@hawkeye10,
What does that article I posted have to do with Phil Robertson?
Well, while people were busy arguing about what an insignificant reality TV personality said about homosexuality, more states were legalizing same-sex marriage. And, if legalizing same-sex marriage was not a significant cultural and political issue right now, I doubt that anyone would care what one evangelical Christian in Louisiana said about homosexuals.
You are also cherry-picking data and failing to appropriately look at statistical breakdowns and the increasing acceptance of homosexuality.
Quote:As support for gay marriage continues to increase, nearly three-quarters of Americans – 72% – say that legal recognition of same-sex marriage is “inevitable.” This includes 85% of gay marriage supporters, as well as 59% of its opponents.
The national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted May 1-5 among 1,504 adults, finds that support for same-sex marriage continues to grow: For the first time in Pew Research Center polling, just over half (51%) of Americans favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry legally. Yet the issue remains divisive, with 42% saying they oppose legalizing gay marriage. Opposition to gay marriage – and to societal acceptance of homosexuality more generally – is rooted in religious attitudes, such as the belief that engaging in homosexual behavior is a sin....
Religious belief continues to be an important factor in opposition to societal acceptance of homosexuality and same-sex marriage.
Overall, the share of Americans who say that homosexuality should be accepted by society has increased from 47% to 60% over the past decade, while the percentage saying it should be discouraged has fallen from 45% to 31%.
Yet among those who attend religious services weekly or more, there continues to be slightly more opposition than support for societal acceptance of homosexuality. And when the nearly one-third of Americans who say homosexuality should be discouraged are asked in an open-ended question why they feel this way, by far the most common reason –given by 52% – is that homosexuality conflicts with their religious or moral beliefs....
Across most demographic subgroups, including most religious groups, the percentage saying homosexuality should be accepted has increased over the past decade. Nonetheless, about half (48%) of those who attend religious services weekly or more often say homosexuality should be discouraged. Among less frequent attenders, 71% favor societal acceptance of homosexuals....
The public is divided over whether engaging in homosexual behavior is a sin: 45% say it is a sin while an identical percentage says it is not. In 2003, a majority (55%) viewed homosexual behavior as was sinful, while 33% disagreed.
http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/06/section-3-religious-belief-and-views-of-homosexuality/
No one is arguing that religious affiliation doesn't affect views of homosexuality, but there are considerable differences in attitudes across the religious spectrum, and they also depend on how affiliated and church-going people are.
No matter how you look at it, Phil Robertson is not speaking for most Christians.
Quote:That is great, but if 80% of born again's think that Homo's are sinning why is anyone getting all hot and bothered when a born again expounds on the subject? What right has anyone got to be shocked and offended?
Because Robertson didn't just say he thought homosexuals were "sinning"--he's connected their behavior with bestiality and, compared them to “terrorists” and “drunks,” he's accused them of being murderous, among other things, and of planning and engaging in "all kinds of evil."
It's not just in GQ that Robertson has made such anti-gay comments, he's made them elsewhere, and he's been saying these things for years.
Quote: “They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant, God-haters. They are heartless, they are faithless, they are senseless, they are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil."
No one says that Robertson doesn't have the right to view homosexuality as unacceptable, whether based on his religious views or other factors. It's his
personal defamation of an entire group, and his negative stereotyping of the characters of homosexuals--his personal expressions of bigotry--that got people "all hot and bothered." And, with Robertson, the religion appeared to be an excuse or a license to express bigotry, and that feeling was reinforced by his comments about how much happier blacks were in Louisiana in the pre-civil rights era of Jim Crow. The man holds bigoted views that go beyond religious beliefs. That's really the point, and that's what other people, including other Christians, reacted to.
Quote:Reading up I think the disconnect here was that Glaads mission is public shamming, A&E assumed that they should be ashamed, and Phil absolutely refused to be ashamed. There was no way they were ever going to end up on the same page. Glaad ended up alone.
G.L.A.A.D. was only one of several civil rights and anti-defamation groups, for both blacks and homosexuals, that reacted to Robertson's statements, and what they, quite rightly, responded to, was not his religious views that homosexuality is sinful, but rather his offensive "vile stereotypes" about an entire group, and the impact that such negative, and inaccurate, stereotypes have on people's lives.
G.L.A.A.D. responded to the man's bigotry, and not his religion.
And G.L.A.A.D. did not wind up alone, many people agreed with them--including A & E.. And what the anti-defamation and civil rights activist groups wanted was to discuss the matter with A & E, and they apparently accomplished that. And A & E has agreed to promote a public service campaign advocating tolerance and acceptance, to help confront
bigotry.
It's not true that Phil Robertson "absolutely refused to be ashamed"--he considerably backed off from the offending remarks--by making a statement about how he doesn't hate or judge anyone, how he treats everyone with respect, etc.--because he felt he had been misjudged on the basis of his comments. He did not continue to defend his personal stereotypes of gays, nor did he publicly protest his "suspension" from A & E. Even his own sons, who share his religious beliefs, had not defended what they acknowledged was his "coarse" manner of expressing his views, nor did they say they shared his bigoted and stereotyped opinions of homosexuals as a group.
You seem to have missed the point of what the outrage was about--it wasn't about this man's religious views of homosexuality as sinful.
Given the fact that you regularly refer to gays as "fags" that really doesn't surprise me. You're so demeaning of gays, you'd hardly be bothered when others do it.
But, since you also don't think people should remain silent when they have opposing opinions, you should applaud the fact that G.L.A.A.D,, and the Human Rights Campaign, and Now, and the N.A.A.C.P. and Rainbow/PUSH, and who knows how many other activist groups, spoke out in criticism of Robertson's offensive stereotypical remarks.
Your hypocritical petticoat is showing, Hawkeye.
