• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'boycott a&e' facebook support page for phil robertson gets over 1m likes


Dear Lord, really? Homosexuals cannot reproduce homosexually. Men can mix their sperm with female eggs and nurture them in a female womb, and that's about the way it's done. Evolution has no foresight, it does not do anything with a purpose, it only is. We evolve in many different ways due to external, and internal pressures. Those pressures are not necessarily physical in nature, they are often intangibles like psychologically, societally, culturally. We most certainly do evolve, and we're doing it right now, and we're doing it based on a manner in which the fittest genes will always come out on top. Fittest genes does not or is always incorrectly misinterpreted to mean bigger stronger faster, but that is simply not the case. The fittest genes are those that merely continue to pass themselves on. It doesn't matter why, only how often.


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Dear Lord, really? Homosexuals cannot reproduce homosexually.

Tim-
Click to expand...

That is irrelevant, because they certainly can and do reproduce just like everyone else does. Thus their genes get passed on. This argument you are making is absurd. Are you saying that gay men never impregnate women? Are you saying that lesbian women never get impregnated by a man? If those things happen, and they do, then they can pass on their genes and any genetic basis for their sexual preference.

You should read works like The Selfish Gene.
 
So what? People are allowed to be stupid as long as they arent screwing with other people. I happen to think girl on beastiality is kinda kinky (although I would never do it or take part in it in any way or date a girl that did it because I feel it is wrong). Yet male on male homosexuality grosses me out. It makes me go "Ewwww". But im not enforcing my whim in taste on other people and neither is he to my knowledge. If we was hurting gay people id care. Hes just being a stupid honest person though so I forgive him. This instantly makes him better than most the people i meet in real life who just fake smile to your face all tie and tell bold face, sarcastic lies to your ears just for the sake of avoiding conflict through argument.

A&E could have used this truthful oppurtunity to bring in some figure head, like a homosexual chistian preacher or something and used an honest moment for something worth capturing. Or they could censor him in their way and act like all the other people who choose to ignore the ugly and fake smile to your face. All about image right?

Some people honestly dont care what you think of them on their opinions. If you did this with the most evil and vile things you KNOW about yourself would have you trouble sharing it with the world? Whatever it is you have deep down inside you that you know the face of society will judge you for. Are you brave enough to be your 100% self in front of this face
 

That's not what I'm saying at all, silly?

I'm saying that for a homosexual gene to be on the locus of a homosexual male or female and that's how homosexuality propagates, it would have born itself out many eons ago. Let's be generous and say that there are 5% of the population that is homosexual. Now, lets say that ALL OF THEM reproduce, how long do you figure it will take to have no more homosexual gene? Not very long, evolutionarily speaking, right? Do you honestly believe that a 5% segment of a population can maintain a 5% segment of a population indefinitely? You wouldn't agree with that, right? I'm asking because you seem to suggest that it could and does?? Very strange, and you accuse me of ignorance? No Sir, if there is a homosexual gene, it is most certainly a recessive gene that is passed on by largely a heterosexual population. How it expresses itself is completely unknown, or whether it is a gene at all. It could be inuterin, but we simply don't know. There is plenty of authoritative evidence that our prefrontal cortex isn't mature until we are in our 20's, and up until this point, our wiring is for the most part unsettled. It is during this time that I personally believe that an influence of some causal nature turns someone gay, even if they at the time don't know it. What it means to be in a summed up point of view, is that, we are all born with a predisposed heterosexual sexuality, however, we are also born with a potential to have an alternative sexuality, and how that might manifest is anyone's guess.


Tim-
 

By the logic you are seemingly employing redheads, which only make up a small percentage of the population, would never sustain themselves genetically either. I would agree that obviously any genetic basis for it would have to be recessive, but there is no reason why such a genetic predisposition would not survive human evolution. Moreover, we see it in other species which would indicate that if there is a genetic component, it predates our genus.
 

And I would argue that in other species, we see homosexual behavior, not necessarily homosexuality. We see homosexual behavior in human species as well, but not necessarily homosexuality. Interesting though that you're stipulating that your original argument that homosexuals themselves would be primarily responsible for their own propagation is ridiculous.

No one is arguing that homosexual behavior does not exist, I think that would be silly to suggest, but whether one is inclined to be exclusively homosexual seems to lie mostly with humans. That suggests that it is a human thing that causes it to stick.. So why does it stick with us? That is the real question, and the answer, however unknown is an interesting one for debate, but it does not make one a bigot for expressing their opinion.


Cheers.

Tim-
 
I would really like to hear from our gay or gay supporting posters that think we all should lose our jobs because of our religious, political, or cultural views.
 
Ockham said:
Really it should be "intellectual prowess", which would make more sense and then certainly an adj describing prowess, but I guess it's correct either way.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't "correct either way".

And it's pretty f'n pathetic that you don't know that already.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
He was suspended because he compared it to beastiality which is highly offensive.
Click to expand...
Which is a false claim and something he didn't do.
So I also doubt he will apologize for something he didn't do.


:doh Figures! You left out the most important detail. He was responding to a question asking what he thought was sinful.
Context is everything.
He was not comparing gays to those who engage in bestiality.
He was saying that those are sinful behaviors.
 
Last edited:
HenryChinaski said:
A & E ****canned him in what they saw as their best interest. It was a business decision and they're looking out for their ratings.
Click to expand...

Yes and what a mistake that turned out to be.
 

And this man would be very happy about that.
 

What makes you think A&E own the right to the show?
 
HenryChinaski said:
The bottom line is that is was in their best interest of a business to sever ties with a public figure that they employ who made bigoted and hateful statements. Maybe Chick fil a will hire him.
Click to expand...

They haven't severed anything. The put him on hiatus and are discussing what to do next.

Season 4 is in the can so at least for one more year Phil will be on the show on that network.

So now would you like to rethink that comment?
 

You know if you don't know something about a subject, you can go to a search engine and look it up.
 

Nothing he said was intolerant.

He said that he does not judge anybody, loves everybody and he will let God sort it out.

That does not sound like intolerance to me.
 

An action that will never get my support, not only is he anti-gay but he is also a bit of a racist and those 2 things do not sit well with me.

Also, the republicans were able to pour billions into the presidential race because "corporations are people". Well, that makes A&E people as well with all the civil rights that go with it and their opinion is much more acceptable IMHO than the opinions of Phil. They do not like anti-gay slurs and good for them. I hope there will be a facebook like for A&E, something I will click on and like.
 
 
shart attack said:
No, it isn't "correct either way".

And it's pretty f'n pathetic that you don't know that already.
Click to expand...

Huh... what's not grammatically correct about it either way?
Let's not forget you originally stated it was being used as a verb ... so you lecturing me on what's pathetic is amusing.
 
Excon said:
Click to expand...

Yes, another example of utter and complete nonsense.

A&E does not say Robertson isn't allowed to have bigoted opinions or thoughts, they disapprove of him making them in GQ.

A&E has the right to disagree with someone who makes bigoted statements because they do not have the same narrow minded points of view.

A&E also has the right to sever ties with someone like that. They do not say he cannot make bigoted statements in the future but they will not be showing a show with him on their network.
 
Peter King said:
A&E also has the right to sever ties with someone like that. They do not say he cannot make bigoted statements in the future but they will not be showing a show with him on their network.
Click to expand...

he will be all over their channel on Christmas day.
 
Peter King said:
Yes, another example of utter and complete nonsense.
Click to expand...
Not at all. It is exactly what is happening.


A&E is in the wrong. He did not make a comparison.
A&E is wrong for terminating him for honestly answering a question.


An no, it isn't bigoted.
 
Mason66 said:
What makes you think A&E own the right to the show?
Click to expand...

A+E Networks (parent company of A&E made up of the Hearst company and Disney) owns A&E and the rights to DD. But who cares? Why find some insignificant point out of all of what I wrote? Just to call me out?....Congraz.
 
HenryChinaski said:
A & E ****canned him in what they saw as their best interest. It was a business decision and they're looking out for their ratings.
Click to expand...

Let's see how that works out for A&E. Sucking up to the reach-around crowd may end up costing the network money. :lamo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…