A&E shoots itself in the foot

[gerryh]

The part about god spewing men who sleep with men is one you all choose to follow, selling your daughters into slavery is one you ignore. No more blood sacrifices either, or do you still do that? Oh I suppose you ignore that one too. Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, all he said was to love one another as yourself, and turning the other cheek, etc.

Oh and it was Christians who convinced me that there is no god.

That's what I thought you'd pick. Phil Robertson was quoting 1st Corinthians, which is Pauls 1st letter to the Corinthians in the NEW TESTAMENT. He didn't have to go to the old testament. I'm curious, do you even know what book you are paraphrasing?

Now, you have made yourself look even more like an idiot by assigning any of the above beliefs to me.

 

[Christianna]

UMMMM, Paul wrote those letters however like Luke I believe he never met Jesus, so did he know who he was paraphrasing? Sorry but Jesus never mentioned homosexuality. And who determined what writings went into the bible? So you didn't answer the question do you still sacrifice living animals? That's in the old testament that you are still picking and choosing from. I can see though how the confusion began when reading Paul's letters that people would actually think they were words of Jesus.

 

[Walter]

UMMMM, Paul wrote those letters however like Luke I believe he never met Jesus, so did he know who he was paraphrasing? Sorry but Jesus never mentioned homosexuality. And who determined what writings went into the bible? So you didn't answer the question do you still sacrifice living animals? That's in the old testament that you are still picking and choosing from. I can see though how the confusion began when reading Paul's letters that people would actually think they were words of Jesus.

He did mention heterosexuality.

 

[karrie]

You guys still can't understand that homophobic views are exactly what they have to fight if they are trying to promote inclusion and tolerance?

Promoting inclusion, education, tolerance, is perfectly fine on a societal level. Where it crosses a line is when it hits the level of trying to ensure each individual has fallen into line. No one believes for a minute that his views are the views of A&E. They are his and his alone. So it comes down to GLAAD trying to make sure that individuals follow their rules, or are shunned. The irony and hypocrisy is palpable.

 

[JLM]

Promoting inclusion, education, tolerance, is perfectly fine on a societal level. Where it crosses a line is when it hits the level of trying to ensure each individual has fallen into line. No one believes for a minute that his views are the views of A&E. They are his and his alone. So it comes down to GLAAD trying to make sure that individuals follow their rules, or are shunned. The irony and hypocrisy is palpable.

At risk of being politically incorrect, (not that I give a sh*t) I'll say they've come within one letter of F**king up another perfectly good word! -

 

[gerryh]

UMMMM, Paul wrote those letters however like Luke I believe he never met Jesus, so did he know who he was paraphrasing? Sorry but Jesus never mentioned homosexuality. And who determined what writings went into the bible? So you didn't answer the question do you still sacrifice living animals? That's in the old testament that you are still picking and choosing from. I can see though how the confusion began when reading Paul's letters that people would actually think they were words of Jesus.

I don't pick anything from the old testament. Phil Robertson was paraphrasing 1st Corinthians which is in the New Testament. This discussion is about his comments to GQ which were all based from the NT.

As for what I believe and don't believe and as to what I take from the Bible and don't, obviously you haven't been paying attention over the years to my comments concerning Christianity and the Bible or you would not be assigning crap comments concerning what I do and don't take from the Bible.

 

[BornRuff]

I don't pick anything from the old testament. Phil Robertson was paraphrasing 1st Corinthians which is in the New Testament. This discussion is about his comments to GQ which were all based from the NT.

As for what I believe and don't believe and as to what I take from the Bible and don't, obviously you haven't been paying attention over the years to my comments concerning Christianity and the Bible or you would not be assigning crap comments concerning what I do and don't take from the Bible.

Why do you expect people to memorize your positions on different topics?

Promoting inclusion, education, tolerance, is perfectly fine on a societal level. Where it crosses a line is when it hits the level of trying to ensure each individual has fallen into line. No one believes for a minute that his views are the views of A&E. They are his and his alone. So it comes down to GLAAD trying to make sure that individuals follow their rules, or are shunned. The irony and hypocrisy is palpable.

The overall tone of society is made up of lots of individual actions, so they necessarily need to deal with individual incidents to change the big picture.

This was a very public incident by a man who had a very public stage to speak from, so I'd they are going to choose their battles, this is one that likely makes sense.

 

[Christianna]

I don't pick anything from the old testament. Phil Robertson was paraphrasing 1st Corinthians which is in the New Testament. This discussion is about his comments to GQ which were all based from the NT.
.

Still written by Paul................................not quotations from Jesus.

 

[gerryh]

Still written by Paul................................not quotations from Jesus.

Ya, so. It's in the NT. You are the one that made the comment about cherry picking the OT. So now you move the goal posts. Typical.

 

[Dixie Cup]

I really enjoy the show. It's silly but funny and I don't have to sit and hear a bunch of cuss words. I don't take anything in the show seriously. Good, clean fun!

JMHO

 

[pgs]

Why do you expect people to memorize your positions on different topics?



The overall tone of society is made up of lots of individual actions, so they necessarily need to deal with individual incidents to change the big picture.

This was a very public incident by a man who had a very public stage to speak from, so I'd they are going to choose their battles, this is one that likely makes sense.

What big picture needs changing ? No matter how much people scream most of us men will still look upon homosexuality as a sin . It is in our dna and that fact cannot be changed .So keep screaming all you want .

 

[Goober]

What big picture needs changing ? No matter how much people scream most of us men will still look upon homosexuality as a sin . It is in our dna and that fact cannot be changed .So keep screaming all you want .

I disagree- Many of us will consider it something that they would not engage in – based upon percentages. As to a sin- My opinion- Not a sin-

 

[BornRuff]

What big picture needs changing ? No matter how much people scream most of us men will still look upon homosexuality as a sin . It is in our dna and that fact cannot be changed .So keep screaming all you want .

I don't really know if "most" men care that much if it is a sin or not. Lots of people are weirded out by homosexuality for many reasons, but that seems to be changing over time.

For a lot of people the change comes when they find out that someone that they care about is gay. It gets a lot harder to spit vitriol about someone you care about. It also seems to come from having more interaction with people who are gay and realizing they are not evil.

 

[SLM]

What big picture needs changing ? No matter how much people scream most of us men will still look upon homosexuality as a sin . It is in our dna and that fact cannot be changed .So keep screaming all you want .

Why a "sin"? Wouldn't that be isolated to those who believe in the concept of sin? Many don't.

Of those that don't, many males are actually quite indifferent to homosexuality, others might find it makes them uneasy or uncomfortable. Then there is the percentage that feels if they don't like or approve of something, it should be banned, stopped, criminalized or sometimes worse. Those are the ones I personally call ignorant.

Oddly many of those same men have little problem with the concept of lesbians.

 

[gerryh]

I don't really know if "most" men care that much if it is a sin or not. Lots of people are weirded out by homosexuality for many reasons, but that seems to be changing over time.

For a lot of people the change comes when they find out that someone that they care about is gay. It gets a lot harder to spit vitriol about someone you care about. It also seems to come from having more interaction with people who are gay and realizing they are not evil.

Yup, and those that are "wierded out" by it and are "Christian", like Phil Robertson, will turn to what the Bible says about it and call it a sin since that gives them an "out". There are, however, both Christian and non Christian that are NOT tolerant of gays like Phil Robertson has stated he is.

Why a "sin"? Wouldn't that be isolated to those who believe in the concept of sin? Many don't.

and many do.

Of those that don't, many males are actually quite indifferent to homosexuality, others might find it makes them uneasy or uncomfortable. Then there is the percentage that feels if they don't like or approve of something, it should be banned, stopped, criminalized or sometimes worse. Those are the ones I personally call ignorant.

Oddly many of those same men have little problem with the concept of lesbians.

Indifference is not the same as acceptance, and just to even out the blame game here, I have known women that have been equally "uncomfortable" with lesbianism as men are with gays.

 

[JLM]

Of those that don't, many males are actually quite indifferent to homosexuality, others might find it makes them uneasy or uncomfortable. Then there is the percentage that feels if they don't like or approve of something, it should be banned, stopped, criminalized or sometimes worse. Those are the ones I personally call ignorant.

Doesn't it depend on what it is? I can think of things like kidnapping, blackmail, extortion!

 

[Cannuck]

Look like A&E is still on the air and the world is continuing to spin on its axis. I can't believe how many people took the bait. Marketing genius whoever came up with this

 

[SLM]

and many do.

Yep, many do. But I don't think non-acceptance of homosexuality is limited to only those who consider it a sin, which was the point I was trying to make.

Indifference is not the same as acceptance, and just to even out the blame game here, I have known women that have been equally "uncomfortable" with lesbianism as men are with gays.

Fair enough. Again though I was attempting to broaden the acceptance/non acceptance beyond the realm of religious belief. I've known people with strong religious beliefs who are very accepting and loving to all people, irrespective of lifestyle, orientation, etc. On the other hand I've often also heard many without religious convictions simply label it as "wrong".

Doesn't it depend on what it is? I can think of things like kidnapping, blackmail, extortion!

There is no question what "it" is, in this conversation "it" is homosexuality.

 

[Christianna]

While I think homosexuality is not a choice, but genetic, I don't care so much what Philly said about gays, as his opinion that Blacks were happier during the days of Jim Crow. I mean really, they liked having no rights?

 

[gerryh]

Yep, many do. But I don't think non-acceptance of homosexuality is limited to only those who consider it a sin, which was the point I was trying to make.

I don't think it is either. As a matter of fact, some of the most virulent homophobes I have known have been agnostic/atheist and some with the most acceptance have been "religious".

Fair enough. Again though I was attempting to broaden the acceptance/non acceptance beyond the realm of religious belief. I've known people with strong religious beliefs who are very accepting and loving to all people, irrespective of lifestyle, orientation, etc. On the other hand I've often also heard many without religious convictions simply label it as "wrong".

see above

There is no question what "it" is, in this conversation "it" is homosexuality.

Bare with him, he does have a demonstrable problem with comprehension. It could be his advanced age. I'd prefer to think that rather than him being extremely ignorant or just plain stupid.