      • lew

        Sir you need to pick up the history book. America was founded on Religious Freedoms. Not that everyone should be Christians, but were everyone has the right and freedoms to worship as they see fit even if its not to worship at all. Sir for you insight, Ben Franklin, and Alexander Hamilton among other of our forefathers were Agnostics. And sir I am a Christian, I try to spread love and not hate. True Mr. Robertson has the right to say what he wants to as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. But as Christian I prefer not to cast the first stone or to pass judgment on anyone. Maybe Phil didn't read that part of the Bible “Judge not that you be not judged”. The right to judge is GOD'S not man's!

      • Brian

        Wow, your ignorance is astounding. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are just misinformed on these matters rather than willfully ignorant. As a history scholar, I suggest you do a little more reading on these subjects before you try to address them in a manner that will be taken seriously, I could recommend some good books if you like. You're first incorrect assertion is that “America was founded by religious leaders.” While the first European settlements in North America were established as religious communities, those people almost immediately began killing each other and those around them, and the constitutional republic was established in a manner to protect religious groups not from the non-religious, but from other religious groups. Thomas Jefferson's famous line referring to the “wall of separation between Church and State,” was addressed to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut after they wrote to him during his presidency seeking protection from persecution of the Congregationalist majority in Danbury. This ‘Christian nation’ myth that you are attempting to perpetuate has long since been refuted, despite the best attempts of the Christian right at revisionist history, which is why ‘Judeo-Christian’ has emerged as the new buzz word of the Christian theocratic movement. Thomas Jefferson didn't even attempt to veil his contempt for Christianity, and was referred to as an Atheist in his day, although now we recognize his position as deism. He wrote about Christianity; “The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole cartloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity.” He even produced his own copy of the Bible, in which he removed all references to the divinity of Jesus and all other unsubstantiated supernatural claims, and only included what he considered to be valuable moral and practical advice…needless to say, it was a very short document.
        George Washington was so contemptuous of the Christian faith that he refused to take communion as President and never referenced Christ or Christianity anywhere in his private writings, and asked for no prayer or ritual on his deathbed. Benjamin Franklin was similarly a deist and rejected the virtuosity of faith, writing “In the affairs of the world, men are saved not by faith, but by the lack of it” and believed that no creator of the Universe would ever be so petty as to demand worship or praise from humans. Thomas Paine, also a deist, was even more militantly anti-Christian and believed that “Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst.” He openly criticized Christian doctrine as patently absurd, writing, “What is it the New Testament teaches us? To believe that the Almighty committed debauchery with a woman engaged to be married; and the belief of this debauchery is called faith,” and, “Take away from Genesis the belief that Moses was the author, on which only the strange belief that it is the word of God has stood, and there remains nothing of Genesis but an anonymous book of stories, fables, and traditionary (sic) or invented absurdities, or of downright lies.” I could continue, but I think my point is sufficiently demonstrated. Of course, these men shouldn't be taken as authorities as to whether or not Christianity is true, but you assertion that America was founded by religious leaders is demonstrably false. The founders were almost exclusively influenced by the philosophical writings of such authors as Locke, Hobbs, Rousseau, Montesquieu, and Voltaire during the Enlightenment rather than any spiritual or religious belief.

        As to your point about the religious language in the courts, our “flag words,” whatever that means, our documents, etc…as previously pointed out, the founders were deists, which is a philosophical position that accepts the concept of a creator god, but not a personal god that intervenes in the physical world as claimed by the Abrahamic religions. The language that references a god or creator in the founding documents were most certainly referring to the god of the Bible, and thus are not an endorsement of Christianity. As for the “flag words,” which I can only assume means the Pledge of Allegiance, did not include the words “under God” in the original composition. These words were added in 1953 in response the the tensions created by the Cold War and the perceived “Red Scare.” They were a direct result of the threat of “godless Communism” and the shameless scare tactics employed by Senator Joseph McCarthy and his fellow anti-Communist crusaders.

        Your statistics regarding support for gay marriage are also either inaccurate of intentionally deceptive. A Quinnipiac University poll administered in September of this year indicated that a majority of both adult Americans and registered voters (56% and 57%, respectively) support gay marriage. Quinnipiac University is one of the most respected polling institutions in the country, and while you are free to question the validity or methodology of the poll, the number is simply incompatible with with your claim that “80% of Americans don't support gay issues.” I'd like to see the study on which you've based this assertion. Further, I dispute you're claim that “many non-religious gay people are against it.” I assume that you have meant to say “many non-religious straight people are against it,” but even so, this claim is equally absurd. If you can present one compelling secular argument for the prohibition of gay marriage, I'd love to hear it. Every argument against gay marriage is dependent on religious belief, so it is nonsensical to assert that non-religious people would be persuaded by religious arguments. You seem to suggest that you have received some post-secondary education, although your failure to compose complete sentences causes some confusion. Allow me to make a suggestion: request a refund, your education has obviously failed you.

        • Josh


        • talktothe hand

          You had me at ..”convenient cover for absurdity”.. Got to love TJ for that!

    • Paul Mauricio Velasquez

      brando, you represent the Best of a morally/mentally orphan. No doubt you grow up with a mother called TV, watching cheap vulgar shows, and your real father, a decrepit video game. Your poor opinion just reveal how little you know about this country. “Someone religious beliefs are irrelevant”..WHAOOO!!! I knew all my life that George Washington was a man of faith, that prayed to the God of the Bible!!! American Historians must be liars!! according to you! the same about the Americans who wrote the American Constitution the words “a Nation under God”, surely knew something about the importance of faith, the Bible and God.
      So far, History show, never, ignorant like you, liberals and homosexuals
      were able to produce a single positive advancement in any society.
      Surely no Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Lincoln and hundreds of American patriots and creators of civilization in this USA or around the world, were homosexuals, less, complete idiots like you.
      Stop watching TV, READ a book about American History, MAYBE you can learn about American values, and WHAT and WHO shaped this nation.

      • Not giving

        I think it's you who needs to learn about American history. The US Constitution doesn't mention God, nor does the Bill of Rights. The phrase “one Nation under God” is in the Pledge of Allegiance — and the “under God” part wasn't added until 1954, at the height of anti-Communist fervor. Congress added the words to the Pledge to link patriotism with religious piety, to distinguish us from the Soviets.

        A student of American history would know that many of our Founding fathers, including Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson, while believing in the God of the New Testament, cared little for the authority of the Bible, the divinity of Jesus, or the authoritarian dogma of evangelical Christianity. Adams was a Unitarian (which reveres Jesus, but not as one with God) while maintaining separation of church and state. Jefferson cut out all supernatural aspects of the bible, parts of which he thought “merely the ravings of a maniac”, into what became known as “The Jefferson Bible”, focusing only on the excellent moral teachings of Jesus.

    • joe

      I believe in the separation of church and state, but I am also sick of the religion of homosexuality being push down the public's throat. You don't want to hear about sin… and I don't want to hear about homosexuals calling anyone that don't kiss their a$$ being homophobic. I have friends that are gay and we neither fear or preach to each other about each others religion. After all religion is based on belief and if you believe you were born gay why couldn't I have been born a Baptist or Muslim. The important thing is that we as a Free culture don't let our government and other groups divide us and slay us all.

      • Not Quite

        You don't have any gay friends. You might know some gay people, but they aren't your friends.

        Friendship requires respect.

    • billg43

      this is America people get to say what there beliefs are. right and wrong. that's why your allowed to say what you think should we try and shut you up

    • KittyBell

      I believe in God and the Bible with all my heart. I believe that life is our test. How we handle what God puts in our path is how we are graded. Jesus gives us all choices. We have the freedom to choose the sins in our life. If that sin is not conquered and we choose it over Christ, them we suffer the consequences. It does not matter if it's a sexual sin, over eating, drugs, alcohol, whatever you struggle with that is a sin you must recognize, ask forgiveness and give it up or you choose not to be a child of God. It's your choice. If our sin encourages others to do the same sin – then we are responsible for the sins of others and we will suffer greatly in the end of time.
      whatever the sin – its just a sin. I don't judge people because of their sins – I have enough of my own to deal with. The only thing that bothers me about homosexuals is they refuse to recognize their sexual choice as a sin. It's not a life style choice- it's a sin that has been around since the beginning of time!

      • Get a Clue

        But that's the thing, tho. No one ever considered it a sin before some d-bag Pope got his gay-bash on in the middle ages.

        You're entitled to your faith. You are not entitled to pass your religious beliefs off as facts.

    • r.craft600

      You see That there are a lot of things in this world that is gluttony/sin.
      This could be the money you spend the car you drive the special things
      you want in life to take more than what you need. You see we can't judge
      gluttony/sin because, if we measure that we will be measured the same way. You see Jesus did say he did not come to judge the world his words will. I
      think it is the lack of having a personal relationship with Christ and
      fallowing the true word of the Gospels. I will say I am a Born Again
      Christian I do not us my own word and most true Christians will not use
      there own words they use the word,s in Gospels so we should be careful
      what we say about what is repeated in the Bible because a direct quote
      is against Jesus Christ not the Christian. Jesus did say if we teach his
      word we will be persecuted for his names sake. So if the word is God's then who do you have a problem with Christians or God?
      Jesus said, in the
      Gospels of Mark (7:18-23)“Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see
      that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? For
      it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of
      the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)
      He went
      on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them. For it is from
      within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual
      immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness,
      envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and
      defile a person.”
      Hopefully all will come to a understanding for
      them self's and repent and seek forgiveness and change and be born
      again. Hope all come to Jesus for what he gives if love because he is
      faithful even when you can not be so love him and do as he ask and earn
      you reward with him. Jesus
      said, (John 14:21)” Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one
      who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too
      will love them and show myself to them.” Because, if we repent and
      confess (remember It is never to late) if we do then we become righteous
      and blameless and our sins covered by Jesus Christ and made Holy
      through him. We must come to him as a child and seek him and obey him.
      Then we see we walk by Faith and abide in God's Grace and be lead by the
      Holy Spirit.

    • r.craft600

      This is what you miss It is the words of Jesus Christ and trust me when I say that he is the creator of all man kind, for we are formed in his image.Think about it, this is the only religion that has proof of the prophecy about what has happened and what is yet to come. Also stood the test of time. The Bible has not been rewritten it has been translated from Hebrew the only thing they tried to change was devorce but that did not happen because mankind was evil. Jesus Christ made it clear about all things. The religions that you speak of most are more for the old testament laws and not the Gospels of Jesus Christ. People want to do what they want and guide there way instead of living as the body of Christ and help one another with values of life. The United States was first formed on the values of God they were not formed by government first. To say the least the government will lie and tell you what you want to hear just to get the vote. So to this Nation If God means nothing then why has it always been one nation under God and In God We Trust on all the money you spend and work for. Who do you think created all this. It is not just about homosexuals it is about ALL being saved you missed the understanding and Understand that there are several things that are pointed out you only point out the one thing of the scripture because you must believe in the rest if not you would exclude the others to. So Then God was correct about all of them but one thing that people want to change again.

    • jordonvuz355

      my Aunty Lyla just got a stunning yellow
      Mitsubishi Eclipse Convertible by working from a computer. pop over to these
      guys B­i­g­2­9­.­ℂ­o­m

  • Exetarian

    Tim Molloy — best policy next time is to just ignore the emails and not comment on them. You're not a scriptorian or theologian. Don't try to rebut the people you disagree with. Just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

    • Intellectual Rigor

      Yes. By all means, don't criticize the Jabberwoky unless you've completed your Masters Thesis on Alice in Wonderland, first.

      That makes perfect sense.

      • Exetarian

        You're right. Billions of people and millions of the brightest minds are all wrong. You're right. Go ahead and evangelize your genius. It's being wasted here. There has to be a book publisher somewhere who'll pay you millions for this dazzling discovery which you argue so lucidly.

        • Intellectual Rigor

          Hon, none of the “brightest minds” are religious. That's like saying, “Some of the smartest people I know flunked out of school.”

  • Ragoo

    you obviously do not have basic understanding Christianity, no one says gluttony is an appropriate lifestyle or that it isn't a sin. the reason why we don't hear about it in church is the same as we don't hear a pastor preach about murder we all know its wrong

    • Walter28

      You obviously have no basic understanding of sin. One third of the country are not murderers. But they are gluttons (roughly 33% of the country is obese — mostly due to overeating and excessiveness, which is what “gluttony” means). They NEED to hear it in church, because many of them still think they're good Christians. They'll call out gays while sitting on their own sinful rear ends without even realizing that the Old Testament condemns them all to hell for being fat.

    • Time Management

      Or, it's because hating people you've never met because you find gay sex icky is so much fun that it just eats up all of that precious pulpit time.

  • boys town

    This article is gay

  • put the penguin in the cage

    Gay gay gay nobody reads the crap.

  • tim malloy's butt

    Can't wait to print this out and stick it up

  • astralislux

    Why does The Wrap think they should weigh-in on this controversy? Robertson believes homosexuality is a sin because the Bible tells him that it's true.

    • Cuts Both Ways

      Why does reading a book entitle Christians to condemn people for an intrinsic trait common to hundreds of millions of people?

      • astralislux

        Because it's their faith and has been crystal clear for a very long time.

        • Cuts Both Ways

          Kinda like it was crystal clear for a very long time that the world is flat and the faith that most people had that sailing too far out to sea put you in danger of falling off the edge?

          That's thing about people being wrong. You tend go on and on about how you're not wrong. Saying it loudly and often doesn't make it true.

          • astralislux

            Your example is a myth. Who taught you that?

          • Cuts Both Ways

            I could say the same to you.

          • astralislux

            Sure, but with thousands of years of interpretation of scripture, you can't say that Robertson is making this up.

          • Cuts Both Ways

            I can't say that Robertson is making up the fact that gay men are gross for being turned on by same-sex anal intercourse and turned off by vaginal intercourse?

            Okay. If you say so.

  • Fink Sinatra

    You are extremely on point! He includes idolaters and the greedy in his ridiculous rant & that family is the epitome of both. They have every type of merchandise for sale at Wal-Mart (another group of winners) & they have a Xmas Album even though they can't sing, cookbooks & they are on every channel imaginable. If they aren't the Christ Figures of Idolaters at this point in time, I don't know who is. They are extremely hypocritical & narrow minded, just like supporters of his. Ignorant as hell. On the opposite end of the spectrum, they set a good example for families & especially young fans & whoever didn't think that this is how they felt from day one are just as ignorant. Great article man!

  • guest

    Funny how when the issue is wheather he has the right to state his opinion in what is suppose to be a freedom of speech nation that gay supporters skirt the issue and start trying to talk about another subject. Plus, I have news for them, not all people who are against gays are religious. Many against the gay movement are not religious. The Scientologist are blatantly against it; however one never hears gays going up against them. Why??? And why do they care if one man thinks they are going to Heaven or not. Many of them don't even believe.
    America use to ban witch hunts and now actors are not allowed to voice their opinions or they don't have a job…aka Isaiah Washington. We should really be worried about the power that the gay support is wielding. They change laws and country legislation by having gay people in places of authority such as judges.
    The people are not for it as seen by the few times that voting has been allowed. California for one shot it down and now people are not allowed to vote because gays, their enterainment buddies, their gay officials voting for their own personal causes and not for the people's choices won't allow voting on it anymore. They know that the majority of Americans are not for it.
    At first, I didn't care. But trying to change our laws, stating blatantly that all who don't believe their opinion are wrong, and trying to force their lifestyle on others has changed my mind. That on top of higher ins rates from paying for all those AIDS drugs(one cause of higher rates; million on each sufferer) and it is a scientific fact AIDS started with gay sex which bisexuals then spread to the rest of the population. Not to mention the gay preachers and coaches touching boys/men and since they aren't after girls, they are definitely gay. Maybe gays and their supporters should pay for the AIDS drugs.

    • For Pete's Sake

      Wow. That's a whole lotta stupid you crammed into three incorrectly indented paragraphs, there!

      First, Phil's freedom of speech hasn't been harmed in the least little bit. Read the rest of the comments, bud. I don't have the energy to dumb down that explanation any further.

      Scientologists are a bunch of a-holes. Gays and numerous other groups go after them all the time. You're just not aware of it, but it doesn't get coverage on Fox News.

      No one has robbed the American people of their voting rights, except for Republicans who've spent the last 3 years trying to strip blacks, latinos and young people of their opportunities to vote. Prop 8 was overturned because it was unconstitutional. Just like it's unconstitutional to deny a black person employment when you're hiring just because their black. If “majority vote” were the way we did things in this country, blacks would still be slaves and gays and Muslims would be summarily executed by the state.

      Your grasp of what constitutes “scientific fact” is tenuous, at best. AIDS didn't start because of gays. Anyone who has unprotected anal sex is at higher risk of contracting the HIV virus. That just happens to describe more men who have sex with other men, than the rest of the population. That in no way means that gays caused AIDS and unleashed it on the straight population via bisexuals. That's just . . . wow.

      And you want to bring it down to brass tacks? Childless gay people have always payed property taxes so that the children of heterosexuals can attend public schools for free. And we pay higher interest rates because of all those babies you uninsured rednecks can't seem to keep yourselves from having, despite the fact that the global population has doubled in just the last 50 years and will double again in less time than that. There's a Hell of a lot more of you, than there are of us. We pay our taxes and don't even receive equal treatment under the law for the indignity of it all. Who's getting the short end of the stick, now?

      And for the record, wrong people are just wrong. The fact that anti-gay idiots, like yourself, happen to fall in that camp is not our fault.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1301564078 Tom Kidd

    Amen & Hallelujah!!! If the shoes fit, Duck Dynasty supporters, then work the runways, Sweeties! :-*

  • deversal


    • Wouldn't Know It If It Bit Ya

      Yeah! You queers stop yer sinnin'!

      Love, Christians

      Cuz, it's all about love, don't you know.

  • Ken Nichols

    Great article. We sin (fall short of God's perfect standard) SO much that it's silly pointing out people's specific sins. Love God and love each other because Christ already took care of the “sin” problem, for EVERYONE.

  • Paula Schultze

    People are going crazy over this! First let me say that the LGBT community has pretty much gotten everything they wanted with the passage of being allowed to legally marry one another. I really don't understand why you find it so hard to understand why Phil Robertson, (who is a Southerner and a Born Again Christian, and who would prefer to be out shooting ducks and hunting in the swamps) holds this view on homosexuality. What do you expect? Also, like it or not, it DOES condemn homosexuality in the Bible in several places. SO WHAT if you don't believe in the Bible or base your lives on it? I think this is silly, arguing over something which neither side will back down on. Both sides need to accept that we ALL have our personal beliefs, and not everyone in the world is going to agree with us all the time. Grow Up People!!!

    • Thump Harder

      Where in The Bible does is say that it's okay to call other people gross?

      • Paula Schultze

        I didn't call anyone “gross”.

        • Thump Harder

          No, but Phil did.

          Kinda what everybody's arguing about here, genius.

    • Not Quite

      For the record, there are only 18 states out of 50 where gay people can get married and/or have their marriages legally recognized.

      And while we're at it, there are still 29 states where being gay is all the excuse your employer needs to fire you from your job and that your landlord needs to evict you from your apartment.

      So no, honey. Gay people are a long way from having everything that straight people take for granted.

  • sam park

    Another phony religious hypocrite, he is sure not Christ like!!!!

  • Thors Hammer

    Pope Francis said that Hell is not something God would create or even condemn us to? And that all religions are true? Don't take what any person says as true or hurtful. They are just words and you can walk away from words. It is when they physically restrain you or physically harm you that you should be concerned and defend yourself.

    • Get a Clue

      There are about 60 million people who lived in Europe about 70 years ago who all died around the same time that would beg to differ with you, if they could.

  • nobody

    In Gods eyes a sin is a sin. They are all the same, one isnt any worse then the next!!
    What the Lord wants is for us to love one another when we do that its hard to say bad things to one another. If we took care of our owne sins, we wouldnt have time to point out someones eles!!!!

  • seesthruliberals

    I defend Phil not on the basis of religion but on the basis of free speech so fuk you and the non tolerant idiot liberal you are. you can attack Christianity all you want everybody knows that liberals have no tolerance for Christians, liberals are closed minded dumbasses.

  • MaryAnn

    It says a lot about his character if the Westboro Baptist church approves of him.

  • Dirty Pup

    Ridiculous to give this fing #$%$ pond sucker a free pass for Racist and Gay Bashing comments, these rednecks should not be televised, in reality Phil and his family are a bunch of inbred morons, after all the Bible is full of inbreeding. Cracker Barrel apologized, geez a good name for them “Cracker” Barrel. What an fing joke..$$$$ Rule

  • Food for thought

    If you want to use your Bible to make a difference in the world, use it as a mirror, and not as a magnifying glass.

  • Airborn1

    Quit clouding the issue, butthead. A&E sucks as bad as the fags. To hell with being “politically” correct. It is about time we all stood up to these sleazy bastards. I want Mr. Robertson to run for president.

    • Josh

      Typical “christian” hater, who identifies with and supports Phil's hateful way of saying something he could have said another way. He could have said something along the lines of, “I'm christian. I believe in the bible and what it says about sin. I don't judge who's going to hell and not.”

  • Gun toteing Bible reader

    Yes I have committed the sin of gluttony and a lot of others in my 69 years of life. ( I would be 70 but was sick one year) I would commit another if I said I am not a sinner any more. I would also be calling God a liar.One thing I have going for me is I know that when I fail and do commit a sin I can ask for and receive forgiveness from my God.
    A Christen gay friend once asked me if I thought God would forgive him for being gay. I told him that it was not me to judge but God so I didn't know.
    One last thing , how did race get brought in to this issue ?

    • Get a Clue

      Race got brought into the issue because Phil ran his mouth in that article and told GQ that black people were happier and “better behaved” before the Civil Rights Movement.

      You know, back when they could be arrested, fired, beaten and killed at any moment, just for being black.

      • Gun toteing Bible reader

        Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Guess I was so hung up on everything else I missed it.Just though that JJ brought it up to stir up trouble again. I will reread it.

  • Debbie Ballagh

    It is not harder for some people to lose weight. It takes the same 3,500 calorie deficit to lose a pound for everyone. Just thought I would set you straight, no pun intended.

  • barbydoll

    Everybody talking about heaven ain't going there! People use the bible selectively. Ought to be ashamed

  • william

    some people have high sex drive normal sex does not help them this starts them down the road to man to man or women to women if I said or buying sex toys the as they get older they look at there parner say you are ungly then they cast there eyes to children check out people that have been in jail they have to register as sex ofenders and then ask them what happen to them sighed William shaw

  • Paul Mauricio Velasquez

    This “new” America is really showing a complete generation of brainwashed people against God and God's word, the bible. Is pathetic to read here people with no faith in all ,that never had been in a bible study, never either inside a Christian church, and here pretend to be the Bible “experts”, you are just delusional.
    IS ALARMING how many people here, never were educated in what faith, religion, morals mean.
    Liberals are a bunch of ignorant gang, just learn the basics: Christians, same as Jews, have a Sacred Book, best know as ‘the bible”. IS A BOOK ABOUT MORALS AND SPIRITUAL PRINCIPLES.
    Nobody is asking you to believe that book, less, forcing you to believe.
    Attacking Robertson and the Bible, only mean that you hate God, His people and His message. If you like to be penetrated on the anus by another man, you're homosexual, that's your choice, the Bible also call you “Sodomite”.
    According to the Sacred Book, sodomites need to abandon that kind of SIN, unless repentance, sodomites will be cast down in a place called “lake of fire”, of course, the list of sins is large, but the one discuss here is Sodomy.
    If you don't like the message of the Bible, surely you will not like the message of ANY other religion, because only true paganism can accept homosexuality.
    If you ‘are a pagan, that's your choice, JUST ACCEPT that others had decided already for the Bible, you like it or hate it!!!
    Are no you liberal sodomites the preachers of “tolerance”??????

    • Josh

      Your meds, Paul. YOUR MEDS!!!

  • Smootie

    I am a very overweight and my pastor does talk about overeating as much as homosexuality being equal sin.. It is my CHOICE to overeat not something weird that has made me or a gene. When I stop and take control over my life (with the help of God) I lose my weight. But when I am out of control, I eat whatever I want to…then I get overweight again. My choice, yes, but I do not go around trying to make people except me for this or condemning airlines or businesses who cannot accommodate obese people. Overeating and being gay are the same as God sees it…both are sin and both can be stopped. Most importantly, God loves us all equally. I believe with all I am(and from what God's inspired Word tells me) that unsaved straight people and gays will both wind up in hell one day unless they accept JESUS as their Savior. (one who came to take away our sin (a gift…not earned) by dying for us and then coming back to life so that He can go and prepare a place for us until He comes back for us) God is the only living god among all religions.. We are in HIS image yes…that means we are SPIRIT beings with a soul that will never die whether we suffer in hell or rejoice in heaven. You may hear what a Christian believes, like what Phil Robertson stated. And that is what we believe in our faith. But never to not love people or respect authority. Just remember that just because people attend church does not make them a Christians. Just as well if you stand in a garage does not make you a car. We are commanded to love God with all our heart as well as our neighbor. Sadly this is not done very much as it should be, but as an imperfect people we mess up. And again, God forgives us…

    • billg43

      you understand that humans sin all the time . we should change how we live not try to change what is right and wrong

      • Get a Clue

        It hasn't changed. You're just wrong about what's right and wrong, is the thing.

    • Josh

      So if Phil would have likened “very overweight” people to people who have sex with animals, public alcoholics, and killers of women and children (“terrorists”), you would have had no issue with it? He could have said something along the line of, “I'm christian. I believe in the bible and what it says about sin. I don't judge who's going to hell and not.”

  • Dr.Dave

    I agree with the article. Very well said..There are 2 things I disagree with..1.I agree that gluttony is a sin but the Bible has a lot more to say about homosexuality or sexual sin in general..1 Corinthians 6..Galatians 6..Ephesians 5..Romans 1..etc and 2..As a physician I know there is not a large genetic component to obesity…

    • Get a Clue

      The Bible contains 6 admonitions to homosexuals and 362 admonitions to heterosexuals.

      Maybe you straighties should tend to your own houses and leave us the Hell alone. Huh?

  • J. Francis

    Let’s simplify this whole thing, I don’t care if it’s Phil
    Robertson, or the guy next door, the whole thing comes down to freedom of
    speech. Were some offended by what Robertson said, oh well; deal with it, or is it
    now we have freedom of speech as long as no one knows what we’re thinking, or
    as long as everyone agrees? So I think the question at hand is has A&E
    included freedom of speech in their so called “core values”; after all, it is
    our constitutional right, and what gives A&E or any other network the right
    to deny that right to anyone. Just think of the Paula Deen fiasco. Whether or
    not I agree with what either of them said, they have the right to speak out.

    • Get a Clue

      Read what “Civics Lesson” posted down below. You don't get the meaning of the term “Free Speech.”

  • r.craft600

    You see That there are a lot of things in this world that is gluttony. This could be the money you spend the car you drive the special things you want in life to take more than what you need. You see we can't judge gluttony because if we measure that we will be measured the same way. I think it is the lack of having a personal relationship with Christ and fallowing the true word of the Gospels. I will say I am a Born Again Christian I do not us my own word and most true Christians will not use there own words they use the word,s in Gospels so we should be careful what we say about what is repeated in the Bible because a direct quote is against Jesus Christ not the Christian. Jesus did say if we teach his word we will be persecuted for his names sake.
    Jesus said, in the Gospels of Mark (7:18-23)“Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)
    He went on: “What comes out of a person is what defiles them. For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile a person.”
    Hopefully all will come to a understanding for them self's and repent and seek forgiveness and change and be born again. Hope all come to Jesus for what he gives if love because he is faithful even when you can not be so love him and do as he ask and earn you reward with him. Jesus
    said, (John 14:21)” Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one
    who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too
    will love them and show myself to them.” Because, if we repent and
    confess (remember It is never to late) if we do then we become righteous
    and blameless and our sins covered by Jesus Christ and made Holy
    through him. We must come to him as a child and seek him and obey him.
    Then we see we walk by Faith and abide in God's Grace and be lead by the
    Holy Spirit. Come and start your new life with Jesus Christ. I will say
    I had to confess and ask for forgiveness and felt unworthy even after I
    made Christ my personal savior he changed my life and now I feel
    Blessed. Amen

  • concerned

    Just remember 1 thing, whether you believe or not. Every knee shall bow,Every tongue will confess, That Jesus Christ is Lord! You will spend eternity in one place or the other. Sorry that's just the way it is…..

    • J

      Really?? Betcha not! As a matter of fact, I invite God (or some representative thereof) to come down to Earth NOW, on “Earthly terms,” and try to explain his/herself to all the BILLIONS of people who have suffered horrible lives and terrible deaths throughout history.
      “LUUUCYYY, you got sum splaining to do!”

  • John

    ban him, and get him fired from his job! He spoke his mind!

  • disqus_LrLfSv18my

    Great article, but did you ever consider that some people who are overweight are because of medicine they take or because of a health issue, and it isn't about over eating? Not all people who are overweight are gluttony for food. There are some sincere people out there who are trying to loose the excess pounds and they just can't seem to loose them, even when they are under a doctor's care. If you think I am not speaking of experience, you are sadly mistaken.

  • Cindy Clarkson Scott

    This comparison to gluttony doesn't make sense. My church does call it a sin. The issue is people want to stop callin homosexuality a sin. You have to repent of your sins. That literally means turn away from. If you have a food addiction I would lovingly say give it to God and turn away from it. If you are a compulsive liar the say. God doesn't want us enslaved and in bondage. This opinion is a bad one. Read the word of God and see Gods opinion of what it means to please Him and see His glory one day.

    • Josh

      Homosexuality, like obesity can be, is genetic.

      • Cindy Clarkson Scott

        All sin is genetic. We inherited it from Satan when Sin entered man in the garden. We are told to confess our sin, repent of it and be baptized. Then we can be a new creation in Him. We will always struggle with sin, but we have to strive to be like Chrisy. That is why we take up our cross and follow him. He led a sinless life. When we do sin, pray for forgiveness. If someone is born with a tendency toward compulsive lying, it is still wrong. Anger problems from birth? Still wrong. Homosexuality, still a sin. Sorry, not my rules but read it in the old AND New Testament. It's never been ok, never will be.

        • Get a Clue

          What part of The Bible talks about Adam & Eve being the children of Satan?

          • Cindy Clarkson Scott

            The Bible says when sin entered us through Satan tempting Eve with eating of the fruit, and then Adam, mankind was doomed. That is why Jesus had to come down to save us. If you don't believe, fine. But don't tell Phil Robertson or any of the rest of us we can't and freely say so . He, nor I, hates or fears homosexuals. We are all sinners. Don't take my word on what the Bible says, study it yourself, and try not to hate others.

  • Can't fix stupid

    Why is everyone so concerned about a white trash redneck? If anyone is surprised that this clown said what he said then maybe they're not smart enough to own a tv. Are we willing, as a nation, to lower our standards THAT much that what this empty suit says has meaning? Really? And for those ‘Christians’ to run to his defense is disgusting. Those ‘Christians’ are nothing more than brainwashed bottom feeders. The REAL Christians, the ones who actually read and understand the Bible, aren't influenced by the talkingheads of the religion. They're actually smart enough to know and undertstand what Chrisitanity is all about.

  • Mad as Hell

    He is a “RACIST WHITE DUCK” PERIOD, He is not Black, So how in hell he knows how Black folks felt before the Civil Rights Movement. Everybody hides behind the constitution ,what about when the Constitution says that We are created equal and have the right to pursue happiness ,what about that.

  • Faith

    If it's something I disagree with, whether it be a lifestyle or what I should have a right to voice that whether anyone agrees or likes to hear it…I on a daily basis hear my Faith put down, my God put down, and NO ONE CARES how it makes me feel…Jesus told his disciples…Marvel not if the “world” hate you…just like Daniel who was thrown into the lions den for refusing to bow down to governmental demands, we must NEVER give up or give in! Why? Lost souls are counting on us to light the path, the path which leads to eternal life!

    • Get a Clue

      I think I can help. When you feel like people are hating on Christians, do some reading.

      Google “Matthew Shepard.”
      Google “Vladislav Tornovoi”
      Google “Thomas Bridegroom”
      Google “Clay Greene vs Sonoma County”
      Google “Uganda kill the gays bill”

  • Disappointed Reader

    “I’ve read that gays
    are defiling their bodies, that they want to indoctrinate kids, and that God is
    punishing them.”

    Perhaps I’m out of the loop, but I
    personally have not read anywhere that homosexuals want to indoctrinate their
    kids, although children under the guardianship of homosexual couples have been
    known to display terrible emotional and psychological stress.

    “If these sound like your beliefs, a question: Are you
    overweight? No offense, but some of you probably are. A third of
    American adults are obese. And almost all of the fattest states are in the Bible Belt.”

    I fail to see the relevance of such a
    statistic. As a resident of a “Bible Belt” state, I can say from experience
    that the overwhelming majority of people who claim to be Christians are not, in
    fact, Christians. John 14:15; Matthew

    “If gluttony is a sin, and prayer is the answer, it seems
    strange that the most religious part of the country is also the most obese. It
    makes me wonder how people are supposed to pray away the gay when so many Americans
    can’t pray away fat.”

    Here, Tim Molloy has made the deceptive
    switch from gluttony as a sin to obesity as a sin. While obesity is obviously
    resultant of over-eating, the consequence of the sin is not in and of itself a
    sin. In fact, most overweight people I know eat very little, and this will be
    touched on again later. Mr. Molloy has also taken a mocking tone, which is to
    be expected in the comment area, but is simply unprofessional for journalists.
    Prayer is a very powerful tool, but people must also take faithful action whenever
    possible to accomplish their goals. It is also worth noting that homosexuality,
    as well as fornication, adultery, lying, etc. are spiritual problems and sins.
    Obesity, however, is a physical consequence of a sin.

    “Religious leaders hardly ever speak out against obesity the way
    they do against homosexuality. Maybe they don’t want to insult one-third of
    their congregants. It’s easier to pick on gays, a group estimated to make up 10 percent or less of the population.”

    I, as an observer, will concede this
    fact. However, I as an observer would also say that religious leaders very
    often speak out against drunkenness, a sin that affects, in my experience, a
    significant portion of many congregations. Fear of insults seems to disappear here.

    I get personal a minute? When I was a kid, I was indoctrinated into a world of
    sin. A mysterious cabal – one that spent $4.6 billion last year trying to recruit people like you and me
    – lured me into the temptations of fatty foods.

    Being fat was embarrassing and isolating. It
    was painful to know that no matter what I said or did, or how good a day I was
    having, someone could make me feel like less of a person by pointing out how
    fat I was.

    Why were other kids picking on me, I wondered.
    I wasn’t hurting anyone else. I wasn’t telling anyone else what to do. I wasn’t
    doing anything but being myself.”

    it is very sad that America has such problems with bullies as well as
    corporations that endorse poor eating habits. However, you helped nothing if
    you thought gluttony was just “being [your]self.” You, Tim, were a large person
    from what I understand based on this article. However, you got that way by
    indulging in a compulsion that was not healthy for you. By just accepting and
    giving in to that compulsion, you did nothing to help yourself.

    “If fat kids have it hard, I’ll bet gay kids
    have it a lot harder. At least fat kids don’t have to worry about their church
    or elected leaders telling them they’re sinners. In fact, when I went to
    church, we had cookies and juice and sometimes ice cream afterwards. And there
    was a bakery next door.”

    foods are fine in moderation. There is no problem with cookies or juice or ice
    cream or baked goods as long as they are taken in moderation. That is what the
    problem with gluttony is about. It is about self-control.

    people have written to say God is using AIDS to punish gay people. Huh. If you
    truly believe in a Joffrey God who punishes people with physical ailments,
    what do you make of the fact that obesity is a leading cause of
    preventable death in our country?”

    Both AIDS and obesity, while probably
    not direct punishments from God, are results of sin. When we all, through Adam,
    chose sin, we rejected God. Thus, we rejected His protective hand, and He
    allowed us to reap what we had sown and see the wages of sin. Before sin, there
    was no disease and there was no irregular metabolism that would cause people to
    become obese. However, we allowed disease and genetic defects into the world
    when we allowed their cause, sin, into the world.

    any overweight person knows, there’s a big genetic component to obesity. If God
    made us in his image, he made some people in a way that makes it hard for them
    to lose weight. They’re born this way.

    And we shouldn’t cast stones at people because
    of how they’re born, right?”

    1:31, “Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good.”

    21:4, “And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no
    more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former
    things have passed away.”

    was created “very good.” One day, God will create another “very good” creation.
    Obviously, death, sorrow, pain, crying, etc. are not “very good.” But these
    things are in the world because of our sin. God is without sin, but we are born
    into sin. We are not made in the image of God in the sense of being exactly
    like Him, but we are made in His image in the sense that we have a living
    spirit and soul that will continue in existence forever, and we can, at times, reflect
    certain qualities of God (being logical for example). Adam, the first man, was
    made in God’s image. Adam sinned. Adam became corrupted, and so we now bear the
    corrupt image of Adam and must choose to be made into a new creation and made
    in the image of the heavenly Man (1 Corinthians 15:47-49). God does not make
    anyone to sin. We are, however, born with tendencies to sin since Adam sinned
    and we are all his descendents. We are all one race and of one blood. Mr. Molloy,
    it is true that some tendencies are genetic. In the case of obese people, many of these people gave into a tendency, and they gained weight. Even though they may have stopped over-eating, it may be nearly impossible for them to lose weight because of their genetics, but being overweight is, again, the result of a sin rather than a sin itself. Other tendencies are seemingly unexplainable
    and just appear in people. But it is giving into those tendencies that is
    sinful. If you truly believe that people are born gay and that they have no
    choice in that matter, then you have absolutely no room to be disappointed or
    disgusted at murderers or rapists or terrorists, because they can just as
    easily say that they were born that way and had no choice in the matter.

    going back to what you implied when you said, “I
    wasn’t hurting anyone else. I wasn’t telling anyone else what to do. I wasn’t doing
    anything but being myself”, I have to ask some
    questions. If it is only about “being yourself” and “not hurting anyone else”
    and “not telling others what to do”, then I would like to know why you and
    GLAAD or any other organization are not standing up for the rights of people to
    marry animals, the elderly to marry children, or siblings to marry each other.
    Let me be clear that I am not making any comparison or statement of a
    synonymous relationship. Neither was Phil Robertson. I am, however, saying that you have no rational
    justification for why any of these things should be wrong or frowned upon based on your
    own views. I mean, why should incest be wrong these days? We have abortion to
    stop the physical problems from happening!

    I sincerely hope you and others would
    begin to look at your own views critically and logically and gain an accurate
    understanding of the view that you so vehemently oppose. I pray that in your
    effort to understand Christianity and the Bible, you may find true faith and repentance.

    • Get a Clue

      Speaking of looking at views critically and logically, the study you obliquely referred to in this post has been discredited and widely panned. Either you didn't know that or didn't care to know that, in which case you may receive the benefit of doubt from some.

      Or, you knew that and you referred to it, anyway, which would clearly obliterate any semblance of credibility you might claim.

      I'll leave refutations of religious hogwash to those who care about such things.

  • tiger samson

    QUIT TWISTING the BIBLE around…..Proverbs 23:20 doesn't say GLUTTONY is a SIN….read verse 21….says don't HANG OUT with drunkards or gluttons because it leads TO POVERTY!!!! an overweight Christian DOES NOT mean they are a glutton

  • Paul Mauricio Velasquez

    What a pathetic conclusion, liberals you are so delusional, no Jefferson have “his own bible”, who cares about it? who cares!!! there's not man. no power in this universe who can't diminish the authority and power of the Eternal word of the Eternal G-D of avraham, Yitzak and Yaakov!!! What politicians do is irrelevant, what homosexual do is irrelevant, one day ALL will kiss the ground, in your knees before the Lord Almighty.
    Your homosexual-liberal agenda is a lost cause!!!
    The power of satan than inspire you will be crush very soon, you think that you can mock G-D, but you can't, the Light ALWAYS overcome darkness. This United States become great because of men and women, who believe in the G-D of the Bible, no because a herd of sodomites.
    Is clear that if sodomites were the writers of the Constitution or the Bill or Rights, we will have a pornographic writing.
    You can hate G-D and His people, but you are in the side of losers. The LARGE numbers of Americans stand for G-D, Family and Nation.
    Sodomites and all liberals stand only for the lowest of the instincts. Don't be FOOL, nobody, nobody can't stand the power of our G-D no even satan self, no less his herd of servants. The large majority of Americans and citizens of the world are good, intelligent people, who enjoy the natural divine concept of love, between a man and a woman.
    Don't expect the rest of the world enjoy your perverted self hate of sodomy.
    Still, you never answer, which Sodomites had done anything positive for humankind thru History? the Roman emperors? Certainly some in this century: the agents of AIDS!! Something else?
    Maybe is your turn very soon.

  • dontexhale

    It seems to me that folks are making this way too complicated. If you object to Mr. Robertson's comments, don't watch the show. If enough people don't watch the show, trust me, A+E will cancel it. Then Mr. Robertson will have to go back to living the simple life in the swamp. Somehow, I suspect that will suit him just fine.

    • Ellis

      These people think Phil wrote the Bible or something, he didn't he just follows it.

      • Get a Clue

        Don't presume to tell “these people” what we think.

        • Ellis

          Yep they're Clueless.

  • wt

    40,000 were killed in witch trails and 20 at Salem Mass. 80% were women. Christians getting persecuted? Give me a break.
    I was told in school to bow my head, stand up and pledge…not do you want to or even get permission from my parents.

  • Paul Mauricio Velasquez

    When the fathers of this United States of America, refers to “our Lord”, to Who do you think (hard for your kind) they refers?
    “OUR LORD” in plain English is the Son of G-D, Y'shau/jesus The Christ.
    Whatever they personally believe, they KNEW that the MAJORITY of Americans then, as today, were and are worshipers of the G-D of the Bible.
    You can worship Liberace or any other sodomite, or yourself as obviously all sodomites do, as you please, the majority of us, worship the Eternal One Creator, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

  • wt

    You have freedom of speech but an employer can fier you for a PR mistake that affects the company or basically for any reason other than discriminating against religios, sex, age and race.
    Phil is back where he belongs..in a reality show about Southern bigots who think Jim Crow laws in the South were better for Blacks who were happily singinmg hymns and chopping cotton. Ignorant statements by someone who lacks education. He never saw or heard of an Negroes being msitreated years ago? Must be deaf and blind.. I remember 4 Black girls killed in Birmingham by a bomb. I remember Viola Liuso killed on a Mississippi hiway. I remember a young Black man, Army officer murdered in the South. I remember dogs, fire hoses, buses burned.
    This Phil guy hides behind a cloak of religion to mast his racists and bigoted views and what Christian utters such filth in an interview?
    I am also wondering why only homosexuality is the only sin the conservative Christians recognize. Adulty? Seems to me a man like Maor Ford is their idea of a Christian acting morally.

    • Ellis

      You didn't read everything Phil said did you. Liberal.
      I'll tell you what, you bring up the past and forget about todays crimes, because yesterdays crimes are more important you say. Are you sure that you are wt and not Jesse Jackson.

  • wt

    Suggestion: Get a haircut and shave and ..take a bath. Phil.

  • Tony

    It about time that A&E take off, pull the plug, remove and delete this absurd and non entertaning, no talent of a show “Duck Dynasty!”.Clearly A&E can find better programming for there network but since they are desperate it is this trash that A&E has settled with.

  • AlanT

    Leviticus 18:22 Do not lie with a man as with a woman, that is detestable…18:24 Do not defile yourselves… because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out…became defiled… 18:25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it and the land vomited out its’ inhabitants… 18:28 And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations before you… 18:30 Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am your Lord God.

    • Get a Clue

      I got news for you, man. Literacy isn't exactly an uncommon skill, these days.

      “Judge not that ye be not judged.” (Matthew 7:1)

      “When you pray, don't be like the hypocrites who love to pray publicly on street corners and in the synagogues where everyone can see them. I tell you the truth, that is all the reward they will ever get.” (Matthew 6:5)

      ““A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” (John 13:34-35)

      “When David had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan was
      bound to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.
      Saul took him that day and would not let him return to his father’s
      house. Then Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him
      as his own soul. Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that he was
      wearing, and gave it to David, and his armor, and even his sword and his
      bow and his belt.” (1 Samuel 18:1-4)

      • AlanT

        Judge not lest ye be judged. Pointing out a sin is not judging but judging a person for pointing it out IS

  • Melchez

    Have I committed the sin of gluttony? Yes, and I am sorry. See… that's how it works. When you do something that God deems bad, apologize and try to be a better person. Instead we have people on both sides being rude to others. This has been a teachable moment… people are open to having their own opinions and being able to voice them. We should embrace each others cultures and learn from them. Instead we have people attacking each other because of differences of opinions.

  • Tony

    I say Turn The Power Off on A&E for allowing smut to come into our homes!
    Yes, I have the power and it is my peroragative watch anything that I choose but A&E advertises and promotes programs like “trashy & no talent Honey Boo Boo, Duck Dynasy, Storage Wars, Dog Bounty Hunter, etc”
    This is what A&E calls “Arts & Entertainment” maybe the location & talent scouts have no experience or proper training in what is good programming!

    • Melchez

      if they continue to get great ratings, can they keep the show on the air or will you PC folks demand justice?

  • Tony

    Yes WT, those duck guys need a weed wacker and a good scrubbing. It is shame that they have nice looking girlfriends/spouses but they are just prostitutes and in it for the money or maybe props.

    • Melchez

      So much hatred.

  • Tricia

    Really Brando- I don't know very many Cnristians who say gluttony is not a sin. Obviously, Phil is not fat. So what you are saying is you believe the Bible. Good for YOU. However, we may not be a theocracy, but that does not mean we do nt have a foundation based on some Biblical principles. One of the most important beig that life is sacred. ALSO that All men are CREATED equal go figure. Those troublesome Lockean principles.

  • Al

    You what I am not a church goer so I think I can present a fair opinion on this. I for one like the show, second he said nothing on their network, he said what he feels, freedom of speech. I was fully ready to boycott A&E had they not reversed their ill thought out decision. GLADD is no different except they are trying to impose their will on everyone else by getting a person fired or a show removed. Guess what DD isn't targeted at gay and black audiences and A&E doesn't want to lose their ass so they bowed to public pressure not special interest pressure like GLADD or dumbass Jessie Jackson. People are so tired of you gays pushing your brand of life in our face and Jackson well he is nothing but a profit seeking ambulance chaser. Both groups are so out of touch with reality and slow to figure out their lack of relevance to the mainstream which is the majority. That being said thicken up your friggin skin people, live and let live, and yes that includes you gays who want to get married, legalize it already. But by all means keep your GLADD group under control before they give you all a bad name.

    • Get a Clue

      Yes. By all means, choose not to listen.

      Otherwise, you run the risk that you might actually learn something.

  • deb

    I never comment on these things, but I am so glad someone brought this up. I am one of those who believe homosexual lifestyle is a sin, and I also fully agree that so is gluttony. So , here is the kicker. I am obese. Have struggled with it most of my life. I started attending Weight Watchers today. I have a great friend who told me last week that he is coming out at a gay man. He is a christian and asked me what I thought of it. I told him I think it is a sin, but I am overweight which is just as much a sin. I told him I still love him and will be his friend no matter what. I think many of us Christians gloss over over eating and it's just as wrong as the homosexual lifestyle.

    • Cindy Clarkson Scott

      I fully respect your comment here, and totally agree. However, as a Christian sister we are told in Corinthians to put out the immoral brother until they repent. It's a hard thing to follow Paul's advice. But eternal damnation if you don't repent (at least be trying your hardest) is the most important issue at hand. But I struggle with this. Is gluttony to be dealt with in the same way? I just know of the sexually immoral man in Corinthians. It is a hard issue. And gluttony is a hard sin for me to understand. In Bible times they had great feasts in which they were allowed to indulge . I have never had a weight problem, but I could lose ten pounds and tone up. So should I be put out! I think it's something everyone needs to study and pray on.

  • Jafo


  • Lucky Larry

    I am so tired of all this crap because someone voiced an opinion of how they personally feel. We should not have to lie or pretend to be someone we are not. What's wrong with agreeing to disagree and leave it at that? These same groups that Phil does not like can also not like Phil because we still live in a free country. Let people be people and stop all this retaliatory knee jerks demanding people be fired or executed. Just stop it!

    • Get a Clue

      There's a difference between a personal opinion and an opinion about others.

      You're allowed to feel however you want about me. I'm allowed to pissed off about how you feel if it offends me.


    Since August of this year I've gained 45 pounds. Am I happy about this???? Of course not… I've brought this to the attention of my Dr. who says nothing.. Y am I overweight it's due to steroids I've been given. Once because I became allergic to my blood pressure medicine. I mean they pushed a lot within 6 hours. I also have to take steroids to keep a sciatic nerve at peace. This has caused me great concern but I've been offered NO way out… I've wanted to get a lap band to help but I can't afford to pay for it since my insurance tells me I don't qualify… There isn't an overweight person who is happy… Look at our food these days just full of items we don't need to survive. Commercials, fast food places. You go to the market and things that are good for you cost 5 times more than the stuff that's bad… The world food market sets people up to fail….So now you want to make a big deal about it. LET'S SEE WHAT YOU HAVE IN MIND TO HELP THOSE WHO NEED HELP…. WE DONT NEED YOUR CRITIZIMS WE NEED HELP…….



  • Jafo

    Guys, what it comes down to is that this…this country allows people to say whatever they want, whenever they want and where they want as along they do not incite a riot. In certain European countries, this is considered hate and not legal…I believe in
    that. What is important to know that in the USA theses comments do not fall
    under FREE Speech or in other words, not bound by anybody other than
    Congress.. Under the 1st amendment, a person's rights are only protected from
    Congress silencing some body’s right to their opinion. A&E and any other
    company are not bound by this. Am I going out and start rioting and wave
    flags…no. It is what it is and this man is not going to change the world by
    his comments.

  • Jafo

    Guys, what it comes down to is this… our country allows people to say whatever they want, whenever they want and where they want as along they do not incite a riot. In certain European countries, this is considered hate and not legal…I believe in
    that. What is important to know that in the USA these comments do not fall
    under FREE Speech or in other words, not bound by anybody other than
    Congress.. Under the 1st amendment, a person's rights are only protected from
    Congress silencing some body’s right to their opinion. A&E and any other
    company are not bound by this. Am I going out and start rioting and wave
    flags…no. It is what it is and this man is not going to change the world by
    his comments.

  • Airborn1

    Death to A&E

  • luc

    Liberalism is an illness. Gay liberalism is even worse.

    • Phil Robertson

      Why do u spell yer name “luc?” In ‘Mericuh we spell it “Luke.”

      Go back to France, Froggy!!!

  • Freedom of speech65

    He had a perfect right to his opinion wrong or right A&e knew of his convictions before hand. This is the liberal press creating a mountain out of a mole hill. They will also probably benefit more from this then anything else.

  • Kindness

    Great article, and what does that book say about judging, Judge not less you be judged.

    • Cindy Clarkson Scott

      We will all be judged according to the word of God. Read themattwalshblog and the one entitled Jesus wants us to judge. It says it better than I can!

      • Get a Clue

        Well, sure. Thinking for ourselves is so hard. Thankfully, there are so many kind people, like Matt Walsh, willing to do our thinking for us.

        If only there was a book we could all read to tell us how to live our lives. Then we'd never have to do any thinking, ever again!

        • Cindy Clarkson Scott

          I read, thought, and agreed. Something I don't do with your statements. Now stop throwing your fit and get some sleep. Peace!

  • sarah

    Not everyone is fat due to gluttony.

  • jumping

    let me take the Bible out of the equation. we know life is created with a man and a women so this being said what would happen if all would be separated in 3 parts of the world the straight men and women who can creating life. And take the ones of men with men in a different place with no women and women with women with no men different place. Now were will humanity end. Who would continue to thrive as a world the one with man and women have creation of life were the other 2 parts have no creation of life and it Ends. There is no family by blood built up to carry on life nor no one to care for the one that was left and will come to a lonely end because life ends with them. Now it would be different if all three ways could create but you still need 1 man and 1women to be here if it was not so you would have never been born. I would say we would not be having these things to worry about.

    • Brian

      This is possibly the most ignorant, ill informed, and intellectually dishonest comment on this entire thread. Are you really suggesting that the survival of the human race would be endangered by homosexuality? I don't think you understand the debate, nobody is advocating mandatory gay marriage. Straight people will still be allowed to get married and procreate. But allow me to assuage some of your concerns, the UN currently estimates that worldwide population will reach 9.5 billion by the year 2050, and surpass 11 billion by the end of this century (current global population is approximately 7.2 billion). The majority of these increases are projected to occur in the poorer regions of the world (Africa, South and East Asia, and the Middle East) that already have difficulty supporting their current population levels. If current population trends continue, world population will consistently double every 150-200 years, which means that the population could reach 20 billion by the year 2300, and a staggering 100 billion by the year 3000, which means that our species is staring down the barrel of a very serious population crisis in the not too distant future. In fact, more couples who are incapable of reproducing might actually help to avert the oncoming worldwide population crisis (I jest, of course, but only to demonstrate how ridiculous your argument is). So rest assured, our species is in no danger of extinction if men and women who wish to engage in consensual sexual relations with members of the same sex are allowed to do so. I accuse you of intellectual dishonesty (although based on your post, I'd call this a very liberal application of the word ‘intellectual') because your argument is a poorly constructed, blatantly transparent attempt to provide a secular rationalization of your religious beliefs. You should be embarrassed by this post…I'm certainly embarrassed for you.

      • Ellis

        Oh, now gays will now save the world from self destruction.
        You should be embarrassed by this post.

        • Brian

          I'm sorry, I must have used a word you don't understand…”jest” means to “speak or act in a joking manner.” I wasn't seriously advocating homosexuality as a solution to the oncoming population crisis, I was simply using a bit of hyperbole to illustrate how fallacious this argument was. In order to avoid any further confusion, “hyperbole” means “an exaggerated statement or claim not meant to be taken literally”. So, no, I'm not at all embarrassed by this post, and I stand behind the points I made. You however, made no points, and only demonstrated to the world the poor state of your reading comprehension skills. If you're going to engage in a conversation, you really ought to make an effort to keep up, Ellis.
          I know words can be tricky sometimes, but with modern technology, you don't even have to drag out the dictionary when you find one that trips you up! All you have to do is type the word that is confounding (it means ‘confusing,’ I'll save you the trouble on that one) you into a Google search bar, hit enter, and voila! You're no longer confused!

          • Ellis

            My bad, didn't read it all because it was so long, like most of the folks here didn't read all of Phil's words but it was short. Wonder why!

          • Brian

            Fair enough, then I apologize for the tone of my reply post, I assumed that you read the whole thing and didn't understand my point. Best wishes.

        • Get a Clue

          Brian's rubber. You're glue.

          • Ellis


      • Not Quite

        Not quite. The UN's projections are extremely conservative.

        Today's global population is double what it was just 50 years ago. Anyone who's studied exponential rates of growth would bet you all the money in the bank that the global population will double again well before 2050 and at least once again before the year 3000.

        Breeders will be the death of us all.

  • Michele L Craycraft

    What is so funny is that I have seen skinny people over indulge more than fat people. Gluttony isn't a sin just for fat people it's for skinny people too. And it just does not have to include food. You can over spend be wasteful ,hoard to much ect…

    I work with a girl that is 8-lbs and eats more than most American full size men.She eats every hour on the hour. I guess we will have to let God have the Last say in it all won't we. Lol after all Jesus said , In Matthew 15:11 “”It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.”

    Mark 7:19 “”Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, 19because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?”

    • Get a Clue

      What about the tape worm living in your skinny friend's intestines? Will its gluttony get it damned to Hell, too?

  • BH

    Please give me the Book,chapter and verse where it says gluttony is a sin. I must have miss edit that one. But Mr. Malloy needs to ask the spokesperson for GLAAD, in another article about Robertson, to back up some of his statements with data that supports it. Also, it's not the churches that is calling homosexuality a sin, it's God through the Bible.

    • Get a Clue

      Yeah. You must have miss edit that one.

  • Paul Mauricio Velasquez

    In whatever document, that the frase “under God” is, only prove the reality, that the fathers of the United States of America, recognized a Supreme Being, the Creator to Whom also they refer as “Providence”. As other documents show, they end the writings ” on such day and month, IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD” Any person normal person know that they mean Jesus the Son of God, no anybody else.
    Anyone with basic knowledge of American History know, that the large majority of immigrants crossed the Atlantic seeking for Religious Freedom that they don't have in Europe. For anybody saying ” in our America society someone's religious beliefs are IRRELEVANT”
    Whoao!! no wonder why American students are in the 26th place on the world in History, Mathematics and Reading. We have a complete generation under the age of 30 posting here in defense of sodomy as something “glorious” NO WONDER a generation raised by Springer's shows and morally/mentally orphans!!!
    Sodomites, you don't have the education or moral base to speak about the Bible, you are the LESS qualified, just start to ponder of meaning of :REPENTANCE OF all your sins, including sodomy. Start there.

    • Brian

      Paul, you and people like you are the reason that education in the United States is in such a poor standing in relation to the rest of the world. First, its spelled “phrase,” not “frase.” Second, the words “under God” were not added to the Pledge of Allegiance until 1953 as a response to Cold War tensions and the so-called “godless” threat of Communism. I covered these points in depth in an earlier post, I suggest you look at it. The words referring to a creator in the founding documents are reflective of the deistic beliefs of the majority of our founders, (deism hold the belief in a creator god, but not a personal god as endorsed by Christianity) and were certainly not an endorsement of Christianity (I've demonstrated this point at length above, I'm not going to provide my evidence again, but its there if you care to look at it). Your point regarding “in the year of our lord” is completely irrelevant. “In the year of our lord” is the English translation of the Latin phrase “anno domini,” which was traditionally abbreviated as “A.D.,” as in 1776 A.D. The phrase became prominent during the middle ages, when the Catholic Church used its considerable power to insert religious language into the calender; it in no way proves that it is true and should be taken seriously. I will point out, however, that the religious references of “Before Christ” (B.C.) and “anno domini” (A.D.)are no longer used when referring to years, and have been replaced with the more accurate “before Common Era” (B.C.E) and “Common Era” (C.E.). To your religious freedom point, freedom of religion must also include freedom from religion, and privately held religious beliefs should not have any impact on the laws that govern everybody, besides, if you're right and the “sodomites” are going to hell after they die, why can't you just keep your hateful statements to yourself and let them have sex with one another in peace…just take comfort in the fact that, according to your theology, they will eventually be eternally tormented in a lake of fire. I just can't help but be amused by the intense irony of you criticizing anyone's historical knowledge, education, or morality, since you yourself are woefully deficient in all three areas.

      • Paul Mauricio Velasquez

        Brian, despite your intent to try to make sense of what don't make sense, any argumentation is irrelevant to the facts. Deist or no the founders of the United States were no Sodomites, either promote sodomy. Were Christians and Jews the ones that make this land great. Sadly you belong a one generation of young people brainwashed by anti GOD, anti Bible ideas, subjects that you really never grasp. Reallity which is the Truth self speak better.
        I'm no here for Deism or any other humanistic ideology.
        I stand for the Bible as the only Divine Revelation given to humankind. Liberals and homosexuals, I now is more clear that you are one, never have and never will erase the Authority of the Holy Scriptures, you can violate G-D Commands, but the result will always be the same.
        You CAN”T erase what had been declared by the Living G-D, and the message of the Bible, mine either, is not one of hate, but one of TRUE LOVE. Tell you the Truth don't make in somebody who hate you, quite the opposite, I don't want you suffer G-D wrath after the day of Judgment.
        Let me ask you few questions:
        If G-D is a Creator, don't creators have mind, intelligence, free will, how He can be all that and not be Personal?
        So, you admit that there's a “creator”, is that creator dead or ALIVE? how we know?
        If there is no eternal LIFE, one of joy and one of suffering, then JUSTICE is a LIE? can you go before any Court in the world and say: Justice don't exist!!! then why we define Crime? Our human sense of justice came from Who? By what Rule we decide what is Right and what is Wrong? Justice is no subjective matter, otherwise mass killings will be acts of justice right?
        Do you recognize that fact, the “people die”? Do you will die? Why people die? G-D say : “the wage of SIN is death. What will happen to you after you die?
        ARE YOU able to love a woman and have a committed relationship called Marriage, between a Man and a Woman?
        Do you ever find LOVE ( love is More that just sex) with a Woman?
        Do TWO left shoes make a pair of shoes? and the last one.
        If one day you have Children, do you will like your children to be homosexuals?

        • Brian

          I'm sorry Paul, but the only thing that “don't make sense” is the nonsense you just posted. I never claimed that the founders were “sodomites,” I was simply refuting your assertion that the founders were specifically referring to “Jesus the Son of God” when writing the founding documents, but since you provided nothing in your response to refute my argument, I'll assume you concede the points and move on. Christians and Jews may have comprised the majority of the population of the United States historically, but if you are asserting that they accomplished what they did specifically because of their faith, you need to provide some evidence, just asserting it doesn't make it so (although I will admit that there is a remarkable similarity between the genocide of the Native Americans and the biblical account of Moses ‘reclaiming’ the Jordan Valley).

          As to your completely unfounded personal assumptions about me, that I am gay, liberal, and ‘brainwashed,’ first, I am happily engaged to a beautiful WOMAN, with whom I've been in a committed relationship for just over four years. Second, I don't consider myself to be particularly liberal at all, I just support right…all rights; I support gun rights, I support freedom of speech, and don't believe Phil Robertson should have lost his job over his comments (I also don't believe that Martin Bashir should have been fired for suggesting on MSNBC that someone should defecate in Sarah Palin's mouth), and I support marriage equality and women's bodily rights, so attempting to assign a dogmatic political ideology to me is wrong. I would suggest that you are the one who is brainwashed, and I'm fairly certain based on you statements that I have read more of the Bible and have a better understanding of your religion that you, which is why I no longer believe any of it. I do believe that you are genuinely concerned for my soul, and I appreciate the sentiment, but perhaps an appeal to reason or evidence would be more effective than these eternal, cosmic threats to mine, and numerous other, “souls.” But rest assured, we have nothing of which to be afraid.

          Now, as to your question:

          First, you are asking me to defend a position (deism) that I don't myself hold, but I'll do my best. The best analogy for the deistic creator is that of a “clockmaker.” Deists believe that God created the universe and set the parts in motion, but has no further involvement in physical matters, just like a clockmaker, who assembles a clock and sets it in motion, but does not otherwise interfere with the operation of the clock. I'm probably not the best person to explain this position, because it is just as rationally unjustified as any theistic religion, but even if you could prove the existence of a creator god, the much more difficult task would be proving that this god is involved in the physical world and is genuinely concerned with what we do while naked.

          As to you second question, if it is not already clear, I am an atheist, so I make no such concession that there is a creator , so the question as to whether the creator is alive or dead is moot. But I'm not the one making the assertion, you seem to be suggest that a god does exist, and that it is in fact the god of the Bible. What evidence do you have to justify this claim. The Bible can't serve as evidence, since the reliability of the Bible is contingent of the existence of God, which is completely circular, essentially saying that “the existence of God proves the existence of God…” do you see why that doesn't make sense? That's not how logic works. If you care to present an extra-Biblical argument or evidence for the Biblical god, I'd be happy to consider it.

          Now for your third question, I apologize in advance for the length of my response, but I find this appeal to justice to be one of the most ridiculous arguments in favor of religion. Christian doctrine provides no justice whatsoever, which is the reason our justice system in no way resembles the biblical concepts of justice. First is the idea of original sin, which holds that humans are damned to eternal torture for the unspeakable crime of being born! Contrast this with our modern legal principle of the presumption of innocence, which states that an individual actually has to commit a crime, or be legitimately suspected of doing so, before they can be arrested and punished, and even then, they are presumed to be innocent until guilt is sufficiently demonstrated. Next is the idea of substitution atonement, or the idea of Jesus paying the ‘debt of sin’ for all of mankind. Our justice system would never allow such a ridiculous thing. If a person commits a crime, they are obligated to suffer the punishment. If for instance, you were convicted of a murder, even if I were compelled to serve your sentence for you, I wouldn't be allowed to do so, because it would violate the entire purpose of the justice system; as a mechanism to hold individuals accountable for their actions. My biggest problem with biblical justice is the idea of salvation…it provides no justice at all. My favorite example to demonstrate this is the case of Jeffery Dahmer. I'm sure you are familiar with his case, but if not, he killed, raped, tortured, and cannibalized (at least) 17 men and boys in the Milwaukee area over a 13 year period. What you may not know is that while in prison, Dahmer developed a long-term correspondence with the Reverend Roy Ratcliff, and Ratcliff baptized Dahmer, thus granting him salvation according to Christian doctrine, just eight months prior to Dahmer's death. So according to your ‘justice,’ Dahmer, who committed innumerable heinous acts during his life, is now in heaven, enjoying an eternal existence of happiness and bliss. Let's contrast this with Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, both atheists, who have combined to give over $50 billion of their personal wealth to various charitable causes, that actually help people, and according to you theology, both of these men will burn forever, while Dahmer gets to hang out with God and Jesus, and presumably, you, forever. So, I reject your assertion that justice has some basis in the Bible, our ideas of justice come from our empathy and sense of human solidarity, the so-called Golden Rule, which Confucius advocated centuries before the alleged virgin birth of Jesus. As to your statement about mass killings, it is not secular justice that justifies mass killing, but Biblical ‘justice.’ I mentioned earlier Moses's genocide in the Jordan Valley, but let me provide book, chapter, and verse on biblical passages that endorse mass killing (I won't actually quote the passages, but I encourage you to look for yourself): Deuteronomy 2:34, Deuteronomy 3:6, Deuteronomy 7:2, Deuteronomy 7:16, Deuteronomy 13:15, Deuteronomy 20:16-17, Joshua 6:21, Joshua 10:40, and 1 Samuel 15:2-3.

          Yes, people die, so what? There is no reason to suspect that anything part of us survives our death, and based on what we know about the human brain, there is very good reason to believe that no part of us continues after we die. If you are asserting that it does, you need to provide some evidence for that. So to answer your question, when I die, I will cease to exist, and that doesn't scare me. To paraphrase Mark Twain, “I was dead for billions of years before I was born, and I wasn't inconvenienced by it a bit.”

          Your final questions were personal, so I'll answer them all together. I am not currently married, but am excited to be married to my fiance, who again, is a woman. I have no objection to ‘traditional’ marriage, which is why I plan to be married next year, I just think that marriage is not a privilege that should only be allowed to certain people, it is a right that everyone should enjoy. So yes,I do have a loving, fulfilling, committed relationship with a woman. You asked “Do two left shoes make a pair of shoes?” Yes, by definition, they do, since ‘pair of shoes’ literally means ‘two shoes.” As to how I would feel if my children turn out to be homosexual, I wouldn't have strong feelings one way or another, but frankly, since homosexuals always have and always will exist, I would be grateful that my gay children were born to me and my fiance, who will love, accept, and support them no matter what, rather than someone who would teach them to feel guilt, shame, and fear of eternal torture based on a characteristic with which they were born.

          I apologize for the length of my response, but I wanted to make sure that I addressed all of your points. If you choose to reply, I'd respectfully ask that you do the same. It will be impossible for us to engage in an honest and productive discourse if you continue to ignore my arguments and proselytize to me with unfounded assertions. Best wishes.

          • Guest

            Ok Brian having read the above post. How about do this for me and see what you come up with. Find a room or a place that is really noise free that has a comfortable chair or bed. Got the idea no outside interference. Please now think about the human race, think about the things we can do in comparison to every other living thing on earth. We make clothes, cars, solve math problem, preform surgery, make nuclear energy and etc. You getting the picture? The question is WHY? Why are we so different, goofy genes, DNA gone haywire or maybe someone/thing made us this way. What's your take.

          • Ellis

            Ok Brian having read the above post. How about do this for me and see what you come up with. Find a room or a place that is really noise free that has a comfortable chair or bed. Got the idea no outside interference. Please now think about the human race, think about the things we can do in comparison to every other living thing on earth. We make clothes, cars, solve math problem, preform surgery, make nuclear energy and etc. You getting the picture? The question is WHY? Why are we so different, goofy genes, DNA gone haywire or maybe someone/thing made us this way. What's your take.

          • Ellis

            Ok Brian after having read your above post. How about do this for me and see what you come up with. Find a room or a place that is really noise free that has a comfortable chair or bed. Got the idea no outside interference. Please now think about the human race, think about the things we can do in comparison to every other living thing on earth. We make clothes, cars, solve math problem, preform surgery, make nuclear energy and etc. You getting the picture? The question is WHY? Why are we so different, goofy genes, DNA gone haywire or maybe someone/thing made us this way. What's your take.

          • Brian

            Hi Ellis, first of all, let me apologize for my overly snarky and condescending tone in my reply to your above comment. It seems like you're genuinely interested in a conversation, and I'm more than happy to do that, in fact, I think civil discourse is severely lacking on these issues.
            Now as to your question: what makes humans different from other animals? Well, the short answer is the development of our brain, which is a direct result of millions of years of evolution. It would require a long and technical explanation to provide a satisfying answer, and I'm not an evolutionary biologist, I'm an historian, so I'm in no position to provide an authoritative answer, but experts generally point to early man's discover of fire, which is generally accepted to have occurred about 750,000 years ago, but some evidence suggest that it could have been as early as 1 million years ago, and the subsequent to cook meat, as the event that allowed for the development of the human brain, as fire acted like an external stomach, that allowed humans to better preserve food and consume more calories. As man's brain developed, we developed greater cognitive abilities, thus allowing for technological advances, like the wheel, stone tools, and eventually agriculture, which allowed for the establishment of sedentary societies, which further fostered human development. But like I said, that's a more of a historical explanation than a scientific one, but if you're really interested in the science of evolution, the people at Talk Origins provide a much better explanation than I can. My point when replying to Paul was that he was making supernatural existential claims about god, and in doing so, he adopted a burden of proof that is inherent when making any positive claim. I've made no such positive claim, and thus am not compelled to present any evidence, and I'm completely justified in dismissing any claim not supported by proof.
            Since you seem to be suggesting that there is a creator, and I assume that you would suggest that the creator is the God of the Bible, I'd like to ask you a question, as well: if an infinitely perfect, all powerful being did create our species, why are we so poorly designed? For instance, why does the urinary tract run directly through a man's prostate gland, which is prone to hypertrophy and often causes urinary obstruction? Also, statistics suggest that choking kills one child every five days in the United States, and is the leading cause of death and injury in children under 4, why would a perfect designer not provide separate orifices for eating and breathing, thus eliminating, or at least drastically reducing, the danger of choking? The best example of flawed design is not in humans, but in giraffes. The laryngeal nerve of the giraffe branches off at the base of the brain, travels down the length of the neck, into the chest and around the arteries of the heart, then back up the neck to the larynx, or voicebox. This path is completely illogical if you consider it an act of design, and often causes serious health problems, and is certainly not the action of anything that could be considered to remotely ‘intelligent.’ But these arguments are really beside the point, because evolution has been confirmed by multiple lines of evidence, but anybody suggesting that life and its diversity on earth is a product of some supernatural being or process, you first need to prove that the anything that defies the laws of nature is even possible, then you would need to prove that it actually exists.

          • Brian

            Sorry if I've addressed this reply to the wrong person, the username appeared as ‘Ellis’ when I started typing and now says guest. If it is not in fact you, Ellis, I retract my apology.

          • Get a Clue

            An “intelligent designer” wouldn't have left a blind spot in our eyes while certain animals have none in theirs, wouldn't have created things like lactose intolerant babies unable to nourish themselves from their own mother's milk and wouldn't have left the testicles on the outside where they can be easily kicked.

  • killerpizza

    fat christians love to bash everybody else.
    it makes them feel more smart
    it does not make them actually smart

  • Regina Russell

    The fact is this: You cannot know if people are overweight because they practice gluttony or if they are overweight because of a serious injury that left them bed-ridden or if they're overweight because they don't exercise enough.
    Gluttony is not about being overweight. I have known people who overeat yet are thin. I knew a woman who tried to gain weight and drank milkshakes and stuffed herself until she was miserable but she could not gain weight.
    Gluttony is about greed. When a person is greedy they tend to have an obsessive mindset about something. Overeating is not necessarily gluttony. A person can overeat sometimes and not be obsessed with food.
    The writer of this article really misses the boat. It's just another attempt to put down Christians by trying to find something to say about them to make them look hypocritical.
    When you become obsessed with something to the point that you ignore all physical dangers, you are in danger of having a gluttonous mind.

    • Get a Clue

      No, the point of this article is that The Bible calls all sorts of common and innocuous things “sinful.” A person would have to be a complete idiot to take any of it seriously.

      Talk about missing the boat.

  • Freedom Fighter

    Why are people getting so worked up about what Phil Robertson says, you can choose not to watch Duck Dynasty if you are bothered by Phils comments, just as you can chose to be a religious person, and just as you can chose to be homosexual or heterosexual. Take a deep breath ” thought police’ people are going to believe what they want to believe regardless of how wrong you may think it is.

    • Get a Clue

      At what point did you “chose [sic]” to be heterosexual?

      9th grade? Vacation Bible School? When the Spice Girls broke up?

      • whatever

        Get a Clue.. You know that wasn't his point.. Doesn't matter in the least whether it's a choice or sexual orientation, that was just the easiest way to put what he meant. You make a fool out of yourself and G.ays by being so trivial about the point he was making. He wasn't trying in any way to insult gays or say anything antigay.. Ok it's not a choice, make you happy.. Let me reword it for you, because obviously you don't understand: “you can choose not to watch Duck Dynasty if you are bothered by Phils
        comments, just as you can chose to be a religious person or not, just as you can chose to disagree with his religious beliefs on sin. Take a deep breath ”
        thought police’ people are going to believe what they want to believe
        regardless of how wrong you may think it is.

  • Paul Mauricio Velasquez

    To ALL liberals and homsexuals posting here: Why you are engaged in ignorant attacks on G-D, the Bible, Christians, Churches and everything that all this represent? I don't read anybody attacking Muslims, is because they will KILL YOU if find out who you are? Nobody either attack Communist, inside a Communist country either where homosexual get a shot to the head.
    I will LIKE to see all you promoters and practicing sodomites, doing the same in Mecca, Saudi Arabia.
    Is true Christianity and Judaism teach love and respect fro others. We are no here to hate, less to attack anybody.
    But don't be a fool, you CAN'T fool G-D. If all of you don't repent, you will face G-D Justice, because HE is the Supreme Judge of all men.
    He already said it : If you don't repent, all of you will perish.Believed or not, like it or not, love it or hate it, WILL HAPPEN.

  • Andrew Horn

    Obviously you homos are just looking for a fight now

    • Get a Clue

      You got it, Straight Boy. Have your girlfriend hold your purse and let's do this.

  • how about this

    Hey Tim Molloy

    “And we shouldn’t cast stones at people because of how they’re born, right?”

    i love this quote, that is, it is totally erroneous. the concept, does not follow that the Sin is OK, just that their is no need to punish the person. much is missed when you quote half of it… what else did Jesus say? “Go and Sin NO MORE,’

    Jesus did not condone what the adulterous woman did, he just choose not to punish her. And told her not to do it any more. So, if you are gonna hold me to half, you should keep the other half?

    • Jesus Christ

      Lo, my children. Go forth and be black no more! Go forth and be left-handed no more!

      And, here. Take some of these loaves and fishes with you. Seriously, it'd be a big help. I'm up to my ass in loaves and fishes.

  • mbholland

    Then you agree that if being fat is a choice so is homosexuality. Glad you came around

  • Michael Hernandez

    I think you are full of s…it might be MANTION ONCE because gay is a abomination with that said is enough to said one time ABOMINATION (GAYS ARE GOING TO BURN IN HELL) BEEN OBESE IS NOT.

  • Michael Hernandez


  • Jim

    You know what's funny ? Here we have a Bible believing Christian man expressing his belief's on various topics and being called to the limelight all because he step on some toe's And so basically because he is a true Bible believing Christian every single word he utters will be scrutinized . Why can't he say what he believes without this outcry every time he say's something you don't like ? If you don't like what he say's than change the channel- period.

  • michael paiser

    BS ,,,, absolutely total BS ! Phil for president ! period.

  • fact or fiction


    • How about this

      i agree with you, how ever, here's a another thought.

      well, in a since, homosexuality is genetic, as is all sin.

      dogs bark and wag their tale because their dogs. sinners sin, because they are sinners. the sin is a result of the condition, not the condition from the sin. it was the single act of Adam, (not Eve,) that made us all sinners.

      dogs never give births to cats, and cats never have puppies. sinners only give birth to sinners, and the law is powerless to change that, Romans 8:3, that is why Jesus died on the cross, Romans 5:18-19

      so we are all prone to sin, we don't give hyper-aggressive males a pass, nor do drunks get a disability check. Because their genetic disposition, can still be controlled.

      Truth, what you said about homosexuality being the result of child abuse, actually has more solid footing, than a genetic flaw. A large part of the problem is the “pendulum,” beating some one up, or punishing them for being Gay, IS wrong. And the pendulum was bound to swing from one extreme to the other. And it will swing back!,

      The key, is to both not condone homosexuality, nor condemn homosexuals. The key is the middle ground, saying that homosexuality is wrong, and refusing to except such actions, but still showing love, and forgiveness to all sinners.

    • Wrong

      Here is an abstract from an article that appeared in Proceedings: Biological Sciences, which is an peer reviewed scientific journal, in November of 2004.

      The Darwinian paradox of male homosexuality in humans is examined, i.e. if male homosexuality has a genetic component and homosexuals reproduce less than heterosexuals, then why is this trait maintained in the
      population? In a sample of 98 homosexual and 100 heterosexual men and their relatives (a total of over 4600 individuals), we found that female maternal relatives of homosexuals have higher fecundity than female
      maternal relatives of heterosexuals and that this difference is not found in female paternal relatives. The study confirms previous reports, in particular that homosexuals have more maternal than paternal male
      homosexual relatives, that homosexual males are more often later-born than first-born and that they have more older brothers than older sisters. We discuss the findings and their implications for current research on
      male homosexuality.

      The study is entitled “Evidence for Maternally Inherited Factors Favouring Male Homosexuality and Promoting Female Fecundity” and is available online if you're interested in the details of the methodology and conclusions from the study, although I have a sneaking suspicion that you aren't terribly interested in facts. None of the factors included in the study were abuse, confusion, or rejection, as you so boldly claim. I'm not asserting that this explanation is absolutely correct, but there is at least a compelling argument to be made for it. You criticize a scientifically valid hypothesis for not having evidence (it does), then make a number of assertions that, guess what, are not supported by evidence! I do enjoy irony…

      • heya

        so i guess, the question is, who do you believe, a man that died, or man that died for you?

        • Typical

          Standard religious strategy at work here…respond to a factual argument with threats and appeals to emotion. Nice work.

          • ?

            which side are you talking about? i'm not sure.

  • Karen Mariani

    Excellent write. Thank you for your honest opinion. I have been appalled at the “God fearing” comments made. Finally I am reading awesome responses challenging these people.
    I used to love the A&E channel but A&E has become a reality joke. I have never watched Duck Dynasty. I grew up with men like Phil. I have no desire to bring Phil into my home via A&E.
    Phil quoted scripture, but the interpretation of the scripture was his, not mine.
    Several bible verses have been quoted throughout comments posted on many media sites. Interpretation is the key word. I read a verse and interpret it nothing like you read a verse and interpret it. We agree to disagree.
    Those that fear God need to fear him on their own. I do not fear God. Why do you?

    • whatever

      Karen.. You admit you have never watched DD and I'm willing to bet you never read the real article in GQ, the “truth” about what was said.. Phil actually listed numerous sins, not just homosexuality and expressly said “WE never ever judge, that is the ‘Almighty's’ job.. So he is in fact tolerant of all sinners, does not judge them, he just loves ‘em.. He says we should all just love everyone. The whole issue is “his” belief in the bible, not yours, not mine, not Mr. Molloy's, but his belief that homosexual behavior is a sin according to the bible and MOST Christian churches believe that, especially the Catholic church. Phil is not Anti=G.ay, he thinks it's a sin and doesn't agree with it, but he clearly says he does not judge them and he loves them. I am NOT religious, I do not believe it is a sin, because I don't believe in the bible, but I believe Phil has every right to his beliefs and he is very devote and very strongly believes in the bible and I have no right, you have no right and GLAAD has no right to tell him he is wrong, his religious beliefs are wrong.. You have every right to not want to watch the show, you have every right to disagree with Phil (like he has the right to disagree with you and GLAAD) that is your right, but you don't have the right to say this: “I grew up with men like Phil. I have no desire to bring Phil into my home via A&E.” You had just said you have NEVER watched DD.. You know nothing about him, you have NO IDEA what kind of a man, father, grandfather, husband or person he is. How do you know if you grew up with anyone like him.. YOU DON”T KNOW!!

  • xpatYankeeCurmudgeon

    I'm guessing the author's starting point for this thoroughly underwhelming broadside was his tolerant, “progressive” loathing of the Christian majority that still exists in America and his left-liberal fantasy of controlling what Americans eat, in addition to controlling what they think and say.

    And while there exists plenty of hypocrisy on the Christian right as regards appetites and the expressions they find the author provides those of us opposed to government takeover of our health care with two excellent points that expose certain hypocrisies elsewhere

    1) A third of the country (including the Surgeon General) is clinically obese

    2) obesity is a leading cause of preventable death

    So why should those who take care of their health pay higher premiums to subsidize costs the system is burdened with by people who are in some cases incapable of controlling themselves and in others passive victims of the federal gov's formidable allies in Big Agro, Big Num Num and Big Pharma.

  • Exetarian

    He wasn't sitting in judgment. He was asked what he thought sin was. He cited a Bible passage. If Christians aren't supposed to bother interpreting Bible passages regarding sin, then there's essentially no point for teachings about what “sin” to avoid in one's life. The whole point of those passages is as a guide for what to do and what not to do. For some the concept of sin changes with time, for others less so. Every Christian sect has its own way of reading the scriptures, some more literally, some less literally. It's not up to anyone, Christian or otherwise, to dictate to anyone else how they should interpret scriptures they view as essential to their own happiness and well-being. Sure, Phil ought to expect to be challenged… but not slandered or misrepresented. It's the willful misrepresentation I object to, those with an agenda not just to rebut his interpretation but gay rights activists who are hell-bent on achieving widespread social acceptance even if it means destroying an entire class of religious belief they disagree with, and by any means necessary.

  • Luci Widnesor

    You are missing the point. Those who defended Robertson did not necessarily agree with his position on homosexuality, but his right to have an opinion based on whatever his beliefs are. You are right that the Bible says a lot more about the sin of gluttony, idolatry, lying, slander and envy than about homosexuality. Christians do not believe they are perfect – it would only be hypocrisy to hold yourself up as perfect and then do what you rail against – Christians believe that they are sinners who struggle and often fail to meet a standard, as opposed to those who argue that for any standards to exist means you are judgmental or bigoted.

  • Schultzy

    While this is a very interesting article and there are many sins in the bible related to things other than homosexuality and gluttony, I think that the quote given above (“gluttonous eaters of meat”) would count doubly for a fat gay man – I'm only half…I think!

  • whatever

    Tim Molloy, you are the biggest bigot and hypocrite of them all.. You put down Phil Robertson for naming numerous sins, and quoting the bible that also listed numerous sins, then you make it sound like he ONLY said homosexuality was a sin.. NOBODY said homosexuality was the ONLY sin in the bible, nor was it the ONLY sin listed in the GQ article. So PLEASE show me where Phil singles out homosexuality as the ONLY sin. You said this: ” Phil's anti-gay views,”.. WHY can't you say the truth, why can't you be accurate and say “Phil's religious views,” Because then you appear Anti-Christian and hateful, intolerant and unacceptable of anyone's religious Freedom.. Yes Phil said homosexual behavior is a sin according to his beliefs in God and the bible, he ALSO said, “Bestiality (both hetero and homosexual), sleeping around, with this woman and that woman and those men (obviously heterosexual first mention, then maybe G ays “those men:, maybe women sleeping around with “those men”), adulterers (only can be heterosexual), drunkards (Phil's sin), greed, swindlers, slanderers and he even throws in terrorists (you surely can't be saying those are only G. ay sins, then you are the one that is anti-G.ay, not Phil. I'm pretty sure he meant they were everyone's sins).. Most of the list was from the bible, Corithians.. Why do you fail to mention he also said: “You put in your article that the Robertson family really believes
    strongly that if the human race loved each other and they loved God, we
    would just be better off.” hhhmmm, “loved each other”, I'm pretty sure he includes EVERYONE in the “human race”, unless you are Gay Bashing again and are trying to say they are not human?? You really have to stop those anti-G ay views of yours. And you didn't mention he said 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” He doesn't never, ever judge someone, hhhmmmm, doesn't sound “intolerant” to me? So he says it's a sin along with several other sin in the bible, but says “, do not judge”, that sounds like, “you shouldn't do it, it's a sin, but if others do, do not judge them”. So how is that anti-Gay. It is his right, his FREEDOM of religion to believe in God, Jesus and the bible and it says in the bible it is a sin, Phil simply answered a question on the privacy of his own land, not on TV, (GLAAD did that), not on camera, but to a small quarterly adult Mens magazine, with a total sales of 800,000 so .002% of the population “might” have read it.. He was asked “what sin was to him”, he answered honestly and truthfully to his beliefs and religion.. That was NEITHER

  • whatever

    Tim Molloy: Leslie Gorstein of YahooTV reported you said this: “And that doesn't particularly care about, say, civil rights issues, I am told”

    You are referring to the DD audience and the people that stuck up for him.. HOW DARE YOU, How can you say that.. WE are the ones that ARE for civil rights and freedoms, YOU are the one that is Anti-Christian, Anti-Freedom of Religion, Anti-Freedom of Speech and YOU are the racist..

    The Robertson’s are not racists.. Willie and Korie have three biological children and two adopted children.. They adopted an Asian daughter and a biracial son, Will.. They love all their children, biological and adopted equally.. Phil Robertson, loves all his grandchildren equally!! He loves his biracial grandson. If they were racists would they adopt a biracial child? If Phil were a racist would he be able to raise a son that would adopt a biracial child? Do you even know what Phil said in the GQ article?

    What is so bad about it? What is so bad, so racist about saying the blacks “were singing and happy”. Last I checked singing and happy were good things.. When GLAAD pressured NAACP to complain that this was racist, Wayne Dupree, a black reporter, came out and BLASTED NAACP for saying this was racist. This is what he said: “I guess you have to be a racist for this statement to be turned into a racism issue.”

    “You’re so outdated and you’re overreaching.” as he directs this statement to NAACP’s racial intolerance claims. He continues with, “You want to be part of something that nobody brought you to the party with. You all have to manufacture something out of this to be relevant. You are not relevant!”

    Dupree also got an anonymous call from a NAACP employee that said this:

    “Trust me, they (GLAAD) are desperate & have been called up to do this [because] gays were losing the battle; so they threw in the race thing to regain traction to get rid of Phil.”

    What you, GLAAD and NAACP don’t realize and haven’t even considered for one minute (or maybe you just don't care), is how hurtful and “racist” you are being by
    saying the Robertson’s, Phil Robertson are racists.. How do you think that young boy feels when you call his family racists, his mom and dad and his grandfather. Don’t you realize in essence you are saying they don’t love him, they look down on him.. That is so cruel, so mean, so hateful and 10 times worse than any “fabricated” racism you had to pick and pull and twist to “TRY” to make his statement sound racist. SHAME on GLAAD and NAACP and YOU that condemn the Robertson’s for being racist by this one innocent statement alone (his memories, not yours). Were you there? Are they your memories? How do you know what his past was like.. What a hypocrite, what a racist!!

    You are the one that care about civil rights or ANY RIGHTS for that matter..

  • Zielwolf

    I was just thinking, as far as Christianity and politics and public morality are concerned, a much better analogy for homosexuality than race is obesity. Race is a totally debunked concept, it may still function culturally, but objectively speaking, scientifically, there's no such thing. Inasmuch as it manifests physically it's literally skin deep. Of course the effects of racism can affect a person to the core and totally destroy their life due to bigotry but the concept “race” itself is imaginary. Skin pigmentation is purely genetically determined and has been conclusively proven as such, unlike obesity and homosexuality. The thing about obesity though is, in a world where food is plentiful, it makes total sense for people to get really fat. It's not at all an irrational way to be, in terms of reproductive success as opposed to length of life. For most of our history we have had extended periods with some or very little or no food punctuated with short periods of lots of food. Like most carnivores/omnivores. It makes sense that the more fat you can store on your body, the better your chances of survival and reproduction in general. This is not evolution. This would be true tomorrow: if suddenly all food tomorrow disappeared the thin people would most likely die first and the really fat people would survive the longest, and would probably have more kids in the meantime and keep humanity going. Yet obesity is scorned, not because it's a good survival strategy, but because it's considered unhealthy where a long life is the only goal and longer living quantitatively causes much stress and expense to public health systems. Being fat is good if you want to have kids and die young, not so good if you want to grow old and have great grandchildren. As for being gay – what we do know is that many species engage in behaviour that looks suspiciously homosexual, yet no one knows why dolphins or monkeys or other higher species do this. We also don't know why this is a universal prevalence in some human beings. From an evolutionary perspective, homosexuality, like obesity, just wouldn't exist unless there were some benefit to the species. With obesity, the benefit is quite easily deciphered, with homosexuality, probably not so. Apart from social bonding, there aren't any really good biological theories as to why some people are gay. However, like gays, obese people are judged for no particularly rational reasons for their lifestyle choices, for what they do, for how they behave, for not conforming to social ideals, for being “ugly”, “undesirable”, “disgusting” and so on. And moreover, they are harshly judged by scripture and Christians who read it and interpret and proclaim it, even when doing so rather selectively or unwittingly ironically. If God will judge glutonny as severely as he will homosexuality according to the fundamentalist doctrines, then I hold very grave fears for fundamentalist evangelical Christians.