Duck Dynasty, will Phil's interview doom the show?

• thavoice

  Heretic;1559083 wrote:Since you've openly admitted to being married to a racist, I can see why you'd say this.

  Not sure this is supposed to be a rip to me or not.
• sherm03

  

  thavoice;1559082 wrote:And you are probably right.
  The only difference that I can think of though is that one situatio is face based, and the other was a man-made culturally based.
  The slipperly slope of always allowing and in many cases supporting poor, immoral behavior is not a good thing.

  Pushing one group's set of "morals" on an entire population (especially when the growing sentiment is that the act in question is NOT immoral) is even worse of a thing.
• gut

  thavoice;1559082 wrote:And you are probably right.
  The only difference that I can think of though is that one situatio is face based, and the other was a man-made culturally based.
  The slipperly slope of always allowing and in many cases supporting poor, immoral behavior is not a good thing.

  To me the funny thing will be in 30 years people wondering why anyone gave a shit...Because Obamakare takes away the insurance/healthcare issue, and really the tax break for married couples (or is it a penalty, hard to tell sometimes) is outdated and should go away.
  
  In other words, 30 years from now marriage should get you nothing but a piece of paper, which will make all these debates look completely trivial (as it should be).
• thavoice

  sherm03;1559086 wrote:Pushing one group's set of "morals" on an entire population (especially when the growing sentiment is that the act in question is NOT immoral) is even worse of a thing.

  You mean like how the gay population has been trying to push their morals and lifestyle on the rest of the normal population for the last 20 years?
  Of course it is immoral. Just because more people are doing it or accepting it doesnt change it.
  
  Divorce is a sin and immoral. The fact that nowadays it is more accepting and they say 50% of marriages end in divorce doesnt change that it is a sin or immoral, it is just that those immoral behaviors are becomeing more accepted.
• sherm03

  

  thavoice;1559093 wrote:You mean like how the gay population has been trying to push their morals and lifestyle on the rest of the normal population for the last 20 years?
  Of course it is immoral. Just because more people are doing it or accepting it doesnt change it.
  
  Divorce is a sin and immoral. The fact that nowadays it is more accepting and they say 50% of marriages end in divorce doesnt change that it is a sin or immoral, it is just that those immoral behaviors are becomeing more accepted.

  Love the "gay population is pushing their morals and lifestyle" argument. Apparently wanting the same benefits as a heterosexual couple = pushing a lifestyle on you. Nobody is forcing you to be gay. Nobody is forcing you to fuck a dude in the ass. Nobody is forcing you to even talk to gay people. So I'm not sure how they are "pushing their morals and lifestyle" on anyone.
  
  And your argument about divorce proves my point. If the same people who believe gay marriage is a sin and immoral and shouldn't be legal also believe that divorce is a sin and immoral, why aren't there laws banning divorce? I'll answer for you...because that would be fucking stupid.
• thavoice

  sherm03;1559103 wrote:Love the "gay population is pushing their morals and lifestyle" argument. Apparently wanting the same benefits as a heterosexual couple = pushing a lifestyle on you. Nobody is forcing you to be gay. Nobody is forcing you to fuck a dude in the ass. Nobody is forcing you to even talk to gay people. So I'm not sure how they are "pushing their morals and lifestyle" on anyone.
  
  And your argument about divorce proves my point. If the same people who believe gay marriage is a sin and immoral and shouldn't be legal also believe that divorce is a sin and immoral, why aren't there laws banning divorce? I'll answer for you...because that would be fucking stupid.

  That is because marriage was only to be a man and a woman. Then the gays pushed and pushed and pushed their lifestyle upon everyone else to make it more acceptable.
  It is OK if you want to support the perverted ****** lifestyle. It is your choice. Go right ahead. People everday make wrong choices and support things that are just plain wrong.
  HOpe you enjoy the Gay America you are all promoting.
• Heretic

  

  thavoice;1559084 wrote:Not sure this is supposed to be a rip to me or not.

  Sherm's doing a good job explaining things, so to just add on.
  
  Calling two consenting adults "immoral" for doing the same thing that two consenting adults of the opposite preference are doing is being judgmental based on a faith that not everyone subscribes to and that is not meant to be the law of the land. Because you personally disagree with something and a book a few thousand years old backs that up does not mean it is fact (much like the fact you've mentioned of your wife and her family being racist doesn't actually mean minorities are inferior). There are tons of biblical laws and teachings that aren't used today because the society of that time is dramatically different than that of today.
  
  Apparently one of the big things most so-called Christians forget is the line about "judge not lest ye be judged" line, which is essentially meant to be along the lines of "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". You live in a house with people who have racist beliefs, yet feel like judging other groups of people as being "immoral". LOL.
• queencitybuckeye

  thavoice;1559115 wrote:That is because marriage was only to be a man and a woman.

  According to whom?
  

  Then the gays pushed and pushed and pushed their lifestyle upon everyone else to make it more acceptable.

  In what specific way do two men or two women sharing their lives with each other negatively impact you?
  

  It is OK if you want to support the perverted ****** lifestyle. It is your choice. Go right ahead. People everday make wrong choices and support things that are just plain wrong.
  HOpe you enjoy the Gay America you are all promoting.

  What does this "Gay America" look like that's so horrible, it sparks a rant that makes you look so ignorant? Please be specific.
• sherm03

  

  thavoice;1559115 wrote:That is because marriage was only to be a man and a woman. Then the gays pushed and pushed and pushed their lifestyle upon everyone else to make it more acceptable.
  It is OK if you want to support the perverted ****** lifestyle. It is your choice. Go right ahead. People everday make wrong choices and support things that are just plain wrong.
  HOpe you enjoy the Gay America you are all promoting.

  This response is exactly why people feel that most who are opposed to gay marriage are racist homophobic douchebags. I guess when you can't prove your case without saying, "but the Bible...herp derp" you get a little angry. I understand. I don't like when people make me look stupid, either.
• WebFire

  sherm03;1559103 wrote:Love the "gay population is pushing their morals and lifestyle" argument. Apparently wanting the same benefits as a heterosexual couple = pushing a lifestyle on you. Nobody is forcing you to be gay. Nobody is forcing you to fuck a dude in the ass. Nobody is forcing you to even talk to gay people. So I'm not sure how they are "pushing their morals and lifestyle" on anyone.

  So you can only be gay if there are benefits attached?
• queencitybuckeye

  WebFire;1559133 wrote:So you can only be gay if there are benefits attached?

  What an interesting, backward way to look at it. My view would be "why would anyone argue against a couple having the same rights as any other couple?".
• sherm03

  

  WebFire;1559133 wrote:So you can only be gay if there are benefits attached?

  I'd probably pay some good money to get inside your head to figure out how you were able to twist my post into that.
• queencitybuckeye

  sherm03;1559138 wrote:I'd probably pay some good money to get inside your head to figure out how you were able to twist my post into that.

  I always love when someone says "so you're saying...". It's amazing that it's never in the same area code as what the person is saying.
• Con_Alma

  queencitybuckeye;1559135 wrote:What an interesting, backward way to look at it. My view would be "why would anyone argue against a couple having the same rights as any other couple?".

  
  I think first there has to be a consensus of the points of contention actually being rights. I think we are getting closer to that State by State.
• queencitybuckeye

  Con_Alma;1559143 wrote:I think first there has to be a consensus of the points of contention actually being rights. I think we are getting closer to that State by State.

  I think the sample size is large enough to assume we know, but if you prefer, how about "why would anyone argue against a couple living their lives in the same manner as any other couple?"
• O-Trap

  

  I know I've said it before, but I still maintain that the current laws still prohibiting gay marriage (32 states now?) don't discriminate against orientation. They merely don't take orientation into account.
  
  A man of any orientation can marry a woman of any orientation. That's the law. It doesn't say a straight person can get married, but a gay person cannot. It says that, as a man, you can marry any woman of legal age and sound mind, regardless of either of your orientations.
  
  People tend to not like that answer, because it still allows straight people to do as they wish, while it does not allow gay people to do as they wish (assuming the desire for marriage is present in both). However, the distinction lies, not in the law, but in the difference between what each group wants.
  
  I'll use a somewhat flippant example (because I like being ridiculous, sometimes). There are two groups: Those who wish to wear seatbelts while driving a car and those who wish to not wear seatbelts while driving a car. The law applies to all people in the same way, but the preference between the two groups is different. As such, while the law doesn't cater to both, it does, in fact, treat both equally, whether or not that's the desire.
  
  Could laws be passed to allow people to not wear seatbelts? Sure. Does that mean that those who prefer not to wear a seatbelt are being discriminated against? No. They are allowed the exact same freedoms, by the letter of the law, as anyone else.
  
  
  Now, having said all that, I do think the laws prohibiting gay marriage are discriminatory against gender. If Mary and Bob both love Susan, but Bob is allowed to marry her, while Marry is not, and that distinction is solely because of her gender, then Mary is being discriminated against based on her gender, because she is being prohibited from doing something that Bob is able to do, and the reason is solely because of their respective genders.
• Con_Alma

  queencitybuckeye;1559146 wrote:I think the sample size is large enough to assume we know.

  It's not about knowing as much as it is about law.
  
  Most cultural changes impacted by law take the masses to influence. This one is no exception.
• queencitybuckeye

  Con_Alma;1559150 wrote:It's not about knowing as much as it is about law.
  
  Most cultural changes impacted by law take the masses to influence. This one is no exception.

  Yes, and it's plenty far enough along in a large enough number of states to reasonably be assured that things aren't going to change direction. The momentum is unmistakeable.
• Con_Alma

  queencitybuckeye;1559154 wrote:Yes, and it's plenty far enough along in a large enough number of states to reasonably be assured that things aren't going to change direction. The momentum is unmistakeable.

  
  Oh. I don't doubt that one bit. State by State we are seeing it.
  
  The thing I do question is whether marriage itself is a right. Sample size has nothing to do with that and Federal courts have had many an opportunity to declare it as such. All we have received is the affirmation that it is for the States to decide.
  
  I would prefer we *simply allow people to create a relationship contract and define the terms as they see fit.
• O-Trap

  

  Con_Alma;1559165 wrote:I would prefer we simple allow people to create a relationship contract and define the terms as they see fit.

  O-Trap repped this.
• queencitybuckeye

  Con_Alma;1559165 wrote:Oh. I don't doubt that one bit. State by State we are seeing it.
  
  The thing I do question is whether marriage itself is a right. Sample size has nothing to do with that and Federal courts have had many an opportunity to declare it as such. All we have received is the affirmation that it is for the States to decide.
  
  I would prefer we simple allow people to create a relationship contract and define the terms as they see fit.

  What is marriage other than what you describe in your last sentence?
• O-Trap

  

  queencitybuckeye;1559171 wrote:What is marriage other than what you describe in your last sentence?

  A relationship as he described, plus:
  - existing between only two individuals
  - one having to be a man
  - one having to be a woman, and
  - a license being necessary
  
  The middle two are obviously not the case in some of the states being discussed here, but traditionally, that was the case.
• Con_Alma

  queencitybuckeye;1559171 wrote:What is marriage other than what you describe in your last sentence?

  Right now it's whatever a State says it is.
  
  Isn't that the whole point of contention?
  
  I say let the people decide the terms of the contract.
• WebFire

  queencitybuckeye;1559135 wrote:What an interesting, backward way to look at it. My view would be "why would anyone argue against a couple having the same rights as any other couple?".

  It's in response to this...
  

  Nobody is forcing you to be gay. Nobody is forcing you to fuck a dude in the ass. Nobody is forcing you to even talk to gay people. So I'm not sure how they are "pushing their morals and lifestyle" on anyone.

  No one is forcing gay people to not have sex with each other. No one is forcing them to fuck a woman in the vagina. No one is even making them talk to straight people. So what's the problem?
  
  Benefits. That's all they want. They don't care about "marriage". They care about the benefits. Has nothing to do with lifestyle.
• gut

  Again, keep in mind that the primary motivation for the marriage "benefit" was because women stayed home to raise children or, for the most part, didn't work. Clearly that is a rather antiquated concept.
  
  The vast majority of the marriage "benefits" should probably be eliminated and reconstituted strictly as tax breaks for dependents (because population growth is vital to economic growth). In that scenario, anyone who adopts or has children qualifies.