Skip to main content

Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson Comes Out Against Coming Out

While I've never personally watched the show, I think I hear more people talk about the "reality" show Duck Dynasty than I hear them talk about anything else, including their kids. Well, based on recent remarks made by star of the show Phil Robertson to GQ magazine, it appears as if some regular viewers may opt to start watching something else instead.

In the interview, Robertson made the following statements:

- [When] "everything is blurred on what's right and what's wrong ... sin becomes fine."

- "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."

- "It seems 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."

- "We never, ever judge someone on who's going to heaven, hell. That's the Almighty's job. We just love 'em, give 'em the good news about Jesus - whether they're homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort 'em out later, you see what I'm saying?"

Then the gay rights organization GLAAD responded to Robertson's remarks with the following statement:

"Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil's lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe. He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans - and Americans - who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples. Phil's decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors who now need to reexamine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families."

Robertson then replied to GLAAD's criticism with this:

"I myself am a product of the '60s; I centered my life around sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll until I hit rock bottom and accepted Jesus as my savior. My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together. However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other."

These kinds of individuals make me simultaneously laugh and shake my head, because their logic and consistency are about as sound as a drunk's grasp of calculus.

Here's a very condensed version of what Mr. Robertson basically said:

"I don't judge on who goes to heaven or hell. That's God's job, but yeah, gays are going to hell - no disrespect. I love everyone. By the way, I did a lot of drugs in the '60s."

I also loved this line he gave GQ: "It seems 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."

He's quite the smooth-talker. Does he not think anal sex exists among heterosexual couples? With his line of thinking, he probably thinks the planet of Uranus should be changed to Urvagina, because it would give him the impression that "there's more there."

Speaking of not being logical, based on these contradictory statements and his obvious need for education on the Bible, I picture Mr. Robertson engaging in the following conversation with an openly gay man at some point in the future:

Geraldo Sanchez: "So, I read your comments in GQ the other day. As a gay man, I happen to find it very disrespectful and unChristian of you to make such judgments about people like me."

Robertson: "Whoa, whoa... Hold it there, mister. I wasn't judging. I don't judge people on who's going to heaven or hell. That's God's job."

Geraldo: "But you said, that like adulterers and drunkards, homosexuals won't go to heaven."

Robertson: "That's right."

Geraldo: "So, where are they going to go?"

Robertson: "Hell"

Geraldo: "But you said you didn't judge whether people would go to heaven or hell - that it was God's job."

Robertson: "That's right. So, what's the question?"

Geraldo: "Do you judge homosexuals like me and whether we'll be going to heaven or hell?"

Robertson: "No, that's God's job. But..."

Geraldo: "But what?"

Robertson: "He says you're going to hell."

Geraldo: "When did he say that?"

Robertson: "In the Bible. Men and women are supposed to be together. That's just how it is."

Geraldo: "What about polygamy?"

Robertson: "Poly what? Is that some kind of a bird or something?"

Geraldo: "Do you think people whom had multiple husbands or wives at the same time would go to heaven or hell?"

Robertson: "Hey, I don't judge, but God says they're going to hell. That's what it says in the Bible."

Geraldo: "What about marriages in the Bible between a man and many women?"

Robertson: "I don't know what you're talking about, man. I don't judge. I just know what God's told me and he's told me your kind of people are going to burn in the fiery pit known as hell for all of eternity. No disrespect."

Geraldo: "No disrespect? What?!?"

Robertson: "Hey, I love you like I love everyone else. I just don't think we'll be ending up in the same place after we die."

Geraldo: "I thought you didn't judge on people's fates in the afterlife!"

Robertson: "I don't; that's God's job."

Geraldo: "Ugh!" ::angrily walks away::


Yeah, something tells me Mr. Robertson may have done twelve too many drugs in the '60s...

http://tv.yahoo.com/blogs/tv-news/-duck-dynasty--star-s-anti-gay-remarks-spark-outrage-134231650.html

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"