You said what Phil said is idiotic. What's idiotic about preferring vagina? What's idiotic about someone having their own view based on their religious practice? I wouldn't say the guy is much of an idiot considering his success with the family business. He obviously has some smarts to him.
According to websters dictionary...
Tolerance - willingness to accept feelings, habits, or beliefs that are different from your own.
Please provide me with a logical response of how the LGBT community wants "tolerance" because all I'm seeing is a group whining about and bashing someone for having a view different from their own, which is certainly not the definition of tolerance.
Not getting into defining tolerance, brother. And this will be my last reply on this, because it's Christmas time, and I swear I'm not that offended or worked up about this story. We're just shooting the shit about a news story that everyone is debating. So I'm not being an asshole here, I mean I'm not trying to sound terse or be crass when I replied 'nah'.
I think it's ridiculous to have to define certain things, and for my money that's partly how common sense and what should be truly right goes out the window when we start getting into things like 'define tolerance'.
If you believe
in those portions of theology that Robertson is referencing, RDY, and/or if you agree with him personally, and forget the sentiment about 'preferring vagina', because that's not the idiotic bit... but if you're in agreement with the words in the bible and with Robertson about homosexuality being a sin, then we can't argue this, as you will forever disagree with me, and we will simply go in circles, and I will not sit here and define tolerance.
So if you agree that it's a sin and an abomination, if you agree with classifying homosexuals in with bestiality, the greedy, drunkards, swindlers, if you agree with this:
"Women with women, men with men, they committed indecent acts with one another, and they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversions. They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."
then we have nothing to sort out. We will never agree. Phil Robertson's views and beliefs on this are idiotic, primitive, and insulting. These types of ideologies have led to nothing but division, pain, and oppression on this planet.
Clarity: I am not accusing Phil Robertson of being Hitler. I am not saying Phil Robertson has evil in his heart or malice in his thoughts. I wish him no ill will or hate. There are levels to everything. I am not supremely offended by what Phil Robertson said. But what he said is utterly primitive and idiotic. Do not take this down to "He said he prefers vagina, and this is just an opinion." It is absolutely not about that.
Frankly, it's sad to me that there is this much division on this and that people don't see the primitive baseless insulting rhetoric that is involved in what he believes.
Support his right to believe that? yup. Support his right to say that? yup. But if a bunch of people who feel like me realize how dumb what you just said is, then guess what. There might come consequences to what you said. You, RDY, and all the people who agree with you, will of course disagree. But if you talk like an asshole you can't be surprised when you get treated like one, which in this case, would be him getting suspended by A&E. That is not an infringement of his rights. Any company has the right to THEIR beliefs and opinions on tolerance, and while you might disagree with that just as you disagree with me, that is their right. They have a right to want to be portrayed and represented in a certain manner, just as my company expects of me. And just like Robertson, if I espoused certain rhetoric that went against those expectations, I would be disciplined up to and including termination. That's not an infringement of my right to free speech. Not even close. That's an employer acting within their rights.
Thank fuck there are people out there who don't have a problem with acceptance and tolerance. Just because you have an opinion, RDY, doesn't mean everyone is going to agree with it, especially if that 'opinion' is steeped in primitive beliefs and insulting classifications of your fellow human beings. Thank fuck there are people who understand that it's ridiculous to say things like "Well if gay people have a right to be together, then Phil Robertson should have a right to say what he wants!".. that is utterly insulting and laughable if you feel that way. Why? Because those two things are not on the same planet.
Ok. Yes, Robertson has a right to say that. But gay people loving each other isn't an offense or a hatred towards anyone. Rhetoric like what Robertson spews out is. So while I support Robertson or anyone's right to speak their mind, even if their views are twisted and primitive... when you spit that shit out you have to accept it might come with reactions and consequences. Two people loving one another should have zero reactions and consequences. When the hell are people going to understand that the world is only going to become a better place when we realize that we have to stop being concerned with 2 men or 2 women loving each other, that this is not a threat to what you do, to what you think, to how you live, or to what you believe. One may say it is their opinion that it IS, but... that is where the never ending circle of arguing happens, which is where I step out. Because my brain does not operate on that level, where I am offended or in disagreement in any way shape or form with homosexuality.
Let's be clear: Fellow human beings who's 'sin' or 'offense' is to happen to love another human being of the same sex.