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

[KarmaContestant]

Duck Dynasty is one of the dumbest things on TV. As bad as Honey Boo Boo. I watched one episode earlier this year, and could only shake my head at their childish antics... It's just another series in what I consider a vile line of shows that glorify (or pay homage to - I'm not sure which one) rednecks, hillbillies, swamp folk and other sterotypical Jerry Springer Show guests. These are popular right now along with those other cable programs about slaughtering large sea creatures and wildlife, mowing down virgin forest, pillaging the bowels of the earth for gold and other environmental abuses in the name of glory and profit. I see all of these as a cultural backlash against the liberal TV of the 90's and early millenium new-age environmentalism.

The pendulum will swing back the other direction, and then back again to this one - it's never ending.

That said, I don't care about his opinion on gays, marriage or sex. They are his own, and he's entitled to them. He has a lot of fans, and he's speaking for them, however foolish it might be.

[I'msoAfraid95]

Originally Posted by KarmaContestant

Duck Dynasty is one of the dumbest things on TV. As bad as Honey Boo Boo. I watched one episode earlier this year, and could only shake my head at their childish antics... It's just another series in what I consider a vile line of shows that glorify (or pay homage to - I'm not sure which one) rednecks, hillbillies, swamp folk and other sterotypical Jerry Springer Show guests. These are popular right now along with those other cable programs about slaughtering large sea creatures and wildlife, mowing down virgin forest, pillaging the bowels of the earth for gold and other environmental abuses in the name of glory and profit. I see all of these as a cultural backlash against the liberal TV of the 90's and early millenium new-age environmentalism.

The pendulum will swing back the other direction, and then back again to this one - it's never ending.

That said, I don't care about his opinion on gays, marriage or sex. They are his own, and he's entitled to them. He has a lot of fans, and he's speaking for them, however foolish it might be.

Honey Boo Boo is worse.

Most people, I figure, watch both shows to get a laugh.

[MoonSister75]

Originally Posted by KarmaContestant

Duck Dynasty is one of the dumbest things on TV. As bad as Honey Boo Boo. I watched one episode earlier this year, and could only shake my head at their childish antics... It's just another series in what I consider a vile line of shows that glorify (or pay homage to - I'm not sure which one) rednecks, hillbillies, swamp folk and other sterotypical Jerry Springer Show guests. These are popular right now along with those other cable programs about slaughtering large sea creatures and wildlife, mowing down virgin forest, pillaging the bowels of the earth for gold and other environmental abuses in the name of glory and profit. I see all of these as a cultural backlash against the liberal TV of the 90's and early millenium new-age environmentalism.

The pendulum will swing back the other direction, and then back again to this one - it's never ending.

That said, I don't care about his opinion on gays, marriage or sex. They are his own, and he's entitled to them. He has a lot of fans, and he's speaking for them, however foolish it might be.

Honey Boo Boo!!

We have one over here where they fly celebrities into the Australian rainforest, where they have to fend for themselves and do ridiculous tasks. In the bush tucker trials, the celebrities have to eat strange creatures, some insects are alive. Its a pretty awful use of the rainforest and the poor animals.

[MoonSister75]

Originally Posted by Dex

It's a fair enough default reaction, though. I do spew a lot of crap.

but its good crap! Well I enjoy reading it anyway

[Dex]

Originally Posted by KarmaContestant

That said, I don't care about his opinion on gays, marriage or sex. They are his own, and he's entitled to them. He has a lot of fans, and he's speaking for them, however foolish it might be.

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.

Originally Posted by MoonSister75

Honey Boo Boo!!

We have one over here where they fly celebrities into the Australian rainforest, where they have to fend for themselves and do ridiculous tasks. In the bush tucker trials, the celebrities have to eat strange creatures, some insects are alive. Its a pretty awful use of the rainforest and the poor animals.

Oh God. My in-laws were watching that religiously the last time I visited and I... It was hard. With in-laws I sometimes feel like I ought to "try" and be a part of the family, and in this case it really was a struggle. I just did not get the show at all. Why is it a thing!? I'm by no means a man without any guilty pleasures, but this is not one I understand.

Originally Posted by MoonSister75

but its good crap! Well I enjoy reading it anyway

Oh you.

[MoonSister75]

Originally Posted by Dex

Oh God. My in-laws were watching that religiously the last time I visited and I... It was hard. With in-laws I sometimes feel like I ought to "try" and be a part of the family, and in this case it really was a struggle. I just did not get the show at all. Why is it a thing!? I'm by no means a man without any guilty pleasures, but this is not one I understand.

I have been in similar situations myself, but it was the antiques roadshow and masterchef. But having to watch "I'm a celebrity" when you don't like it, that's tough. I caught some of the last episode - I tried to turn over and not watch, but I couldn't help but be drawn in by it. It was just a good reminder of why I try to avoid these things. As to why its so popular I don't know. I guess people like celebrity reality programs, and maybe the added bonus of all the insect goriness.

[Johnny Stew]

I'm trying to understand the interpretation of GLAAD's statement as being puritanical and showing a lack of support for those who engage in anal sex. As I read it, the "vile and extreme stereotypes" GLAAD was referencing in Phil Robertson's comments, were his likening of homosexual behavior to bestiality, adultery, and "sin" in general. There was a lot more to his statement than simply displaying his disgust regarding a man's anus, and I believe that's what GLAAD was referring to.

That said, he's not the first so-called Christian to make such sweeping comparisons and use the Bible as a defense. (Somehow they always manage to miss that pesky "judge not" section, among other things.) At this point, they're just making themselves look worse than they're making us look. The people who already feel as they do, will nod their head firmly in agreement -- while the people who don't, will go about their business and not let such statements change their point of view. So, there really is no use in expending a lot of energy over this.

To me, the most offensive thing he said in the GQ article was that, during the Jim Crow Law era, African-Americans were "happy and singing." Adding, "pre-entitlement, pre-welfare.... no one was singing the blues."

[Dex]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

I'm trying to understand the interpretation of GLAAD's statement as being puritanical and showing a lack of support for those who engage in anal sex. As I read it, the "vile and extreme stereotypes" GLAAD was referencing in Phil Robertson's comments, were his likening of homosexual behavior to bestiality, adultery, and "sin" in general. There was a lot more to his statement than simply displaying his disgust regarding a man's anus, and I believe that's what GLAAD was referring to.

But bestiality, adultery, and "sin" are not stereotypes. They're concepts and practices. The only think Phil Robertson really said about gay people is that they like man butt. That's genuinely all he said. So I can only assume that's what GLAAD was referring to. He groups it in with adultery and heterosexual promiscuity as things that were once socially unacceptable that now are more accepted. And to be honest, condemning homosexual practices on the same level that you condemn many heterosexual practices is frankly something I find refreshing coming from a conservative religious American. It just seems like a much more measured view than one many religiously-driven homophobes take. I still think he's an idiot with a demonstrable lack of independent thought, and I agree with you he isn't going to change any minds, but GLAAD's response almost felt like it was written before actually reading the comment in question.

[Macfanforever]

The looks which keeps the Kardashians on the air.I dont know what keeps these ratty bearded idiots on TV.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by Dex

But bestiality, adultery, and "sin" are not stereotypes. They're concepts and practices. The only think Phil Robertson really said about gay people is that they like man butt. That's genuinely all he said. So I can only assume that's what GLAAD was referring to. He groups it in with adultery and heterosexual promiscuity as things that were once socially unacceptable that now are more accepted. And to be honest, condemning homosexual practices on the same level that you condemn many heterosexual practices is frankly something I find refreshing coming from a conservative religious American. It just seems like a much more measured view than one many religiously-driven homophobes take. I still think he's an idiot with a demonstrable lack of independent thought, and I agree with you he isn't going to change any minds, but GLAAD's response almost felt like it was written before actually reading the comment in question.

But is it not a long-standing stereotype, propagated by homophobes, that gay men will have sex with anything... including children and animals? So him lumping us in with bestialists and fornicators, and sinners in general, seemed -- on the surface, at least -- to be speaking in stereotypes.

I'm not disagreeing with you, though, overall. His comments, in total, certainly presented the views of a man who thinks any sex outside of marriage (and outside of the missionary position?) is sinful. I just don't agree that GLAAD's statement showed prejudice toward gay men who engage in anal sex.

Meanwhile, GLAAD definitely reacts too often in a knee-jerk way (Kevin Smith films, the occasional comedian taking the piss, etc.), and there have been many times when I would have rather they simply remained silent.

[Dex]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stew

But is it not a long-standing stereotype, propagated by homophobes, that gay men will have sex with anything... including children and animals? So him lumping us in with bestialists and fornicators, and sinners in general, seemed -- on the surface, at least -- to be speaking in stereotypes.

Perhaps, but immediately after he mentions (let's face it, male) homosexuals he says "hey, let's have sex with this woman and that woman etc", which to me separates the rest of his laundry list of sins from homosexuality, making them just one of many objectionable things about modern life. That's certainly how I read it. GLAAD may have shared your interpretation, however. I don't think GLAAD was seriously suggesting that gay anal sex is a vile and disgusting stereotype, but that is kind of how it came off to me. I think this just highlights a problem with their utterly vague catch-all statement which could easily have been copy-pasted from a literal file of, as you say, knee-jerk template responses. My response to their statement is mostly amusement.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally Posted by Dex

Perhaps, but immediately after he mentions (let's face it, male) homosexuals he says "hey, let's have sex with this woman and that woman etc", which to me separates the rest of his laundry list of sins from homosexuality, making them just one of many objectionable things about modern life. That's certainly how I read it. GLAAD may have shared your interpretation, however.

Good points, Dex. We may be coming at it from slightly different angles, but I think we essentially agree.

Regarding GLAAD making any statement at all... I'm somewhat conflicted. On one hand, I think something needed to be said about his comments (as adults, we're immune to such views -- but there are still plenty of young gay men whose self-esteem can be harmed by being compared to sinners, etc.). While on the other hand, I hate seeing more attention being brought to this rube than necessary.

Folks like Sarah Palin are undoubtedly wetting themselves over the fact that they have a brand new poster-boy for the way their "good Christian values" are stomped on by those evil, godless liberals.

[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.

[Dex]

Yes, Johnny Stew. The (large) jaded side of me can't help but focus on how A&E and the stars of this show can only benefit from this controversy. I certainly know far more about this show than I did 6 hours ago, and I imagine I'm one of many like that. It's mad publicity for them. And the "boycott" isn't going to amount to much as the boycotters were unlikely to have ever watched the show anyway. So it pretty much doesn't count.

I like your "think of the children!" note. I forget about them much of the time, and I shouldn't. As a young gay person comments like this really did have an impact on me, especially given how few counterpoints were visible to me in those days. In that respect, GLAAD is helpful.

[TrueFaith77]

Originally Posted by Dex

Yes, Johnny Stew. The (large) jaded side of me can't help but focus on how A&E and the stars of this show can only benefit from this controversy. I certainly know far more about this show than I did 6 hours ago, and I imagine I'm one of many like that. It's mad publicity for them. And the "boycott" isn't going to amount to much as the boycotters were unlikely to have ever watched the show anyway. So it pretty much doesn't count.

I like your "think of the children!" note. I forget about them much of the time, and I shouldn't. As a young gay person comments like this really did have an impact on me, especially given how few counterpoints were visible to me in those days. In that respect, GLAAD is helpful.

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.