Wednesday, December 18, 2013

What exactly was wrong with the Duck Dynasty Phil Robertson interview?

I never watch Duck Dynasty, or most TV shows. I'm relatively sealed off from a good share of popular TV and movie culture, save for some animation. I knew, vaguely, the setup of Duck Dynasty, the beliefs of the people on the show. Still wasn't very interested - God bless 'em and all that, I just am not interested.

So now I go to the Drudge Report and I see that Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty is being indefinitely suspended from the #1 Cable Show in history because of his comments about gays. And I gotta admit, I immediately start conjuring up what he said.

'All homosexuals are bound for the fires of hell and are gonna burn burn burn!!!'
'You can't trust a gay man. He'll try to fuck your ass quicker than you can say 'Rip Taylor'!'

You know, something over the top. And then I'm reading these comments about what he said, and oh boy, it sounds really bad. I mean of course these groups are going to make it sound awful, but there's gotta be some meat there, right?

GLAAD on Wednesday condemned his remarks as "some of the vilest and most extreme statements uttered against LGBT people in a mainstream publication" and said "his quote was littered with outdated stereotypes and blatant misinformation."
"Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil's lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe," GLAAD spokesperson Wilson Cruz said. "He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans -- and Americans -- who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples. Phil's decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors, who now need to re-examine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families."
Alright. And here comes the Human Rights Campaign:
“Phil Robertson’s remarks are not consistent with the values of our faith communities or the scientific findings of leading medical organizations," president Chad Griffin said in a statement. "We know that being gay is not a choice someone makes, and that to suggest otherwise can be incredibly harmful. We also know that Americans of faith follow the Golden Rule -- treating others with the respect and dignity you’d wish to be treated with. As a role model on a show that attracts millions of viewers, Phil Robertson has a responsibility to set a positive example for young Americans -- not shame and ridicule them because of who they are. The A+E Network should take immediate action to condemn Phil Robertson’s remarks and make clear they don’t support his views."
So I decide, okay, I better go to GQ and read this thing to see exactly what the dude said. Again: I'm expecting something ridiculous, vulgar. And I admit, the first thing he says is... uh, blunt. Like 'I'd say this' blunt. Keep in mind I'm an anonymous nobody with a poor temper on the internet. Not a guy being interviewed by a major magazine for whom 'reactions' may be sizable.
“It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”
Alright. As I said, I give you that it's blunt. On the other hand, he's not really saying much here other than his sexual preferences. His says sin isn't logical. I admit, it doesn't look like logic is really at work with anal sex. On the other hand, I'm not sure what logic has to do with sex outside of ethical arguments, and I'm pretty sure Robertson wasn't going there.

But... there's nothing that offensive, other than using blunt words like vagina and anus. Okay, so I'm looking at the wrong thing. Let's keep looking for the offensiveness!

Blah blah blah, he eats squirrels (I'd like to try that), he likes to hunt, he used to be a mean guy. He makes a comment about how he never saw blacks mistreated in pre-civil-rights era, but no one's worked up over that one yet.
“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong,” he says. “Sin becomes fine.” 
What, in your mind, is sinful? 
“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”
Right... well, he calls homosexual behavior sinful. Bestiality. Sleeping around. Idolaters, male prostitutes, drunkards, greedy, slanderers, swindlers... Is this the part? How? This is one of the vilest and most extreme statements? What is the stereotype? What is the misinformation?

So I think, okay, maybe it comes later. Because all he did here was say homosexual behavior is sinful. He didn't even single out homosexuals - he singled out the acts. It has to come later, right? So on I read.

A bit later...
“We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?”
Alright. Homosexuals, drunks and terrorists. Iffy mix - homosexuality is a state, while drunks and terrorists are people engaging in an act. But still, nothing really extreme here. At worst, something he needs to explain. On we go.

I skip over the part where the interviewer glibly suggests that the world is getting better as it's being secular, and the usual canard about 'centuries upon centuries of bloodshed committed in the name of Christ' - bullshit, but on we go.

Except there's nothing more to go on to, because that's it. Either I'm missing a major part of the interview, or... the guy just got railroaded off the most popular TV show in cable history because he said same-sex sexual behavior is sinful.

Where was the blatant misinformation? Where were the stereotypes? What in the hell just happened here?

Am I the only one noticing that these groups are getting quoted making some serious claims against Robertson based on next to nothing? That they're ranting about 'What True Christians believe' and 'vile and extreme stereotypes' and there's literally nothing in the interview that comes even close to that? Seriously, are they going to suggest that anal sex is some kind of dirty rumor about gay men?

Will any of this be examined? Anywhere? Will someone pull one of GLAAD's reps out and ask them to specify what Robertson was wrong about? Or have we hit the point where if you just say anything negative about same-sex sexual behavior at all, even if you did NOT stereotype, even if you did not condemn gays for being gay as opposed to same-sex sexual behavior, that you must be crucified as if you did?

Will people not eventually get fucking TIRED of this?

7 comments:

Drew said...

I doubt that guy even cares that they fired him. He seems like a tough dude. The television station needs him a lot more than he needs them.

Crude said...

I doubt he cares either. He sure doesn't seem like he cares. But the reaction from the LGBT groups are just frantic and bizarre in light of what he said, and no one is turning around and asking them to explain themselves.

Crude said...

In fact, Drudge is bad too. 'GUY FIRED AFTER GAY RANT'. What fucking rant? Oh he gave his opinion? That's what it was about?

Codgitator (Cadgertator) said...

"Butt Sex: This Ain't Your Mom's Logic"

We were due for another WASP crucifixion. Anyone remember Paula Deen?

Crude said...

Deen made the mistake of apologizing, and her comment was racial, which is a whole other kettle of explosive fish. At least Deen really did say 'nigger' at some point. This guy didn't even say what they accuse him of saying.

BenYachov said...

Appart from his crude use of terminology he hasn't said anything Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI or Pope Francis has said.

Gay sex is bad, love the sinner & I am not God so it's not my job to judge the state of a soul.


http://www.catholicleague.org/pope-gays-women/

Weird thing is The Advocate makes Pope Francis person of the Year. Francis opposed gay marriage tooth and nail in Argentina & literally said it was of the Devil.

Has this Robertson guy ever publicly lobbied against gay marriage laws?

Read Francis in the Catholic League link and compare him to Robertson.

Appart from Robertson saying he prefers Vagina to a man's anus he & the Popes are in substantial agreement.

James said...

"Phil's lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe".

This is what pisses me off the most. I'm dumbfounded as to what these supposed "lies" are, and what it is that "true Christians" believe about acting on homosexual attractions. I'm so tired of liberal "Christian" bullshit that twists Scripture for the sake of avoiding backlash.