Cann!bal said:
I think Phil Robertson's suspension was unjust. (However, I think the whole suspension was probably a ratings stunt anyways. They're now more popular than ever now.) He should have never received a temporary suspension for voicing his beliefs. It contradicts his rights, as an American citizen. However, if his network would have permanently shunned him, I would have understood, because it's well within their rights to not want an ignorant bigot to represent them.
That question was articulated poorly, however, I'll attempt answer it to the best of my abilities.
Firstly, the entirety of the Middle East is not pro-adolescent marriage and sex.
The Middle East is a chiefly impoverished and ignorant world, and activism is looked down upon. Their laws and guidelines are dictated by their religious and traditional principles and values. Hence, ignorance reigns. However, in America, we are an educated and informed world. Hence, being an ignorant bigot in America, especially when famous, will consequentially have an adverse response. Not very surprisingly, Phil Robertson is from the Bible Belt, America's most ill educated and uninformed sector.
(I'm against arranged marriages and adolescent marriages because there's ill consent. A youth is too young physically and mentally to be sexually active. A child's and a parent's consent to an adolescent marriage is invalid.)
I'm not against Christians, I'm against religion. There's a major distinction to be made there. It's the actions and beliefs of the religious I detest, henceforth, it doesn't matter if they represent the minority of Christians.
Today's youth is so secular and protestant, that it's somewhat fallacious to even call them by their religious labels, since they follow an insignificantly trivial amount of what their scripture dictates. They're more secular than religious. No one follows the scripture to the core.
This is indeed a religious issue. This anti-homosexual bigotry is of fault of religion. There would be essentially no intolerance of homosexuals if it was not dictated in religious scripture. Religion is the root and justification of all things wrong.
I'm not getting into a religion debate tonight. I was partially kidding,
. Like Phil Robinson's views or not, you have to respect him for standing up for his beliefs. It's the most basic fundamental freedom we have, imo, and he's well within his rights to exercise it. Dog the Bounty Hunter went through something similar with the NAACP over some racist comments. That whole thing was taken out of context, as we later found out. I'm NOT comparing gays to black people, because gays were never forced into slavery and all the persecution that followed for many decades. I'm going to play my Christian card here and say that the Jesus I follow taught me to love and accept all of my brothers and sisters. To hate the sin, not the sinner. He preached this at great length during the last supper and several times throughout his life. When he saved the condemned prostitute (let he who is without sin cast the first stone), he told her to change her ways and gtfo (set her free). A disciple of Christ's job is to point out someone's moral flaws, but at the same time, show them compassion and equality as men/women of this Earth. I'm not calling Phil Robinson Jesus by any means, but he was well within his religious rights to make the comments he did, not to mention his first amendment rights.
In short; I accept all people. I have and will speak my mind when it conflicts with me own beliefs, but I will never condemn or pass judgment on a person. It's completely ok to judge the sin, but not the sinner, as I said. I'm not as imbedded in the religion as Christianity as Phil Robinson, but share many of his values. I know that homosexuality isn't natural. Leviticus calls it a sin, but people that choose to partake in gay sex will have to deal with the Maker, not me, as I simply won't pass judgment. Have all the butt sex you want in your own home, but leave it there. 95% of my straight friends refrain from talking about their sex lives, but 0% of my gay friends do :/ lol.
For me, being gay isn't a bad thing. But when a man talks like a girl, acts like a girl and has to be outspokenly flamboyant about his homosexuality, he should expect to not be accepted by the whole of society. And back on point, the liberal media whores out all of these pro-gay television shows and generally only showcases the hardcore flamboyant fem-gays. And it's something that's only recently started becoming mainstream in our society. We had gay movie stars from the 50s-70s, but barely any of them were fem-gays. Rock Hudson=Man's man. Mr. Brady=America's gay (lol). Yeah, you had people like Freddie Mercury and Elton John, who are 2 of my all-time favorite musicians that acted a little out of the closet, but neither of them were 'that' flamboyant off-stage. If you watch interviews of them at their homes, they come off as normal talking men. No lisps, no wrist flicking, no pinky raising. I'm not sure when it became so glamorized, but it's almost to the point where I can't even watch TV anymore. Esquire, Bravo, E!, HGTV, TVGN are the worst. This pro-gay agenda has got to go. We're accepting them as a whole, but enough's enough. If they want to get married, let them get married (as is happening all across the world now), but stop acting like fucking victims. If they didn't insist on acting like girls, they wouldn't be persecuted against. And for that, I place the blame solely on them. If you have a dick and it gets hard enough for you to stick in someone's butt hole, you're a man, act like it.
.
