'Duck Dynasty' star Phil Robertson suspended for comments on homosexuals

[KeithTalent]

Then why has marriage always involved at least one man and at least one woman since the dawn of time?

Clearly you "common-sense" definition of marriage is not consistent with how people have defined marriage.

It always involved a man and a woman because you would have been stoned to death if you tried to do otherwise. That's one of the reasons anyway. In certain places that would still happen of course, but I would hope in North America at the very least, we had evolved past that nonsense.

KT

 

[nehalem256]

It always involved a man and a woman because you would have been stoned to death if you tried to do otherwise. That's one of the reasons anyway. In certain places that would still happen of course, but I would hope in North America at the very least, we had evolved past that nonsense.

KT

Unlikely. If 2 guys had said they were married to each other 200 years ago they would have probably just been laughed at or ignored.

 

[KeithTalent]

Unlikely. If 2 guys had said they were married to each other 200 years ago they would have probably just been laughed at or ignored.

Maybe, I have no way of knowing that. I find it unlikely the response would be so muted though.

KT

 

[LTC8K6]

A&E knew all about Phil Robertson and his opinions on gays all along. They knew exactly how he felt on the subject before they hired him.

Phil has always been outspoken on the subject. A&E acting surprised or shocked is a joke.

Whether you agree with Phil or not, his opinions were never a secret from A&E.

Phil is a well known bible thumper and has always spoken in that same way regarding gays. He has preached on the subject with the same opinions.

A&E is the one that is two-faced about it, imo. They didn't care as long as the money flowed and no one noticed, then when Phil does an interview that A&E surely approved of, suddenly A&E is dismayed...

 

[Dumac]

Probably because renaming marriages civil unions is a silly idea. And really stems from the myth that marriage is just a religious idea.

It isn't just a 'myth' - conceptions of marriage come from religious texts. Saying marriage has nothing to do with religion is kidding yourself.

I think the better question is why the government is participating in this religious event. If 'marriage' is so sacred to some, why is it institutionalized? The overlap here is harmful and confusing.

I think a second term, such as civil union, needs to be created and adapted to be a distinctly separate union in the government's eyes as opposed to marriage in the bible, qur'an, etc.

 

[Drako]

These guys are laughing all the way to the bank.

Getting more publicity than they could ever have dreamed possible.

 

[Dumac]

It always involved a man and a woman because you would have been stoned to death if you tried to do otherwise. That's one of the reasons anyway. In certain places that would still happen of course, but I would hope in North America at the very least, we had evolved past that nonsense.

KT

Tradition is a hard thing to shake. Cultural memory runs deep.

 

[sixone]

A&E knew all about Phil Robertson and his opinions on gays all along. They knew exactly how he felt on the subject before they hired him.

Phil has always been outspoken on the subject. A&E acting surprised or shocked is a joke.

Whether you agree with Phil or not, his opinions were never a secret from A&E.

Phil is a well known bible thumper and has always spoken in that same way regarding gays. He has preached on the subject with the same opinions.

A&E is the one that is two-faced about it, imo. They didn't care as long as the money flowed and no one noticed, then when Phil does an interview that A&E surely approved of, suddenly A&E is dismayed...

Seems obvious they're more dismayed about the possibility of blowback than about what he said. And now they're facing blowback from people who think Phil shouldn't have been suspended for speaking his mind.

Sucks to be A&E.

 

[KeithTalent]

Tradition is a hard thing to shake. Cultural memory runs deep.

I guess so. I was married and called myself married, but I've never had anything to do with anything religion my entire life (same with my wife). It's just the name of the union and it being a religiously-connotative thing was not something that entered either of our minds. We got married because we loved each other; other consenting adults should be able to do the same.

KT

 

[nehalem256]

It isn't just a 'myth' - conceptions of marriage come from religious texts. Saying marriage has nothing to do with religion is kidding yourself.

I think the better question is why the government is participating in this religious event. If 'marriage' is so sacred to some, why is it institutionalized? The overlap here is harmful and confusing.

I think a second term, such as civil union, needs to be created and adapted to be a distinctly separate union in the government's eyes as opposed to marriage in the bible, qur'an, etc.

Marriage is important to society. That is why it exists. Because of this institution central to human society such as the government, religion, etc have a say in it.

If marriage is purely a religious idea then why do atheist countries like China recognize marriage?

 

[Dumac]

Marriage is important to society. That is why it exists. Because of this institution central to human society such as the government, religion, etc have a say in it.

If marriage is purely a religious idea then why do atheist countries like China recognize marriage?

You are misunderstanding what I said. Most conceptions of marriage originate from religious texts. By that, I mean that marriage as a concept was born mostly out of religion. References to marriage are first found in religion. The core tenants of marriage are first found in religion.

I'm not saying that things haven't evolved and branched off from there, but in the western world marriage has deep roots in religion. It is a term tinged with religion. People read the word marriage in their bible and associated it with chapels. The wedding tradition is linked with religion.

I'm not a religious man. I am an atheist. Yet to sit there and say marriage has nothing to do with religion is being blind to the country around you. What marriage means and the connotations around it has been drilled into this country for a long time.

When you look are proponents of gay marriage, they often argue that their religion accepts gay marriage rather than arguing that marriage has nothing to do with religion. There is so much history to that term that it all gets mixed up. The only way to truly break free is to wipe the slate clean. Otherwise, we'll just have this same exact argument the next time a new type of 'marriage' comes around, and it will all devolve back to religious roots.

What China does is of no effect to America. They have different roots and a different culture. Even so, you can argue that China's religion is the country itself - get married and be blessed by the PRC so you can help your country prosper.

 

[JM Aggie08]

And the first tangent has been created to the original discussion.

 

[skagen5555]

And the first tangent has been created to the original discussion.

Here's another one. Curious, what are the stances on Polygamy? How about 1st cousins getting married or a Father and Daughter (of age)? Assuming all are consenting adults, does anyone have a problem with these?

 

[Arkaign]

Here's another one. Curious, what are the stances on Polygamy? How about 1st cousins getting married or a Father and Daughter (of age)? Assuming all are consenting adults, does anyone have a problem with these?

/Vulcan mode on

Polygamy is meh, but it usually shows a predisposition towards biting off more than you can chew Really, what's the difference between polygamy and some man/woman in an 'open' marriage that has many regular partners?

Logically there's little reason to care pro/con on polygamy vs. other marriage.

Now 1st cousin and closer relatives, that could present problems from multiple logical reasoning.

(1)- Children are much more likely to have medical/developmental issues.

(2)- In the case of parent/child, well that's a red flag because who's to say that didn't start before they were of age?

Gay marriage, well I can't think of a single reason to care, logically, outside of cultural/societal scrutiny/bigotry. If I were gay I probably would prefer not to be married honestly. What's the point? The only logical reason would have to be for legal/tax reasons such as inheritance, will/trust, yadda yadda.

Following logic, the religious practices of men that teach that :

(1)- They are the only TRUE religion, everything else is BS and they're going to hell
(2)- If you are *insert banal meaningless social reasoning that has nothing to do with other people's lives*, then you are a bad person

That's all total BS.

 

[Dumac]

Here's another one. Curious, what are the stances on Polygamy? How about 1st cousins getting married or a Father and Daughter (of age)? Assuming all are consenting adults, does anyone have a problem with these?

I don't think any of those things should be restricted. I think a civil union from the government should be available to all of them.

Relatives should be discourages from having kids, but a civil union does not mean kids so there is no reason to restrict them.

 

[sportage]

Never heard of him. Never watched whatever it is he is on. Never would.
Obviously a publicity stunt. Attention getter. 15 minutes of fame beyond what A&E already given.
Headline might a well read "SOME GUY THAT WORKS AT SOME DUNKIN DONUTS IN SOME CITY IN SOME STATE SAID A BAD WORD AGAINST SOME MINORITY GROUP", for all I would ever have known or cared about "some guy" anyways.....

 

[Jeff7]

Interracial marriage and gay marriage are not equal. There is nothing wrong with being a different race.

People once used scripture, and some still do, to try to justify their bigotry in terms of interracial marriage. A comparable issue today is gay marriage. La dee dah. You're the same gender. I don't really have a reason that I need to care about that, or get all in a fuss about it.

No. They are just not contributing to the population. But being gay and being a heterosexual couple without kids are not the same thing. A heterosexual couple is still doing what nature intended, despite their lack of procreation.

As far as nature's concerned, your primary function is to ensure that your species continues to exist. Look at some other species. There are numerous insects where the adult males don't even have mouths. Some don't have a functioning digestive system. Their purpose is to mate before they starve to death, die of old age, or are otherwise killed. Or queen termites: They're so large that they can't leave the nest. They exist to produce eggs, keeping the nest populated.
Humans: Look how powerfully motivated we are by hormones. "Rape" is a word that exists for us. It's something in our vocabulary, and it can include violent attacks for the purpose of sexual pleasure, without regard for the victim. To me, that alone shows just how absurdly powerful the sex drive is. (And how little control some people exercise over their own minds.) Look at what things we do to secure a mate. Immense resources are devoted to the cause. People are even willing to kill for it.
Numerous plants and animals die after producing seeds, eggs, or offspring. Nature's willing to say, "Ok, you've done your job. You can die any time now."

If you're not making sure that the next generation is created, nature doesn't have much purpose for you.

We've arrived at a place where we'd like to do more than that. We value things beyond simple mating and reproduction. Saying that a couple who is not producing children, whether by choice or by biology, is "defective" or "useless" serves only to reaffirm that primitive notion that one's only function of value is to successfully reproduce, thus spitting in the face of many hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary and cultural progress.

Then why has marriage always involved at least one man and at least one woman since the dawn of time?

Clearly you "common-sense" definition of marriage is not consistent with how people have defined marriage.

EDIT: Ask yourself if your definition of marriage is "correct" then why have incestuous marriages been illegal?

As has been pointed,s lavery existed for a very long time as well. The Old Testament speaks of it, and gives rules on beating slaves, freeing them, and general treatment, rather than saying, "People are not property, and I, your God, am only going to warn you once. This notification is your warning."
(Good thing Jesus erased his own Old Testament rules with the New Testament stuff.)

Some traditions can die without being missed.

Other traditions are modified throughout the years. Christmas Tree or Yule Log, anyone?

 

[Exophase]

I think this is what they call a strawman argument? What if what if what if?

What if the world ends tomorrow?

No, it isn't a strawman argument at all, nor is it even hypothetical. You said that marriage was intended for people who love each other to have children, as a criticism of gay marriage. So I asked you if you had a problem with cases where heterosexual marriage is not about this - cases that occur all the time in the real world. Apparently this is how you respond rather than actually answer the questions.

 

[shortylickens]

You mean All in the Family. I love that show. :wub:

Archie told it like it was!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfGh82dVtco

Nope.
That was stupid, nevermind.

 

[sandorski]

NSFW(language)- Interesting info about the show

 

[BudAshes]

Gay people aren't the reason you guys are unhappy with life.

 

[Dumac]

Gay people aren't the reason you guys are unhappy with life.

But my boyfriend cheated on me :'(

 

[Jeff7]

Gay people aren't the reason you guys are unhappy with life.

But now where can I direct my tendencies for moral panic? I wanted to hunt some witches.

 

[Sea Moose]

No, it isn't a strawman argument at all, nor is it even hypothetical. You said that marriage was intended for people who love each other to have children, as a criticism of gay marriage. So I asked you if you had a problem with cases where heterosexual marriage is not about this - cases that occur all the time in the real world. Apparently this is how you respond rather than actually answer the questions.

I will review your question again. I was in a rush on my way to work when i originally answered... i think i misread.

Originally Posted by Exophase View Post
So do you believe that married people have a responsibility to bear children and it's wrong to enter into a marriage with no intention of doing so? Should sterile individuals be prohibited from marrying? What about the post-menopausal?

Are you against contraceptives too?

And do you think that married couples have to prove that they love each other somehow? Should the marriage be automatically disolved if they can't keep proving that they still love each other? Throughout history many people have married for reasons other than or even not including love.

You are asking my opinion on several different matters. I will try and answer the best i can

So do you believe that married people have a responsibility to bear children

Yes, someone has to produce the next generation. There are lots of couples that getting married after having kids, and that is ok. But I think marriage helps reinforce the identity of family

and it's wrong to enter into a marriage with no intention of doing so?

No its not wrong.

Should sterile individuals be prohibited from marrying? What about the post-menopausal

?

No & No

Are you against contraceptives too?

I dont use them no, Not against them however

And do you think that married couples have to prove that they love each other somehow?

Actually yes. I think that only loving hetro couples should get married and they should make divorce ten time more difficult than what it is.

Should the marriage be automatically disolved if they can't keep proving that they still love each other?

I think that marriages on the rocks should have a procedure of counseling and reconciliation. Everything should be done to save the marriage. if everything fails, then unfortunately divorce is the only option. Divorce should be a lot more difficult than what it is.

Throughout history many people have married for reasons other than or even not including love.

Yes you are correct and this is unfortunate. It happens still today in middle eastern cultures, where underage girls are seen as a commodity. This is fucking wrong and should be outlawed



I hope you feel better now that i have answered your questions.

 

[MtnMan]

I don't defend what Phil said, but I sure as hell defend his right to say it.

I am so damn sick of all the political correctness crap. Political correctness is nothing more than the attempt to pick up a turd by the clean end.