- Dragon Ball Z Forum
- →
- The Lounge
- →
- Deep Discussion
- →
- Pro rights folks: The biggest hypocrites?
| We hope you enjoy your visit to this forum. If you are reading this then it means you are currently browsing the forum as a guest, we don’t limit any of the content posted from guests however if you join, you will have the ability to join the discussions! We are always happy to see new faces at this forum and we would like to hear your opinion, so why not register now? It doesn’t take long and you can get posting right away. Click here to Register! If you are having difficulties validating your account please email us at admin@dbzf.co.uk If you're already a member please log in to your account: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Pro rights folks: The biggest hypocrites? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 24 2013, 07:50 AM (1,967 Views) | |
|
|
Dec 24 2013, 07:50 AM Post #1 |
|
So probably everyone has heard or knows about Phil Robertson and/or Duck Dynasty. Whether or not you like the show, respect it, or think it's a bad or good thing is irrelevant, fact is, it's huge. In case anyone lives under a rock, Phil Robertson, the man who invented the Duck Call on the show many years ago, made a statement regarding homosexuality and how it was a sin in an interview, and then subsequently got fired from the show via A&E, who air it. Do you agree with this? Do you think it's awful for someone to have an opinion differing from yours? For topics sake, here is the quote that he made in the interview: "Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong. Sin becomes fine," he later added. “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men. Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers -- they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.” Now, I really don't understand what has homosexuals so butthurt (no pun intended) about this. I don't get why people are so sensitive that when someone has a different opinion than them they are "slandering" and "homophobic". That's just ignorant to say. Not what Phil said, what people are saying who are so riled up about this. It doesn't make sense. I myself am a Christian, and I completely agree with what Phil said. But, that's also because I'm not jumping the gun here and being a total nutcase about it. Phil isn't homophobic, and he doesn't hate gay people. He simply says what the Bible says, which is that homosexuality is a sin, it goes against God's plan for mankind. It's a deviation, therefore wrong. ...but if you don't believe that, who cares? Why are you so riled up? Homosexuals want the right to do what they want, but it has to go both ways. If you want to believe what YOU want and me not stop you, surely I can believe what I want and you not completely lose your mind when I speak against it? No, that's just logical. We can't have that in 'Murica. My belief is this: I believe in God, and I live my life that way. But you don't, and that's fine. We're still friends. I'll still love you, it doesn't matter to me what you believe or what you do. But why do people who want to be accepted as homosexual REQUIRE that everyone be 100% FOR their lifestyle? Me not caring if you're gay or not doesn't mean that I accept homosexuality, it just means I am not such a horrible human being that I would judge your worth based on that decision. That's just sad. A great quote: "Our Culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone's lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you must agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don't have to compromise convictions to be compassionate." And guess who made that statement? Phil Robertson. And right on, I say. It's nonsense how homosexuals demand the right to do what they want, but no, that's not good enough. I now have to never oppose verbally or voice my beliefs in order for you to sleep at night. Nonsense. Please, share your thoughts, I would love to talk about this. |
 |
 
|
| Daemon Keido | Dec 24 2013, 08:02 AM Post #2 |
Warmaster of Chaos
|
The problem isn't Phil's opinion. The problem is how this opinion may affect A&E's viewership, as they are adamant gay rights activists in general. What we have here is a contractual arguement. All TV personalities sign contracts that say to the effect that "If your personal stance spoken in public interviews or public events affects our network's personal ethics, your employment may be at risk." The same thing happened with Martin Bashir and his comments about Sarah Palin. His personal opinion could have had a negative effect on MSNBC's viewership which is a risky thing no exec wants to deal with. Was it fair? Largely, yes. Both would have been aware of their contract stipulations and the risks that come with their opinions made public. My personal opinion of their beliefs does not affect my objective thoughts on their punishments. Please note that A&E took action long before any gay rights activists asked them to. |
A Shadow is merely Darkness in the presence of Light Thanks Kid Buu for this awesome sig! The Emperor Protects | |
|
|
|
|
Dec 24 2013, 08:06 AM Post #3 |
|
I'm sorry, was it ever in question the flaming Christian beliefs of EVERY SINGLE MEMBER of the Duck Dynasty family? Who is to blame here, A&E's ignorance or the man who the HIRED to act like himself on national television? Herp? Also, this thread isn't strictly about Phil Robertson, I'd like it if you read the rest and commented accordingly, specifically on how (seemingly) hypocritical gay rights activist are regarding equality. They want equality for them, but can't stand equality for anyone who disagrees. See, we can live with homosexuals. Homosexuals can't seem to live with anyone who doesn't agree with homosexuality. That = hypocrisy. Edited by Tyrellius, Dec 24 2013, 08:09 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Daemon Keido | Dec 24 2013, 08:12 AM Post #4 |
|
Warmaster of Chaos
|
The entire family knows they were hired by A&E and what that network does for gays in general and therefore how their personal opinions may be treated as. They were hired to show their lives, yes, but with that comes a manner of discretion. I know for a fact my family would not be TV ready without some concious effort. The blame falls upon he who spoke the words. Since Phil is the one, he is the one to be punished, as he is the one who may have broken contractual stipulations. For the record, he was not fired from the show. He was put on indefinite nonappearance for an unspecified amount of time. There is still a chance he could come back to be filmed for the show. Granted, without Phil on the show, I am unsure how this will affect the actual filming itself. |
|
A Shadow is merely Darkness in the presence of Light Thanks Kid Buu for this awesome sig! The Emperor Protects | |
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 24 2013, 09:10 AM Post #5 |
|
He has a right to spout his bigoted nonsense just as A&E has a right to fire his a*** for saying it. Gay people are so "butt hurt" because he compared being gay with bestiality, which can never be a comparison by any means. He also said something about black people being happy prior to the civil rights movement, if I heard things correctly, which is just... laughable. Also, I have to comment on the name of the thread... What do you mean by "Pro-rights folks?" Shouldn't everyone be pro-rights? Don't we all want rights and equality? What on earth. Edited by Doggo Champion 2k17, Dec 24 2013, 09:14 AM.
|
|
|
|
| * Mitas | Dec 24 2013, 11:50 AM Post #6 |
It truly was a Shawshank redemption
|
For your information, the bible never explicitly states that homosexuality is wrong. There are ambiguous claims such as "a man shall not lay with another man as he does a woman", but considering the sexism that is inherent in the bible this could just as easily be saying that men should treat other men with more respect in bed than they do women. But then again, this is the problem when you base your lifestyle and views on a book that is thousands of years old and has been translated on so many occasions that things are bound to be lost in translation. Here are some things that are explicitly banned by the bible: "Do not let the hair of your heads hang loose, and do not tear your clothes, lest you die, and wrath come upon all the congregation" "You shall not steal; you shall not deal falsely; you shall not lie to one another." "The wages of a hired servant shall not remain with you all night until the morning." So unless you have extremely regular haircuts, have never even slightly had torn clothing, never stolen or lied (not even the smallest lies) and always been paid on each day of your work, then you have no right to claim that you hate homosexuals because "the bible tells us to". Now, in regards to your claims that your right to be against homosexuality is just as important as someone's 'right' to be homosexual, here's the difference: homosexuality is not a choice. You choose to be a bigot and belittle homosexual people. Homosexual people do not choose to be homosexual. How would you feel if you were hated because of the colour of your hair? The accent you speak in? A birthmark? Hating homosexuality is the same as hating all these things? And before any religious people claim that homosexuality is in fact a choice, then answer me this: why, if they had a choice, would they choose to be something that brings with it so much hurt and negative attitudes? Edited by Mitas, Dec 24 2013, 11:53 AM.
|
 "Then you've got the chance to do better next time." "Next time?" "Course. Doing better next time. That's what life is." | |
|
|
|
| Rockman | Dec 24 2013, 12:18 PM Post #7 |
hoighty-toighty
|
You're making a very broad assumption about a group of people here. You probably haven't even tested your theory of homosexuals living well with others who don't agree with their life style. I have, and I see that it works. Assuming that the heterosexual allows it which I always see as the case. The only one upset about either party is always the heterosexual. SO you tell me who is being repressed here. Every bit of activism has it's purpose. The LBGT activism has the purpose of keeping events like what happened to Matthew Shepard from happening. To allow homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals and to end the hatred that follows. I don't care what Phil Robertson said, or what A&E decided to do. I honestly don't. You're absolutely right, the KKK member is allowed to say what he thinks about blacks in any manner he deems necessary. But the group sponsoring the KKK member is also allowed to do whatever they wish with that member if they don't agree with him. Especially when money is involved. Who are you to say otherwise? Money is involved. Your opinion doesn't matter. |
 JAke is a copyright of Spazo and Pickle Flavored Fudge Pops inc. | |
|
|
|
| Big Daddy | Dec 24 2013, 12:51 PM Post #8 |
 
|
As one Christian to another, Tyrellius, you aren't really handling all this and expressing your views in the best way. :I |
| |
|
|
|
| EMIYA | Dec 24 2013, 02:44 PM Post #9 |
"I am the bone of my sword."
|
Groups such as homosexuals, people of different races, gender, etc have been abused, neglected and overall treated less than human beyond nothing more than a moral stand ground. This is not something that you make compromises for. There are groups who are oppressed for thousands of years, there isn't a compromise here. This isn't some sort of trade off option where one group gives up one thing for civil rights. That's stupid, it's foolish. This is the problem you have when your own morals judge your action. This is why people have such a huge thing on homosexuality because it interferes with the morality of what it means to be man or a woman within that society context. This is why people need to grow up and get over it, why people should start using logical reasoning instead of morality reasoning. Homosexuals didn't go around saying "God hates Heteros!" or make up some derogatory term for heterosexuals, or beat and leave to death a heterosexual to a post like they did Mathew Shepard. You don't have to like anything, there are things and people I don't like and that probably won't change. The issue here is these people that don't like it, are attempting to force their discriminatory views upon others the reasons being not for a logical or factual based information, but for as I said, their entirely subjective and moral viewpoint. Those in support of homosexuality don't attempt to dismantle another side, they wish to have equality for both themselves and for the heterosexuals, bisexuals, etc. It's the heterosexual side that deems itself necessary to discriminate and oppress the other side. This isn't something where we can compromise. Because one side is clearly oppressing the others and attempting to keep it from standing. That's like if I said, "Man, if black people have a history month, I want a white history month because if they can have one, we should have one too." no, it does not work that way, there is a reason we have a black history month and not a white history month. It's not about the rights the people have, its about the context and situation revolving around it. This is something that I cannot and will not be kind about, oppression, bigotry and discrimination irk me to no end. People need to learn to not only accept the concepts of others but more importantly, they need to keep from oppressing them as well. If you don't like something, ignore it. I don't like brussel sprouts, I don't go around picketing signs saying "burn all the brussel sprouts they taste like junk" I accept it as it is, I only refuse to partake in it. I except the same thing. If you don't like homosexuality, a difference race, culture, etc, you can have that opinion all you want, but when you start oppressing others because of your ideas, that's when it becomes a real problem. |
|
|
|
| Big Daddy | Dec 24 2013, 04:31 PM Post #10 |
|
But what is the difference between the moral and logical sides? Because, if I were to go out to any Pride Rally or Protest, I'm sure most of them would say they're fighting for the "moral" thing, not the "logical" thing(Unless you asked them if the moral thing was logical and vice-versa...but then things would start to get confusing).
Why shouldn't there be a White History month? And an Indian History Month? Or an Asian/Mexican History Month? Doesn't that make logical sense? Every Race should have it's own time where everyone can appreciate the accomplishments and advancements various people from said races have done, right? You could say something like "Every other month is White History Month", but that isn't true. At least where I was taught, we mixed in the histories and accomplishments from every other race during those extra months. And, in the end, Black people were the only ones who got an entire month dedicated to their contributions. That doesn't sound like equality to me. Edited by Big Daddy, Dec 24 2013, 04:33 PM.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 24 2013, 07:54 PM Post #11 |
|
Black history month is in celebration of their freedom and equality. For years, blacks were treated as less than human. They were kept in slavery, and even after they were freed they were treated like dirt only until recently. I don't think you realize that only recently have blacks begun to get more freedom and equality. This is a recent thing. So no, whites do not deserve a "white history month" because they never fought for equality or suffered. There is no lesson to be taught there, and it would actually be a really offensive thing to do. "White history" is taught in every classroom, but the history of African Americans is not. It's actually really simple. I could go on for longer, but I try to keep my posts short and to the point in these types of threads. Edited by Doggo Champion 2k17, Dec 24 2013, 08:01 PM.
|
|
|
|
| lunar2 | Dec 24 2013, 08:56 PM Post #12 |
|
i honestly don't get what the big deal about what that guy said is anyway. it's an ignorant hick saying the kinds of things an ignorant hick says. eventually they'll die off and we won't have to listen to them anymore. |
|
list of canon sources: the DB manga, and the Dr. Slump manga as it applies to the crossover during the rra saga. list of non canon sources: everything else, regardless of origin, format, or quality. for those that blindly follow word of god | |
|
|
|
| + Pelador | Dec 24 2013, 09:07 PM Post #13 |
Crazy Awesome Legend
|
I think there will always be ignorant hicks. They are just people who retain values that are no longer given credibility by the public majority. |
 http://www.youtube.com/user/jonjits | |
|
|
|
| Rockman | Dec 25 2013, 02:54 AM Post #14 |
|
hoighty-toighty
|
Kind of like how there are still KKK members and Nazis. Silly really. It always seems to be the lesser educated individuals that hold these positions too. |
|
JAke is a copyright of Spazo and Pickle Flavored Fudge Pops inc. | |
|
|
|
| * Ketchup Revenge | Dec 25 2013, 11:44 PM Post #15 |
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the war room!"
|
This country was not founded on Christian beliefs, of which Phil Robertson himself ignorantly believes. Most of the founding fathers were Atheist, or had no religious affiliation at all. With a country not founded on the base of religious beliefs, the church has absolutely NO RIGHT to interfere with US politics, regardless if they believe that what happens in politics is right or not. But that doesn't mean that they don't have the right to voice their opinion. This country is founded on the basis that all people have equal rights. It took us a while to fully realize those political beliefs, but that's what this country is about now. |
 The vengeance is her's for as long as she stands by Him. | |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Deep Discussion · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
 4:45 PM Jul 13
|
Theme Designed by McKee91
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy