‘Duck Dynasty’: Phil Robertson Suspended Indefinitely Following Anti-Gay Remarks

[Dex]

Originally Posted by TrueFaith77

And what of GQ for printing the interview? They are the ones responsible for propogating his alleged hate speech and providing him a platform. GLAAD never takes on MTV or Eminem either.

I agree with Dex mostly. However, I also still think that GLAAD's equation is not spelled out (they don't say that he equates gayness to bestiality--which he does not) and, if so, they don't identify the stereotype (as you do, that gay men will have sex with anything). However, the most compelling argument Duck Dynasty guy makes is about male attraction to two different body parts. I say it's compelling because it's human. Why is it that, as a gay man, I am attracted to male buttholes but am, frankly, scared and grossed out by vaginas? He's got a point that it is illogical. And GLAAD does not counter the argument with an impassioned or reasoned defense of male butthole lovers (as Dex COMPASSIONATELY and CHARITABLY accomplished without grant money!). They raise a lot of money to fight defimation and then they are crushed by the Duck Dynasty guy whose HILARIOUS dangling participle alone should have made his argument easy to dismantle.

Yes to most of this. Although I don't think attraction to anything is particularly logical and we should not really worry about the analysis of it in that way. Straight men like women butts too, after all. Equally illogical (but fun!). And I agree with you about the shortcomings of GLAAD's statement.

[Dex]

Originally Posted by TrueFaith77

I disagree. GLAAD is unhelpful because they leave the young gay person with shame for his sexual desires--which, essentially, is what is at issue here.

Yes. I was speaking of them more as an organisation generally, rather than their comments in this case. However, in terms of offering gay-positive points to counterbalance those like the ones made by Phil, I think it might be fair to say they have been outmoded by much of mainstream western culture at this point.

[olive]

there's more ... http://tv.yahoo.com/blogs/tv-news/-d...173821415.html

Duck Dynasty' Star Phil Robertson Also Under Fire for African-American Statements....

Phil Robertson's anti-gay comments aren't the only part of his interview with GQ causing controversy.

The 67-year-old "Duck Dynasty" star was suspended by A&E Wednesday for calling homosexuality sinful — and putting gay people in same category as terrorists. While those quotes quickly went viral, it wasn't his only brow-raising statement in the interview; he also implied that African Americans were happier living under Jim Crow laws.

"I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once," the reality star said of growing up in pre-Civil-Rights-era Louisiana. "Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I'm with the blacks, because we're white trash. We're going across the field ... They're singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, 'I tell you what: These doggone white people' — not a word!"

Robertson continued, "Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues."

Needless to say, that hasn't gone over well either. A spokesperson for the NAACP shared a copy of the letter that they, along with the Human Rights Campaign, sent to "Duck Dynasty" network A&E. In addition to asking for the network to "denounce and repudiate Robertson's comments," they demanded that Robertson "apologizes for his vitriolic comments."

"We want to be clear why Phil Robertson's remarks are not just dangerous but also inaccurate," the letter stated, in part. "Mr. Robertson claims that, from what he saw, African Americans were happier under Jim Crow. What he didn't see were lynching and beatings of black men and women for attempting to vote or simply walking down the street."

Noting that the remarks "go beyond being outlandishly inaccurate and offensive" and are actually "dangerous and revisionist, appealing to those in our society who wish to repeat patterns of discrimination," the letter said Robertson's "words show an unbridled lack of respect for African Americans and LGBT people, and the ongoing challenges members of our communities continue to experience on a daily basis."

"Surely a brand like A&E does not want to be associated with such racist and homophobic remarks," it concluded.

Robertson’s remarks about African Americans could ultimately be more damaging in the longterm than what he said about homosexuals, according to one expert.

"Racial comments are often career killers — as are scandals involving children and animals," David E. Johnson, who is the CEO of public relations and branding agency Strategic Vision, tells Yahoo TV. "Yet, looking at the demographics who are attracted to 'Duck Dynasty,' we see an older, more conservative, and evangelical audience. These people will take the comments with a grain of salt. This is because Phil Robertson and the 'Duck Dynasty' brand is one that is viewed as politically incorrect and says what is on their mind. So, in that light, the comments are unlikely to do damage — unless African Americans begin emerging and demonstrating he has discriminated against [them]."

However, "Barring that, overall, his comments and the controversy has in all likelihood strengthened the brand," adds Johnson.

On Wednesday night, the cable network did denounce the "Duck Dynasty" patriarch. In addition to suspending him indefinitely from filming, they said in a statement, "We are extremely disappointed to have read Phil Robertson’s comments in GQ, which are based on his own personal beliefs and are not reflected in the series 'Duck Dynasty.' His personal views in no way reflect those of A+E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community. The network has placed Phil under hiatus from filming indefinitely."

Earlier in the day, Robertson clarified his words — though he didn't come close to apologizing.

"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," the TV star said in a statement. "My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together. However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other."

Not everyone is offended by Robertson's statements. A petition called IStandWithPhil.com was launched by a group called Faith Driven Consumer and calls for A&E to reinstate Robertson — and apologize to the "Duck Dynasty" watchers who share the TV's star's beliefs.

"Mr. Robertson’s comments in GQ magazine are simply reflective of a Biblical view of sexuality, marriage, and family — a view that has stood the test of time for thousands of years and continues to be held by the majority of Americans and today’s world as a whole," it says on the site. "While the LGBT community may be offended by his opposing viewpoint, your rash, discriminatory, and unfair treatment toward Mr. Robertson — a recognized symbol of the faith community — is a slap in the face to Faith Driven Consumers and everyday Americans alike."

Needless to say, this controversy won't be dying down anytime soon.

[KarmaContestant]

Originally Posted by Dex

Generally I agree with you, but I think it's important to point out the "everyone is entitled to their opinion" mantra can only go so far. Some opinions are dangerous and hurtful. When someone espouses the opinion that I shouldn't be allowed to live openly, or adopt a kid, or that I should be killed because "ew", then I take issue with that. However, if someone just espouses the opinion that I am not "going to inherit the kingdom of God", or something like that, I really don't care. At all. The latter example applies in this case. This guy has an opinion that frankly doesn't affect my life at all, and he can carry on having it.

Generally I agree with you, as well. But...I'm an American, and one of the things that we learn early in our lives is that we all have the right to pretty much say whatever we think. Some people are more polite and considerate than others, and some live to offend. As much as I might not like the opinion this guy has, or that of the KKK, or the Chick-Fil-A guy, or Sarah-I'm-an-idiot-Palin, or whoever is saying whatever with the intention to offend and hurt, I'll usually stand by their right to speak their mind. It's sort of a reflexive reaction - I defend his right to speak his opinion so that he in turn will defend my right to speak mine. Most Americans believe very strongly in the right to express yourself verbally - an MSN poll today shows that 83% of respondants support his right to say whatever he thinks.

I know in some European nations, hate-speech is a punishable offense, but here in the U.S. you have to act on your opinions for them to be considered potentially criminal. Of course, that won't stop people from shunning you for what you said, all the while defending your right to say it, as we've seen with Phil's suspension by the network.

Originally Posted by TrueFaith77

And what of GQ for printing the interview? They are the ones responsible for propogating his alleged hate speech and providing him a platform. GLAAD never takes on MTV or Eminem either.

In another land where propagating hate-speech is a crime, perhaps they bear some responsibility. From my perspective, their right to publish his comments is just that - a right protected by law.

I'm a fan of Eminem, oddly, and have never found his gay-bashing offensive.

[Dex]

Originally Posted by olive

"Racial comments are often career killers — as are scandals involving children and animals," David E. Johnson, who is the CEO of public relations and branding agency Strategic Vision, tells Yahoo TV. "Yet, looking at the demographics who are attracted to 'Duck Dynasty,' we see an older, more conservative, and evangelical audience. These people will take the comments with a grain of salt. This is because Phil Robertson and the 'Duck Dynasty' brand is one that is viewed as politically incorrect and says what is on their mind. So, in that light, the comments are unlikely to do damage — unless African Americans begin emerging and demonstrating he has discriminated against [them]."

However, "Barring that, overall, his comments and the controversy has in all likelihood strengthened the brand," adds Johnson.

I think this will really end up being the sum of it, sad though that may be.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by TrueFaith77

However, I also still think that GLAAD's equation is not spelled out (they don't say that he equates gayness to bestiality--which he does not) and, if so, they don't identify the stereotype (as you do, that gay men will have sex with anything).

Well, no -- he didn't equate gayness directly to bestiality, but he lumped them together. So I don't think it's a leap to say that he associates the two in his mind, at least to some degree. Of course, as has been rightfully pointed out, he also associated both to adultery and promiscuity in general. His was a rather sweeping statement of seemingly everything he deems to be a sin, although he also implied that homosexuality is at the top of the list.

“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong. Sin becomes fine. Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there."

Originally Posted by TrueFaith77

However, the most compelling argument Duck Dynasty guy makes is about male attraction to two different body parts. I say it's compelling because it's human. Why is it that, as a gay man, I am attracted to male buttholes but am, frankly, scared and grossed out by vaginas? He's got a point that it is illogical.

I suppose he has a point. But to counter that -- why is it any more illogical to be attracted to the male anus than to the female anus or vagina? I don't question my attraction to the male anatomy any more than I question the attraction of heterosexual men to the female anatomy. In the simplest of terms, "we like what we like." No logic is required.

At least he didn't question why we all like penises! Even the straightest of men should be able to understand the appeal of those.

[Dex]

Originally Posted by KarmaContestant

Generally I agree with you, as well. But...I'm an American, and one of the things that we learn early in our lives is that we all have the right to pretty much say whatever we think. Some people are more polite and considerate than others, and some live to offend. As much as I might not like the opinion this guy has, or that of the KKK, or the Chick-Fil-A guy, or Sarah-I'm-an-idiot-Palin, or whoever is saying whatever with the intention to offend and hurt, I'll usually stand by their right to speak their mind. It's sort of a reflexive reaction - I defend his right to speak his opinion so that he in turn will defend my right to speak mine. Most Americans believe very strongly in the right to express yourself verbally - an MSN poll today shows that 83% of respondants support his right to say whatever he thinks.

But his right to free speech isn't what's in question here. As another poster said, he wasn't arrested. No rights were violated. *shrugs* I'm more interested in the actual content of his statements, the implications thereof, and what the appropriate response really is. These are not things I've really decided on fully, yet. But I'm enjoying the discourse.

In another land where propagating hate-speech is a crime, perhaps they bear some responsibility. From my perspective, their right to publish his comments is just that - a right protected by law.

Yes, I have a hard time blaming GQ for doing what society has long established is their job. I don't think these views shouldn't be given a platform whatseover, I think they should be discussed and (easily) debunked accordingly.

[Dex]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

At least he didn't question why we all like penises! Even the straightest of men should be able to understand the appeal of those.

In the UK, many straight men have taken to texting pictures of their dicks to each other, and loving it. Is that a thing, where you guys live? It is definitely a thing here. And to me, a very mysterious thing. Personally I've always been much more of an ass-man. Dicks and vaginas both strike me as very functional, but not especially pretty.

I'm kind of moved to start a "what do you like?" thread now, but that risks becoming a bit too TMI, perhaps.

[estranged4life]

this situation has showed me that their are hypocrites on both sides in regards to stereotyping...seen plenty of posts on FB from those who oppose his statement, but yet call Mr.Robertson and/or the Robertson clan "redneck", "hillybillies", "hicks", etc.

As for me, I am for free-speech, (Thanks to former Mrs. Al Gore and the Washington Wives/PMRC) and don't have to agree with it but I do not think someone should be punished for their opinion.

As for "anuses", "vaginas"...who cares? I thought LOVE was what REALLY mattered? Maybe I am wrong...But I would like to believe in this world that LOVE still matters...

[Dex]

Originally Posted by estranged4life

As for "anuses", "vaginas"...who cares? I thought LOVE was what REALLY mattered? Maybe I am wrong...But I would like to believe in this world that LOVE still matters...

Hey, let's not go crazy here! I like to think cocks and bums (and vaginas) matter, too.

I agree with your sentiment. I think love is what matters, and the fact that Phil Robertson and other religiously-driven homophobes cannot get past the mechanics of the act of gay sex means that they miss the point entirely. And they're missing out on a lot of beauty. Any love in this crazy world is a beautiful thing.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by Dex

In the UK, many straight men have taken to texting pictures of their dicks to each other, and loving it. Is that a thing, where you guys live? It is definitely a thing here.

That's not a thing here, but I wouldn't complain if it were! Actually, a couple of straight buddies have shared pics with me... I think both were curious as to how a gay man would view their anatomy. I also think it was exciting to them. A somewhat naughty, but harmless thrill.

Originally Posted by Dex

Personally I've always been much more of an ass-man. Dicks and vaginas both strike me as very functional, but not especially pretty.

I'm quite fond of the rear-view, but I'm much more fond of the front-view. I greatly enjoy the variety in length, girth, skin-tone, venosity, circ-status, and so forth.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by estranged4life

As for "anuses", "vaginas"...who cares? I thought LOVE was what REALLY mattered? Maybe I am wrong...But I would like to believe in this world that LOVE still matters...

You're absolutely right, Brian. As Dex said, this is where anti-gay people completely miss the point.

[KarmaContestant]

Originally Posted by estranged4life

As for "anuses", "vaginas"...who cares? I thought LOVE was what REALLY mattered? Maybe I am wrong...But I would like to believe in this world that LOVE still matters...

Love *is* all that matters.

[Dex]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

I greatly enjoy the variety in length, girth, skin-tone, venosity, circ-status, and so forth.

Do you work in sales? I feel like you should work in sales.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by Dex

Do you work in sales? I feel like you should work in sales.

Haha... no, I don't. I do tend to wax poetic, though, about the things I like. (Meanwhile, I was trying to remain somewhat tasteful in my comments -- so I probably ended up sounding like a stuffy old lady, lol.)

Back to Phil Robertson -- TMZ has posted footage of a "sermon" of his from 2010.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/1...n_4475546.html