My grandmothers family were cotton picking share croppers in Arkansas. She had no idea how bad the blacks had it because they had it so shitty.

The ads running with this thread are certainly bringing the lulz.

pmoney25;1556087 wrote:That they wanted to gang rape a couple of angels? Would he have done the same thing if they wanted to gang rape women or let that slide since it was a woman?

You can't be serious. Did you just question whether or not God would be upset if a bunch of men wanted to gang rape a woman?

sherm03;1556102 wrote:Sorry, but you are dead wrong. I, admittedly, have not been to church in a few years...and I've gotten pretty far away from my faith (my own questions and the practices of the Catholic Church led me away). But I went to Catholic schools literally my entire life...Kindergarten through the 2.5 years of college I completed. I've had plenty of classes on the bible. There is no mention of homosexuality in any of the four gospels or in the book of Acts.

The passage that you're referring to in 3/4 Gospels is similar to this one found in Matthew (11:23-24):

That passage doesn't say that the sins of the Sodomites were their downfall. That says that if the works that were being done in Capernaum were done in Sodom, there wouldn't have been a downfall and that the Sodomites will be judged better than those that are not following Jesus.

As for your other point about Jesus referring to sexuality, you're dead wrong again. Don't cherry pick the one line, read the context surrounding it (Matthew 19:1-9):
It's about divorce...not about sexuality. Good try, though.


Anyone that says that Jesus spoke against homosexuality of completely full of shit.

So are you denying that Jesus was backing up the fact that God created man and women to be together as the "normal design"?

Also, the Greek ( original) word used in that text (Matthew 19:9) was porneia. The direct translation to that word is "illicit sexual acts" or unlawful. Which given the historical context (Israel around 30 AD) includes adultery, homosexuality, beastiality, etc. basically anything outside of intercourse between a man and woman.

So he did directly say it even if we got the translations slightly incorrect.

I personally don't like the way Willie and Jase call their Dad, Phil. Pretty sure that pisses God off too. But then again what did Jesus call Joseph? I mean he really couldn't call him Dad could he? Lots of questions.

jmog;1556121 wrote:So are you denying that Jesus was backing up the fact that God created man and women to be together as the "normal design"?

Also, the Greek ( original) word used in that text (Matthew 19:9) was porneia. The direct translation to that word is "illicit sexual acts" or unlawful. Which given the historical context (Israel around 30 AD) includes adultery, homosexuality, beastiality, etc. basically anything outside of intercourse between a man and woman.

So he did directly say it even if we got the translations slightly incorrect.

Jesus never said anything about a "normal design." That is an after-the-fact inference that people use now to try to make the verse be used against homosexuality.

And where does the Greek work fit into that verse?

Tiernan;1556122 wrote:I personally don't like the way Willie and Jase call their Dad, Phil.

Might have something to do with Phil's alcoholic and absent days. Or might just be a plot "device" on the part of A&E (pretty sure I've seen Willie call them "MOM" or "DAD" at some point, usually when frustrated). I think the grandkids call him "Grandpa" or something like that...and I think the kids call their parents "mom" and "dad" or some version.

Or maybe Phil is just some hippie weirdo that made his kids call him Phil instead of "dad" at some point.

Bio-Hazzzzard;1556064 wrote:So you can stereotype him as a hater simply because homosexuality and the desire to screw an animal are perspectively equal in with what he chooses to believe in? Phil has the same right to stand up for himself and for what he believes in equally to that of a homosexual.

You seem to be more of a hater than him simply because you cannot accept his beliefs, sounds fair, doesn't it?

I accept his right to have his beliefs and to express them. I have no obligation to accept them, nor he mine, or for anyone to accept the beliefs of anyone else.

1) Some people when they become grandparents choose other names besides "mom", "dad" or "grandma" or "grandpa" - I suppose it is a personal thing.

2) The racial comments he made were far worse than anything he said about gays.

3) The gay political lobby need to get over themselves. Nothing he said was wrong. If anyone is offended they are an idiot or an eggshell. I have tolerance for neither. The gay lobby overstepped their bounds and are getting their rightful just desserts.

Saw where their overnight ratings last night were down 71.6% from the same time period last week.

I'm joining this conversation late, but the whole scenario reminds me of what happened in Rittman (Wayne County) this fall.

A student was given an assignment to write about what made him angry...and the student chose to write about the football team's coach and son, and the coach's favoritism(alleged). This led to a gross overreaction by the prinicipal including suspension of the student...which prompted a like reaction in defense of the student who simply was speaking his mind. This led to the student being vindicated, the coach resigning, and the school officials having egg all over their face. The actual truth really is not the issue and is in fact subject to debate. But what this incident and Phil's incident clearly illustrate is that attempts at thought and speech control lead to overreactions and clusterf***. We've become a society that has gone beyond anti-discrimination laws for actions, and are trying to punish 'dangerous thoughts'....something that clearly goes against the fabric of this country's being.

Phil's comments were his own opinions, expressed in a magazine not related to A&E, nor were they on the show...on the network, or told as representative of the network. Nor were these comments disciminatory in action against any 'protected' group. ...but yet we have the predictable overreaction by A&E.

Somehow, we've gotten to the point where it is not good enough to merely not discriminate, but even minor slips of the tongue said years ago (i.e. Paula Dean) can have disasterous consequences.
None of this is good for America. We'd be far better off to subscribe to the manta..."Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me."...and concentrate on punishing real discrimination.

The second thing that this incident illustrates is the double standard that exists in the media.
Bill Maher can call people 'rubes' and hurl mysogynistic vulgarisms at Sarah Palin with impugnity........

se-alum;1556178 wrote:Saw where their overnight ratings last night were down 71.6% from the same time period last week.

I was out shopping, my daughter was traveling home, my other daughter was at a Christmas Show and my last daughter was out buying me ammo.... hope this helps

jmog;1556115 wrote:You can't be serious. Did you just question whether or not God would be upset if a bunch of men wanted to gang rape a woman?

Well, considering Lot was offering his daughters up to be gang-raped (unless they were wanting the whole town to fuck them) in place of the angels, I'd say yes.

Or to go in more detail:
Angels come to Sodom
Lot takes them into his home
Men of town converge for some raping
Lot offers them his virgin daughters to fuck silly instead because the angels are his guests and he feels responsible for protecting them.
Men refuse and attempt to force entry.
FINALLY angels intervene and blind men of city before offering Lot and his family the chance to save themselves.

So, in essence, the angels didn't step in and show their powers until the men of the city refused the daughters and insisted on them. And they were adamant about saving the guy offering his daughters to be raped, even conceding to his requests as to how far he had to flee.

So from that, it's easy to infer God had no trouble with allowing women to be gang-raped. Just don't go after his angels or a guy who's nice to them.

HitsRus;1556193 wrote:I'm joining this conversation late, but the whole scenario reminds me of what happened in Rittman (Wayne County) this fall.

A student was given an assignment to write about what made him angry...and the student chose to write about the football team's coach and son, and the coach's favoritism(alleged). This led to a gross overreaction by the prinicipal including suspension of the student...which prompted a like reaction in defense of the student who simply was speaking his mind. This led to the student being vindicated, the coach resigning, and the school officials having egg all over their face. The actual truth really is not the issue and is in fact subject to debate. But what this incident and Phil's incident clearly illustrate is that attempts at thought and speech control lead to overreactions and clusterf***. We've become a society that has gone beyond anti-discrimination laws for actions, and are trying to punish 'dangerous thoughts'....something that clearly goes against the fabric of this country's being.

Phil's comments were his own opinions, expressed in a magazine not related to A&E, nor were they on the show...on the network, or told as representative of the network. Nor were these comments disciminatory in action against any 'protected' group. ...but yet we have the predictable overreaction by A&E.

Somehow, we've gotten to the point where it is not good enough to merely not discriminate, but even minor slips of the tongue said years ago (i.e. Paula Dean) can have disasterous consequences.
None of this is good for America. We'd be far better off to subscribe to the manta..."Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me."...and concentrate on punishing real discrimination.

The second thing that this incident illustrates is the double standard that exists in the media.
Bill Maher can call people 'rubes' and hurl mysogynistic vulgarisms at Sarah Palin with impugnity........

Gosh a guy can express hateful homophobia and express support for Jim Crow racism and still find many people supporting them.

It is homophobic to say you prefer a woman's lady parts? If so 98% of us are homophobic.

Manhattan Buckeye;1556267 wrote:It is homophobic to say you prefer a woman's lady parts? If so 98% of us are homophobic.

That was not the homophobic part and I don't see how you think that's the part that people took issue with.

Either way, shit's stupid to still be talking about.

That has been my experience with folks like you....once they lose the argument they don't want to talk anymore (and that includes Harvard law professors). But I'm cool with not talking about it again, but the next time before you get outraged, make sure you have something to be outraged about

Manhattan Buckeye;1556283 wrote:That has been my experience with folks like you....once they lose the argument they don't want to talk anymore (and that includes Harvard law professors). But I'm cool with not talking about it again, but the next time before you get outraged, make sure you have something to be outraged about

In general it's best to stay away from saying stuff like "folks like you" or "you people."

But I don't see how you have complaint with IWP for just thinking that this is getting blown out of proportion. Because this aspect of it is (the question of whether it was homophobic) is getting a bit blown out of proportion. The more offensive part was his statements regarding AA's being happier under Jim Crow laws.

IWP was just posting to point out that the alleged homophobic part isn't the comment about preferring vagina to male anus, it was the unnecessary and off the cuff comparison of it to beastiality. Beastility isn't mentioned in the bible verse referenced and quite frankly didn't need to be added. It made this a bigger issue that it would have been without it.

As far as religion being an "excuse" for thinking homophobic behavior being wrong, that's the more complicated issue. Personally I always hope that people think for themselves and don't just assume something is right because it's old or from the past. Human civilization is constantly evolving. We might not get it right all the time when we are trying to move forward. But I would rather have us constantly striving to better civilization than assuming we got it perfect at one point and never moving forward from that point of time.

What argument is there to lose? He expressed his opinion, the company had every right to let him go. End of story.

The outrage from his supporters is hypocritical at best, these were the same people calling for the execution of the Dixie Chicks.

Manhattan Buckeye;1556267 wrote:It is homophobic to say you prefer a woman's lady parts? If so 98% of us are homophobic.

No more to do with him comparing homosexuality to bestiality. Beside of course he is a supporter of Jim Crow bigotry.

Heretic;1556232 wrote:Well, considering Lot was offering his daughters up to be gang-raped (unless they were wanting the whole town to fuck them) in place of the angels, I'd say yes.

Or to go in more detail:
Angels come to Sodom
Lot takes them into his home
Men of town converge for some raping
Lot offers them his virgin daughters to fuck silly instead because the angels are his guests and he feels responsible for protecting them.
Men refuse and attempt to force entry.
FINALLY angels intervene and blind men of city before offering Lot and his family the chance to save themselves.

So, in essence, the angels didn't step in and show their powers until the men of the city refused the daughters and insisted on them. And they were adamant about saving the guy offering his daughters to be raped, even conceding to his requests as to how far he had to flee.

So from that, it's easy to infer God had no trouble with allowing women to be gang-raped. Just don't go after his angels or a guy who's nice to them.

Lol, yeah, you just failed on about half a dozen logical failures with that leap.

I Wear Pants;1556279 wrote:That was not the homophobic part and I don't see how you think that's the part that people took issue with.

Either way, shit's stupid to still be talking about.

What part was homophobic? The part where he gave his opinion that it was sin?

Hole shit. The chatter has life. All you had to do was mention redneck and hating gays and this site blew up.

If you want to argue the Jim Crow law part I can see that argument.

However, anyone who says he was comparing homosexuality to beastiality is a moron and doesn't understand the English language. Either that or they are just way too easily offended which leads me back to the first statement.



Oh, and like I said before. A&E had every right to fire him just like any employer can to any employee...unless they are a protected class, then you aren't allowed to fire without multiple warnings.

All christian men should prefer anus to vagina.


Jesus is wherever you look for him