Duck Dynasty, Phil Robertson - Behind the Outrage

Do I really need to say anything about Phil Robertson and Duck Dynasty?  You all already know how I feel.  To be honest with you, I never have even watched a full show.  I tried once, but it just didn’t click with me, although, now, I’m thinking about giving it another chance.

I have two questions - 1) What is with this outpouring of support for homosexuals?  2) Why is it more important to support homosexuals than to support a man’s right to voice his opinions?

Let’s see if we can figure this out, and we will start by asking another question.  Is homosexuality natural?  Well it either is or it isn’t, but since it exists, it doesn’t really matter.  The more important question is:  Is the reaction most people have toward it, natural?  

Remember when you first found out about it?  I do, and I will describe my reaction as “horrified disbelief”.  That’s stage one.  Stage one sucks.  Up until then, all that mattered to you was, buying that used mini-bike you had been saving up for, how your Little League team was doing, what was happening on the TV show, “The Six Million Dollar Man”, and would you be caught for stealing that scrap lumber from that construction site.   Life was simple and good, and nothing that you dealt with in your life, was beyond your understanding.

Then came stage one.  You heard about it from a friend who always seemed to be more world-wise than you.  He probably found out about it from an older brother, who was already in high school, and, now he wants to be on the other end of stage one, and wants to see the look on your face when you experience the horrified disbelief.  He takes on the role of perpetrator and passes the status of victimhood on to you.  Of course, it doesn’t stop there.  You go on to the next lower guy on the food chain of street smarts and coolness, and pass the information on to him.  It’s a verbal chain letter of horror, that repeats itself over and over, until everyone within your circle of friends knows about it.  Each kid gets the same feeling you got when riding in the family car as it drove past a fatal accident.  It’s a terrible thing to experience, but as miles and time separate you from the initial shock, you begin to come to terms with it, but you never forget, and from then on, life was different somehow.

A few days later, you’re hanging out with your friends, and someone calls someone else a homo.  There’s nothing new there, you had always called each other fairies, fags, and homos, only now, you know what it means.  Then you start thinking, and you suddenly realize what the adults you recently overheard, were talking about.  Jokes, you didn’t understand before, are now funny.  This is stage two.  Stage two is awesome.  That’s when you laugh at 100 year old jokes that everyone else has heard, and you when call everyone (especially your friends), fairies, homos, and fags, you not only get the satisfaction of insulting them, you get to have that little extra laugh too.

My most valuable experience of going to college was meeting people from all over the state, even the country, and finding out that almost every American male’s childhood experience was similar to mine.  Everyone had the same stories, which eliminated an uneasy feeling I had, that I grew up in a weird environment.  The things that I experienced were more or less universal, so I am quite confident when I say that the reaction that most people have towards homosexuality is totally natural.

So if what I said above is true (and I assure you it is), how did we get to the point of this whole Phil Robertson/“Duck Dynasty” thing?  The thing you need to understand is that this is the world of television, it’s not the real world.  The real world is blue collar factory guys, construction workers, and white collar workers (when they think their free from the spying eyes and ears of corporate culture).  They’re all calling everybody fairies, homos, and fags, all the time.  Stage two never ends in the real world.  No one planned the real world, it just happened, what could be more natural than that?

It has been proven time and time again, from the smallest hippie communes, to leviathan nations, like the Soviet Union, that leftist ideology does not work in the real world, so liberals have created their own worlds, that are not dictated by the things that control the real world, things that they find so distasteful - supply and demand, cause and effect, etc.  There are two problems with this however.  First of all, they cannot produce wealth by themselves.  They are totally dependent upon money from the outside, real world, as the people running the A&E network are about to find out.  Secondly, since these people do not live in the real world, they often end up looking like fools to those of us who do.  Now, they can say they don’t care about that, but because they are totally dependent upon the real world for their own existence, it cannot be ignored.

Now how could so many people be upset with Phil Robertson, or with anyone else that has been the focus of a similar situation ?  Something just strikes me as weird here.  I could maybe understand how people who are actually gay could be upset with him, but there are just not enough gay people out there to warrant such an uproar.  How many gay people are out there anyway?

Even the people that support the gay agenda only claim that it is 1 in 10, and that’s the highest ratio you are going to see.  Now the first thing people often do, in some lame attempt to give themselves some credibility when talking about some other group of people, is to mention the fact that they have friends that belong to that particular group.  Sometimes they are even “best” friends.  “I have a lot of gay friends.” or “Some of my best friends are black.”  These phrases have been so overused that both liberals and conservatives now automatically reject them as lies, as soon as they are uttered.  

I’ll be honest.  I don’t have any gay friends, although I do call all my friends gay.  That’s gotta count for something, right?  
Bob’s a fag, because he can’t lift a big log onto the log splitter.
Jerry’s a homo because his truck is only a two-wheel-drive.
Dave’s a fairy because he has a $60,000 BMW, but doesn’t have
shit for tools.

Let’s assume that it is 1 in 10. How is just a fraction of that 10% of the population that took the time and effort to get upset over what Robertson said, able to cause him to get fired?  Is it because there are so many heterosexual people out there that support the homosexual agenda?  I doubt it, and I’ll tell you why.

It’s just about impossible to get people to take the time and effort to support causes that directly affect them, let alone some group that they are not part of.  The percentage of income and property taxpayers is much higher than ten percent, yet how many people show up anti-tax rallies, school board meetings, or anything else where the influence of a large number of people might actually have a positive effect?  It’s difficult to even get people to look at the big picture, and vote in their self interests.

Some people would have you believe that Robertson was fired because of his “intolerant” views, but we all know that is bullshit because that means that the very same people in favor of his dismissal are equally intolerant of Christian views.  Tolerance has nothing to do with this.

What it is, is this, and by now, if you have been reading this blog for any amount of time, you already know what I am going to blame all this ridiculousness upon - Liberalism.  You got two different forces of liberalism at work here.  The first, I already mentioned.  Television and major media is an artificial liberal world, and much of this “outrage” is artificial as well.

We all know where the people from TV land are coming from, now what about the liberals in the general public?  What’s their motivation?  Given the choice to support either, why would they choose to support homosexuality over Christianity, when often they would claim to be neither?  To understand this, all you have to do is recall your days in school.  Almost all students would rather be graded on a curve than on an absolute scale, particularly if they consider themselves average, and know there are plenty of below average students in the class.  In that case, grading on a curve, can mean the difference between a “B” and a “D”.

Liberalism is grading on a curve.  Christianity is grading on an absolute scale, and liberals don’t like that because it means if you’re doing something wrong, it’s wrong, regardless of the fact that there may be people doing things that are worse than whatever it is that you are doing.

Liberal, secular people have an incentive to, if not endorse honosexualality, at least tolerate it, even if they are not homosexuals themselves.  If you were to look at the spectrum of all types of human behavior (at least from a traditional standpoint), homosexuality would fall somewhere in the middle.  Almost anyone would agree that there are some behaviors that are better, and some that are worse.  Let’s look at some of the behaviors that Robertson mentioned.

"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…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."

Now imagine the spectrum of human behavior that I mentioned earlier.  It might look something like this:

Acceptance by
general public
Worst human Best human
behavior behavior

All of the behaviors Robertson mentioned fall somewhere between these the two extremes at either end of the spectrum.  The exact order of these behaviors and exactly where homosexuality falls on it, is not as important as the point of acceptance by the general public.  The important thing to secular liberals, is to move that point further towards the left on this scale.

Years ago that point was further to the right.  Back then, the idolaters and drunkards were shunned by society.  Today, they don’t even make it onto most people’s radar screens.  Moving that arrow to the left is good for them, because now most all criticism is directed towards behaviors that fall further towards the left.  Anyone participating in behaviors that are more deviant than homosexuality are better off too, because now they are just that much closer to the point of acceptance of the general public. Bestiality is no longer illegal in Germany.  It is clear that the push for public acceptance of homosexuality is not primarily made up of homosexuals, or people concerned only with “Gay Rights”.

Like so many other liberal, secular causes, Gay Rights is merely a vehicle to push some other, much more evil agenda.  Very few people, including most Christians, ever had much of a problem with homosexuality anyway.  What they had a problem with was, people acting obnoxiously, and I can prove it.  

There are two components that most people associate with being gay. 1) The actual homosexual activity, and 2) acting faggy.  I’m here to tell you that most people have a much bigger problem with number 2 than number one.  Did you ever find out that someone (like a former co-worker) that you used to know was gay?  Your reaction was probably one of surprise, and you find yourself saying something like “Well he always seemed like a nice guy to me, I never had any problem with him.”  That’s because most gays never practice item number one in front of everyone, and that’s why you never knew that that former co-worker was gay.  Most people would rather not see any sexual practice displayed in public, homo or heterosexual. People frown upon that, and it is one of the reasons why we have rules against any type of sexual behavior in the workplace.

Item number two is what people have a problem with, and that has nothing to do with homosexuality.  The co-worker that you knew was a heterosexual, but acted like a sissy, you hated from day one, and no one had to tell you he was a sissy.  You immediately found that out by yourself.  If all gay men acted with the same standards of decorum that heterosexual people are supposed to live up to, the issue of homosexuality would hardly ever be brought up by either those who accept it, or those who are against it.


  1. We must have some wifi weirdness between us ... everything you said are thing that I have thought about, but kept to myself. The percentage of gays who want to be 'out there' is small. It is the few who have secure jobs or government positions who feel they can bully the 'straights' with impunity. However, every once in a while a couple of straights beat the crap out of a gay person. So I guess it all averages out .

    In a mature country none of this would be an issue. It would be ignored and people would be left to sort themselves out without the help of the PC thought police. I am sick of all of it. AEE will be sick of this when they check their next bottom line.

    1. An AWESOME weirdness of intuition and common sense. The problem is not, and never has been, with decent gay people or traditional Christians. The problem, (as usual) is with loudmouthed, obnoxious, trouble-making liberals.

    2. I would be interested in the biologic proof that some animals are homo. The message here is not so much that they are gay, it's that we are all just so damn sick of them shouting about it from the rooftops. So you are gay, lesbian, etc., who gives a shit. Thank God you represent less than 2% of the population. Get a life.

    3. AnonymousDecember 22, 2013 at 4:55 PM See, this is just one of the reasons why I wish you guys would just sign your real names. I had to use the date of your comment
      just to let people know who it is that I am talking to. Sometimes, the order of these comments doesn't come out the way i expect they will. Anyway I tell you, all you need to know about homosexuality in animals in my current post. Either go to the top of this blog, or if some time has passed, and I may have posted more articles, here it is:

  2. I think it is telling that you heard about it from an older brother, another guy, and so on. But have you ever read any medical reports about it? Are you familiar with genetics? Do you know that some animals are homosexual?

    Educated people defend homosexuals because it is NOT a choice and their lives are made miserable by uninformed people who know nothing except what they heard in school and on the playground.

    Calling your friends a fag or homo not only is unkind but ignorant.

    I am a Christian. I have taught and worked in every area of my church. I have a master's in theology and I do not consider myself particularly liberal.

    But I would ask you this: when some people got together in the century or so later to say that o it is wrong to stone anyone for adultery, would you be on the side of saying that is not so because it was written in the Bible? I suspect that had you lived in those times you would have had slaves if you could afford it. The Bible says it's alright and men could take the women from tribes who had lost the battle as their wives of concubines. I guess you would be saying, "well, it's in the Bible, so we have to oblige."

    1. I do believe that Christ stopped the stoning of the harlot, and admonished no more sin. Sin is sin. The scripture is about who gets to heaven. Convenient or not, if the lord lays it out, it must be so. Second, my daughter who is almost 40 was horrified that my granddaugher, who is 18 actually believes that one can choose homosexual activity. Duh. While I believe that some of us are born with DNA leading to a homosexual preference, hence the " born that way" becomes a lie that others adopt in order to defend their own homosexual choices.

    2. Anonymous: Not enough room here. Have a response for you as a regular post, read it here,
      if you dare.

  3. Part of the egocentric nature of man is the deep assurance that no matter where our beliefs fall as compared to an acceptible societal norm we are certain that our personal convictions flow from the very epicenter of what surely must be "truth." I'm guessing there has been no discovery of the particular gene that causes homosexuality because there isn't one. Some people are perverted by older siblings or adults when they were children, some are just bold and and try whatever comes into their minds. The human psyche is incredibly complex and needful on many levels. It is inevitable that some will fill their mental, emotional and physical needs with whatever presents itself.... Will we soon discover a gene for homosexuality? What about pedophilia and beastiality, rape and incest? And so it goes.... I kindly submit that if the Bible was given to man to give us God's point of view on our existence then it seems unlikely to me that the same God would condemn people for following genetic programing that He created. I do not wish to seem insensitive to those who struggle with their gender identity etc. or to unfairly downplay their impulses. But, our lives today are based on past events some chosen some not. I submit that humans were given the ability to make moral distinctions and to make moral choices precisely so they would do just that....

    1. You are the "Good Anonymous", not the "Pussy Anonymous" from three posts above yours. What you said makes good sense. You should proud to sign your real name to it.

    2. I'm Canadian and my daughter is gay so I am a little ahead of you guys down south just coming to terms about the truth of homosexuality. I don't have to tell you anything about liberalism because we lived that dream up here a decade ago and we're still paying for it. In any event - I know of which I speak.

      We all went into this wanting to be - if nothing else - fair to the queers. Who can argue these people have a right to their own bedrooms? They got that - and the more rational queers were happy and never heard from again.

      But the skull-fucked butt blasters? The floppy titted topless lesbians at the gay pride creep shows? They were just getting started! Once they got out of the closet and into the bedroom, they went flouncing out the door and started demanding access to our washrooms. Our class rooms. Our court rooms. They unleashed all kinds of stupid on our culture and our laws and the liberal lickspittles went along with them. Our activist-judges perverted our laws until they became irrelevant and unenforceable. People were getting real fines for calling other people names. Non-judicial bodies like our beshitted 'Canadian Human Rights Councils' began to harass and prosecute preachers, stand up comics - and the the guys like our Golden Goose who had the temerity to even THINK of calling one of his friends a 'fag' in jest. Some mighty brave people spoke up like Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn - and told the liberals to shove it. It got dragged into court and the sounds of guns being loaded convinced our leaders that this shit show had gone far enough in Canada. We don't exactly have free speech up here, but the liberals can't really censor us that much either. As long as we don't go public and walk on eggshells around queers and perverts - we can say what we want around our friends.

      So here is the next awful, shocking truth for you liberty loving Americans. GAYS are not your friends. They will turn on the libertarians that stuck up for them in a heart beat. The gay agenda will become about getting in your face, telling you what you can say or think and what you can't. They will start attacking Christianity in earnest. Those that love liberty and stuck up for them years ago will regret it. The brutal truth is that the vast majority of gays are unhappy, erratic and intolerant - and they want to spread their misery as far and wide as possible.

      Yes, there are the exceptions...but they are the exceptions.