|
EdBowie -> RE: A&E reverses itself on Phil Robertson and "Duck Dynasty". (12/29/2013 7:41:41 PM)
|
I'm talking about their delivery, not their position.
Strenuously disagreeing is an important thing. I just suspect that a more measured response from GLAAD that toned down the polemic rhetoric, would have given the media less chum in the water, that's all.
On his first comment, I would agree that nobody should be required to get turned on over the thought of butt sex with men, IF what really turns them on is pussy sex with women.
I might suggest they not knock it until they've tried it 7 or 8 times, but to call that expressing that preference 'vile' is to call every lesbian vile as well as every heterosexual male, innit?
On the next part, didn't he give that list of OT transgressions in direct response to the question 'What is sin?'
I myself don't find any of those OT prohibitions and mandates terribly persuasive, and I'm particularly unconvinced by faith based morality arguments in general. As it turns out, nobody asked me to be interviewed for GQ on what the Bible says. Hmmmmm.
Here is the qualifier Robertson added in there somewhere later:
quote:
"However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other."
That sort of disclaimer is all too often a facile front, of the 'I'm no racist, but...' type.
Thing is, I must have missed the 'but'.
As fundy dogmatic rants go, Robertson's seems mighty short on the parts about killing, or banning, or smiting, etc.
So again, I assess that GLAAD's choice of rhetoric elevated the 'circus-like' atmosphere over the whole thing and gave the media more reason to keep their opponent's words in the press... and perhaps ceded the tactical high ground of martyrdom to Phil.
|
|
|
|
